Well, currently there is no law to force a WISP to offer service to a specific customer.
I believe that one way to fight it is to simply not comply. Remove any reference to what your Network Management practices exactly are if the conflict with allowed NetNEutrality laws, the opposite of truth in advertsing. If any end use complains, simply disconnect their service at their term end. Tell them that you ran out of network capacity, and were forced to remove some subscribers on a random basis, and they were one of them by chance. Let them complain, I believe it would be very unlikely for the FCC to enforce anything, and very hard to prove any wrong doing was done on the WISP's part. Just like the Soup Nazi on Seinfeld. You complain... No Soup for You. Just dont say it out loud. My point here is... It wont be legal to block or limit speed. But is it illegal to simply get rid of a subscriber? Cable COs under Franchises, or ILECs under Monopoly Regulation may have trouble with the Law if they try not to serve specific customers. But I'm not sure that WISPs will have that same problem. I guess what I'm uncertain of is what it will mean if a WISP is subject to Title 1 legislation. Will a WISP become liable for discrimination cases, if Heavy USers become looked at as a class of Consumers? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband ----- Original Message ----- From: "Fred Goldstein" <fgoldst...@ionary.com> To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> Sent: Saturday, December 11, 2010 8:00 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] [WISPA Members] WISPA Files Ex Parte on Network Neutrality > At 12/10/2010 10:45 PM, Rick Harnish wrote: >>CW, >> >>It appears as though they may be backing off trying to control billing >>methods. However, they are pushing heavily to void the ability for WISPs >>to >>manage their network traffic. That will mean no QOS, no bursting, no >>blocking of websites or controlled traffic flows. We all know what the >>impact of this decision will have on our businesses. > > Or they will allow "reasonable network management", where > "reasonable" is defined by whoever has the biggest law firm. For > Verizon and ATT, anything goes. For somebody they don't like, fuggedabout > it. > > I do however note the relatively small amount of leverage they have > over most WISPs, who are entirely under Part 15. What little > authority the FCC may claim to have over content (and this Order WILL > be enjoined and thrown out in court, probably just after the next > election, since it's purely a political game) comes from claims of > consumer protection, based on whether you are doing what they claim > you claim to be doing (i.e., what it means to be using the word > "Internet"). So one option for WISPs is to simply stop selling > "Internet" service per se and start selling "online differentiated > data services with managed Internet access" instead. It sounds like > a joke but then so is the whole NN proceeding, so you fight it with > their terms rather than on their terms. > > -- > Fred Goldstein k1io fgoldstein "at" ionary.com > ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ > +1 617 795 2701 > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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/
