Here's a great historical perspective on DSLREPORTS: http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/What-Network-Neutrality-Is-REALLY-About -104631
. . . J o n a t h a n -----Original Message----- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Clint Ricker Sent: Friday, September 25, 2009 3:42 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality ????? On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Marlon K. Schafer <o...@odessaoffice.com>wrote: > Tell that to espn..... > marlon > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Clint Ricker" <cric...@kentnis.com> > To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> > Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 6:52 AM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality > > > > Tom, > > Your hypothetical about Comcast, etc... creating "private networks" > > is unfounded and not likely to happen. In the end, it misses the > > point that the "Internet", from a consumer perspective, is NOT > > bandwidth and has > very > > little to do with the bits and bytes that you shuffle around your > network. > > The Internet IS the edge, it's the applications and users (since so > > much content is peer-generated these days). > > > > Want proof? Block Google and Facebook for 1 day and see how many > > people care that "your service" is working :). Do it for a week and > > see how > many > > customers you retain. Repeat for any of the other apps that your > > customers use. The balance of power, in terms of customer > > retention, is on the application providers side, since, from a > > customer perspective, the apps are Internet. > > > > As I recall, the "private networks" were tried back in the 90s by > > AOL, etc... they had a user base of millions and lots of premium > > content (in terms of dollar investment, the "best" content was on > > AOL, Compuserv, Prodigy, etc... for a time). It didn't matter, the > > users overwhelmingly chose the open Internet. Even the WISPA crowd > > has been more profitable than the guys that chose to do "private" > > networks :) > > > > Oh, and there's the small detail that every service provider in the > nation > > is running their network over public assets: whether it's on the > > poles, > in > > the ground, or running over wireless using licensed (leased) or > unlicensed > > spectrum (which isn't quite the same deal, I realize). If they want > > to run "private" networks, then they have to do it on land that they > > own or that they compensate the government for > > appropriately--current pole attachment rates and so forth are not > > applicable to companies that are wanting to build out solely private > > networks. > > > > -Clint Ricker > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 5:04 PM, Tom DeReggi > > <wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net>wrote: > > > >> For those that have not yet read it, the relevent site to read is.... > >> > >> http://www.openinternet.gov/read-speech.html > >> > >> We need to realize and seperate two things... > >> > >> 1) that the intent of NetNeutrality expressed at this site, is an > >> idealalistic view, to keep the Internet open and free, which is > >> hard to combat based on the "ideals", and we should recognize that > >> the goal of > an > >> open Internet is not specifically what we are fighting. > >> 2) The reality that idealistic views dont translate to how the > >> Internet Industry really works. And the site's proposed methodology > >> to attempt preservation of an open network, infact may be harmful > >> to consumers and delivery of most common Internet services from > >> competitive Access providers. > >> What we need to fight are mechanisms and ideas that harm access > >> providers, or that prioritize content provider's needs over that of > >> access providers. > >> > >> There is an important thing to realize. One of NetNeutrality's > >> biggest advocates is now I think Chief of Staff. (Bruce somebody). > >> NetNeutrality will be directly addressed in the new FCC, we can > >> count on that. More so than in past commissions. > >> > >> Over the next 3 months I believe WISPA will need to get actively > >> engaged in Netneutrality lobbying. It will need to be a combined > >> effort between legislative and FCC committees. > >> The Legislative committee will need to fight bills being plannedd > >> to be introducted to congress, and FCC committee will need to fight > >> for WISP rights in soon to come FCC rulemaking. > >> It is my belief that government policy makers are timming their > >> efforts so legislation and FCC rules will come to effect togeather, > >> as legislation is pointing to the FCC to make rules. > >> We can start to lobby legislators now, while bills are government > working > >> groups. And possibly there could be public hearings, where we > >> might be able to request participation in them? > >> For FCC, we most likely would need to wait for the Notice of > >> PRoposed Rule making. Allthough ideally, its technically possible > >> to lobby for > proposed > >> rules to never get to rule making stage. > >> (although I dont think its likely for that to occur). > >> > >> We are going to need to decide whether we want to fight the core > >> concept all togeather, or fight for details and wording that make > >> the idealisitic views realistic in a way not to harm ISP. > >> I believe we will likely have a better chance of winning our view, > >> if we all togeather fight netneutrality in its entirely, jsut > >> because we'd ahve cable TV and RBOCs endorsement in addition to our > >> WISP view. But the risk there is that we do not protect ourselve > >> from predator practices of monopoly like providers, and we risk > >> loosing altogeather, if consumers gain more support than providers > >> do. The risk is that protecting the majority of consumers (cable > >> and RBOC subscribers with 80%+ market share) has greater benefit > >> than protecting the few vulnerable providers (less than 20% market > >> share by small ISPs and WISPs). > >> > >> We need to remind the government that the "open Internet" > >> originally was a network paid for by the government. In Today's > >> Internet, providers are required to pay for building access for > >> consumers Internet access. Its > a > >> beautiful thing to have a consolidated Internet deliverd by teh > >> combination efforts of all providers. What we want to prevent is > >> segregation of the Internet, where providers are forced to make two > >> networks, their "Internet network", and then their "private > >> network", where they would invest more heavily in their own private > >> networks for ROI reasons, and because > policy > >> took away the viabilty of fair ROI for them. > >> > >> Let me pose a hypothetical situation... What would occur if > >> Comcast, Timewarner, and RBOCs announced tommorrow, that they would > >> no longer offer Internet Access as of Dec 2010, and planned to > >> cancel all peers to the Internet, but would create a peer between > >> each other, and announced > their > >> hosting solutions (for a price) which allowed some content provider > >> the option to access their private networks. Would they legally be > >> allowed not to offer Internet access, and go 100% private? And if > >> it were legal, would they keep their market share, considering > >> togeather they owned 90% of > the > >> eyeballs and last mile connections to consumer's homes, many of > >> which were the single only source of connection? I'd argue they'd > >> keep 99% of > their > >> customer base, and instead users that had choice of provider would > >> subscribe to two services, the Public Internet provider, and the > >> Private network provider, because there would be benefit to buying > >> access to both. > >> Either > >> that, or private network providers would create a "gateway to teh > >> Internet service" that was an add-on to their existing privat > >> network service. > >> Those > >> that wanted access to the Internet would pay additional for the > >> gateway service, and eventually the gateway Internet service would > >> perform so much worse than to hosts on the private direct network, > >> so most Hosts would start to migrate to hosting platforms on the > >> private network. I believe it is very possible that "unbundling" > >> could occur at some point to "increase" > >> consumer's costs. Bundling was a technique to win market share, > >> unbundling become a way to increase profits, once they own the > >> market. My point here is that small providers will all be better > >> off with all on one Internet, with terms that are acceptable to all > >> parties, so they keep it that way. > >> > >> NetNeutrality is not only about Network Management. Its also about > >> freedom to be the type of provider we want to be. Policy makers > >> should not favor content providers to control what the Internet > >> evolves to. And providers should not be forced to do something > >> beyond the core concepts of the Internet. Policy to force Providers > >> to become TV providers is just plain wrong. And forcing strict > >> Netnetrality laws will force providers to only build networks that > >> can handle consumer demand whcih will eventually become TV > >> services, if we are forced to allow it. > >> > >> We need to seperate "Internet Access" from "Advanced Broadband", > >> which > in > >> my > >> mind are two totally different topics. > >> Rules that might be acceptable for "advanced wired broadband" may > >> be totally wrong for core "Internet Access", and vice versa. Focing > >> the two to be one and the same, is wrong, because all providers and > >> networks are not the same. > >> > >> And by all means any NetNetrality rule passed should be a > >> bi-directional rule. If all access provider are forced to deliver > >> all content, all content providers should be forced to interconnect > >> with all access providers, if requested. > >> > >> We could simply take the approach of.... "stop regulation, stay our > >> of our business", but if we can come up with good ideas, it may be > >> more favorable to state what rules we think could work. > >> But most importantly state what rules will not, and why. > >> > >> > >> Tom DeReggi > >> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > >> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > >> > >> > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "David E. Smith" <d...@mvn.net> > >> To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> > >> Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 3:30 PM > >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality > >> > >> > >> > Curtis Maurand wrote: > >> > > >> >> I think they're saying things like Time-Warner can't prioritize > >> >> CNN (which is owned by Time, Inc.) over MSNBC or Youtube over hulu, etc. > >> > > >> > That may be what they mean, but that sure isn't what they're > >> > saying > (or > >> > at least that's not what it sounds like from way up here in the > >> > peanut gallery). > >> > > >> > Can anyone comment on whether WISPA plans to adopt any official > >> > position on this? I'm not saying "net neutrality is bad," because > >> > I adore the principles. I just want to be sure the FCC doesn't > >> > pass some overly-broad rulemaking, slanted towards bigger > >> > operators, that makes it difficult or impossible for smaller > >> > outfits (like mine!) to keep > things > >> > running smoothly. > >> > > >> > David Smith > >> > MVN.net > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------- > >> > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > >> > http://signup.wispa.org/ > >> > > >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------- > >> > > >> > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > >> > > >> > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > >> > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >> > > >> > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------- > >> WISPA Wants You! Join today! > >> http://signup.wispa.org/ > >> > >> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------- > >> > >> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > >> > >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >> > >> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > >> > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------- > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------- > > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------- > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---------- > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
