ESPN charges enough for it's service that many small players can't afford it.
If ESPN can lock you out of it's services, so can google when they choose to. marlon ----- Original Message ----- From: "Clint Ricker" <[email protected]> To: "WISPA General List" <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, September 25, 2009 1:42 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality > ????? > > On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Marlon K. Schafer > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Tell that to espn..... >> marlon >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Clint Ricker" <[email protected]> >> To: "WISPA General List" <[email protected]> >> 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 >> > <[email protected]>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" <[email protected]> >> >> To: "WISPA General List" <[email protected]> >> >> 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: [email protected] >> >> > >> >> > 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: [email protected] >> >> >> >> 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: [email protected] >> > >> > 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: [email protected] >> >> 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: [email protected] > > 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: [email protected] Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
