Agreed, thanks Fred! Sonic.net, a California CLEC offering DSL internet services, has a blog post about this topic that might be of interest to the group: https://corp.sonic.net/ceo/2014/11/12/neutrality-is-just-a-symptom/
Brett Woollum Senior Sales Engineer br...@tekify.com Tekify Broadband Internet Services Web: http://www.tekify.com Phone: 510-266-5800 , ext 6200 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kevin Sullivan" <kevin.sulli...@alyrica.net> To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 3:04:17 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Quick Question: Title II, for or against? Wow, that was well thought out. I'd say that's a pretty good assessment! Kevin ----- Original Message ----- From: "Fred Goldstein" <f...@interisle.net> To: <wireless@wispa.org> Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 8:26 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Quick Question: Title II, for or against? > On 11/19/2014 8:49 AM, Drew Lentz wrote: >> I put up a quick poll, results will be shared and are anonymous. >> >> https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/3R6YTH9 >> >> 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! >> > > You asked the question very poorly, so there is no one correct answer. > > "Broadband" is an adjective. You don't regulate adjectives, you regulate > nouns. Broadband what? This is the fallacy of today's public discourse > -- they are using this adjective as a noun without the noun, so > different people use it to have different referents. > > I think I'm in pretty close harmony with the WISPA position here, given > that Steve Coran chose me to help him give his NN talk in Vegas last > month based on my detailed Comments on the topic to the FCC. And I've > been writing and Commenting on this for years. Several years ago I told > the FCC that they were using this adjective as a noun, but that they > could separate the two primary implied nouns by using a Spanish-language > convention. El Broadband would refer to the physical facility, the high > speed transmission medium. La Broadband would refer to the content of > the facility, including Internet service delivered over it. (If you > don't know Spanish, "el radio" is a device and "la radio" is a > program.) But in lawyer terms, El Broadband is the telecommunications > component, and La Broadband is the information service riding atop it. > > The reason NN is a Thing is that the FCC, in 2005, threw away the law > (TA96) and decided that telephone companies could stop being common > carriers, stop providing ISPs with El Broadband (raw DSL), and simply > sell La Broadband as a vertically-integrated service with exclusive > access to their formerly common-carrier facilities. So typical > consumers in cities went from having many ISP choices (one cable company > and many ISPs available via DSL) to two (one each cable and DSL). > > The public reaction to this was, understandably, rather negative. They > recognized that they could be screwed by their cable and telco > duopolists (monopolists in many areas, and more in the future as the > ILECs abandon their copper plant without replacing it). But not > recognizing the difference between a "network" (what carries IP) and an > "internetwork" (the Internet itself, content slung across many > networks), they demanded "network neutrality" referring to the ISP > function itself. And the FCC obliged, being basically political, by > proposing the regulation of Internet services, but not regulating the > actual telecom provided by the monopolists. > > So I'm in favor of applying Title II to the actual telecommunications > component of broadband services provided by incumbents, and those using > rivalrous facilities (those that exclude others, including pole > attachments, conduits, and exclusively-licensed frequencies). But those > who only compete with incumbent cable and telco, or who use > non-rivalrous facilities and frequencies (that includes essentially all > WISPs), would not fall under Title II whatsoever, and neither would the > Internet backbone or anything done on the Internet itself (IP layer on > up, but this does not refer to IP-based voice services provided by > facility owners). > > So I'm in favor of Title II for some broadband stuff (where it opens > monopoly wire to competitive ISPs) but not others (where it regulates > the Internet or WISPs). Got it? That's why the question is wrong. > > -- > Fred R. Goldstein k1io fred "at" interisle.net > Interisle Consulting Group > +1 617 795 2701 > > _______________________________________________ > Wireless mailing list > Wireless@wispa.org > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless _______________________________________________ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
_______________________________________________ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
