I realy dont see the need for an ISP to promote one set of voip over
another as a matter of course. How does it serve any of the stake
holders?
Granted there may be times of crisis when demand is very high, and there
is not enough pipe to go around. Any fool can see that priority should be
given to emergency calls exchange '999' and 'x11' in these cases. The
unwillingness of verizon to allow anyone access to the 911 system results
in me having to dial around it most of the time, i often call my local
precinct on its 718.xxx.xxxx number...
I would say that non-emergency voip links should be given round-robin
priority, such that a user who picks up every minute and hits redial will
soon get through regardless of who the voip carrier is, remain network
neutral. Granted there may be a higher bandwidth cost of routing some
other companies voip packets rather than using your own compressed data
streams, some disparity may be in the interests of all.
Ultimately some segment of the market is likely to demand neutrality of
providers in the end. But it would be nice to be a consultant in a
position to point a client company to an ISP and say, these guys are
commited to as level a playing field as servs everyone's interests.
EULAs that prohibited use of wireless technology prevented me from
recomending verizon or cablevision for example.
What I am truly against is the practice of failing to promote a 'rival'
voip packets to provide QOS when QOS will not threaten network capacity.
Or worse yet, expressly delaying or mangling the rival voip packets. This
subtle sabotage is unlikely to do anyone any good. The average consumer is
likely to be driven away from voip, because the issues involved are too
complicated to deal with. With less VOIP demand, there will not be the
increase in bandwidth demand that might be spured by widespread adoption
of voice and subsequently video over IP.
In short network non-neurtrality (network hostility) is an ill-wind that
blows no one any good.
By publicly considering making non-neutrality Standard Operating Procedure
some large polygopolies are tempting legislation that restricts the way in
which all ISPs are able to do buisness. Outside restrictions on the way
one does buisness never seem to help. If nothing else: Laissez Faire,
laissez aller, laissez passer. By abusing or considering the abuse of a
freedom that they have always had large telcos jeopardise that very
freedom. Surely this cannot be good for anyone's bottom line?
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2006 16:42:23 -0500 (EST)
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Dana Spiegel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net, Jim Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [nycwireless] New Yorker Article [was: Multichannel News
-AnalystsQuestionBellInvestments]
On Sat, 18 Mar 2006, Dana Spiegel wrote:
And here is where we have the astroturf statements. Network Neutrality
IS NOT regulation of the internet. It is a means of PRESERVING internet
freedom.
This doublespeak is being promoted solely by telcos and their astroturf
organizations. Private individuals have not been concerned with
attacking Net Neutrality. However astroturf organizations have been able
to mis-represent Net Neutrality as government regulation. It is not.
The ONLY people who benefit from NOT having Net Neutrality are the
telcos and the cablecos. Private individuals and most business BENEFIT
from having Net Neutrality.
Who said?
As an ISP, I am *against* any kind of net neutrality that would apply to
my network. I don't want government to tell me what I can and what I
cannot do with my customer's traffic. Yes, most likely, I will not touch
any kind of packets, but if I choose to give higher priority on *my* IP
network to PilosoftVOIP packets, I should have this choice.
If your suggestion is that "Net Neutrality" should only apply to ILECs and
cablecos - oh I'm all for it...But it kind of seems unfair, doesn't it?
Not being a biggest fan of the incumbents, it does seem somewhat silly to
hamstring them.
The "right" thing of course would be to reverse the TRO and mandate ILECs
to provide unmolested layer2 DSL transport to third-parties. But that
battle seems to be lost.
Possibly, the only condition when net neutrality makes (sort of) sense is
that ILEC would have to choose between providing access to competitors
like us, or to be bound by net neutrality provisions.
--
Alex Pilosov | DSL, Colocation, Hosting Services
President | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 877-PILOSOFT x601
Pilosoft, Inc. | http://www.pilosoft.com
--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Microsoft: Where do you want to go tomorrow?
Linux: Where do you want to go today?
BSD: Are you guys coming, or what?
Robin-David Hammond KB3IEN
www.aresnyc.org.
--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
