The 16% fee may not be enough to cover the reporting costs. This is why I said depending on how the rules shake out, since this is all still up in the air as to what out of Title II would actually be applied to broadband. It is possible that we could get all of the reporting requirements and none of the funding. Or we could get funding for the reporting requirements, or we can get small business exemptions, or who knows what subset...

As far as fair treatment of traffic, while I agree with you on principal (and in practice currently), a big part of the problem is consumer education. If you want to be 100% transparent 99% of the consumers eyes are going to glaze over 5 minutes in and they will go somewhere simpler (like the folks that gloss over all the details). Some days it is difficult to explain the difference between speed and download, "I get 10 gigabytes with Verizon, why are you only doing 6 megabits?" Let alone the fact that the majority of customers don't have any handle on how much speed they need or download they will use so all of the transparency will be meaningless to them.

The other problem which was brought out largely by netflix (and other streaming video) is the over-subscription model changed drastically and with little warning, granted that was a couple years ago, and I think most ISPs have found ways to adapt, but for some it was a more costly adaptation than for others, not everyone gets sub $5/mbps pricing for bandwidth and not everyone can just hang more sectors at a minimal cost increase. In the last 10 years I have went from a 25 to 1 over-subscription down to 6 to 1 and my bottleneck has moved from my upstream to my final hop to the customer.

It is unrealistic to think you can manage with a 1-1 over-subscription model, and you will be leaving money on the table. The 'up to' is CYA terminology for ios release day and other large spikes in customer base traffic. It shouldn't be relied on for 6pm-10pm netflix viewing congestion other than normal growing pains while you upgrade equipment to handle the increased usage.

On 11/19/2014 09:50 AM, Tim Way wrote:
Here is my confusion on this issue. Everyone is acting like it is the great harbinger for Internet companies. One of the biggest problems I have is lack of clear information. I'm not saying I have any of those answers for certainty but I will point a few things I have picked up meanwhile donning my flame proof cap.

  * Requires us to be able to provide per service reporting of traffic
    (I think of it as a port span or flow-analysis of a particular
    service user, which is fairly easy to do and you should already be
    able to do this)
  * Talks about potentially a 16% fee on service. This will not make
    you shut your doors big or small because every provider will have
    to do this and I can assure you in the long run no one is eating
    that cost but the consumer. Also this is fundamentally good for
    rural Americans. Rural areas have phone service because of that
    fund when used properly. Now it would include proper broadband
    access. This is the only risk I see to the WISP model. There is
    nothing that says you can't play both sides and become a
    participant in utilizing the USF to build out infrastructure even
    if that means doing scary things like diving into ground models
    like fiber.
  * The biggest one I have is fair treatment of traffic. To me this is
    the default way to run an ISP. I don't want an ISP that slows down
    certain traffic and I definitely don't want to be the service
    provider that does that. I'd rather see more guaranteed bandwidth
    numbers and a flatter pricing scheme even if that means a higher
    cost to the consumer. What I mean by that is if you deploy 100mbps
    of service to an area and you start signing up users and all the
    sudden you are promising everyone 20% over what you can provide
    them at the head-end don't use the words "up to" in your service
    agreement. Either adjust the service speeds to control the talking
    on a head-end radio or make adjustments to your architecture to
    accommodate the bursts in traffic. What that might mean is more
    smaller cells to service an area and yes that costs money. Nothing
    is free in this world so if it costs X dollars to provide Y
    services to consumers that want Y then such is life. No on
    complains when they need to upgrade their electrical service at
    home because they want to run more equipment or devices. If that
    means I as the consumer that wants to stream HD Netflix in 4 rooms
    has to upgrade my service then so be it. The provider (You/Me) can
    then build out our infrastructure to accommodate that need at the
    cost you and your customer agree on or he/she just decides that
    their bandwidth needs doesn't match the price point to achieve
    what they are trying to do and goes back to buying DVDs through
    Amazon. This also works on the upstream, as a small WISP do you
    really want to be on the receiving end of a big provider possibly
    your only option for decent upstream connectivity to suddenly
    start slowing down certain types of traffic? Then you are faced
    with trying to provide a service that your customers might demand
    without any ability other than potentially an extremely expensive
    one to fill that need. I think it is always better to not shape
    traffic for customers. Let them manage their connection to the
    Internet. Instead for high throughput applications we should push
    for the option to deploy CDN like edge devices from these larger
    service providers if the actual throughput is not available or
    more costly.

Alright I've got my flame retardant cap on let the replies flood in :)


On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 9:24 AM, Sam Tetherow < <>> wrote:

    I'm guessing that while the phone companies may not like the idea
    it seems a little less onerous to them since they are already
    dealing with Title II.  If nothing else it will weed out the
    smaller competition in their eyes.

    While the cable companies or more strongly in the hate it camp I
    doubt they will be getting out of the business if it comes about.

    Depending on what requirements actually come out of Title II for
    ISPs will probably have several WISPs close their doors.  If there
    isn't some sort of small business exemption I doubt I will stay in
    the business.

    On 11/19/2014 07:51 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
    I can't imagine why anyone other than a blind consumer would love it.

    Mike Hammett
    Intelligent Computing Solutions


    *From: *"Drew Lentz" <> <>
    *To: *"WISPA General List" <>
    *Sent: *Wednesday, November 19, 2014 7:49:20 AM
    *Subject: *[WISPA] Quick Question: Title II, for or against?

    I put up a quick poll, results will be shared and are anonymous.

    I'm curious to see what the percentages are between those that
    support and those that don't support the Title II argument. I've
    been trying to get a good feel for who would and wouldn't like it
    (mostly it seems carriers love it, web services hate it.) I have
    a feeling WISPs might be on the "hate it" side, but I'm
    interested to find out. Thanks for your answer and have a
    fantastic day!


    Wireless mailing list <>

    Wireless mailing list  <>

    Wireless mailing list <>

Wireless mailing list

Wireless mailing list

Reply via email to