Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

[Jason McKemie]

It is, I'm playing devil's advocate here :)  I just see the argument for
charging content provider - hopefully things do not go that way on a wide
scale though, as things could get messy for small ISPs.

On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 1:24 AM, Josh Reynolds <j...@kyneticwifi.com> wrote:

> Infrastructure, overheard, maintenance, bandwidth. Should be covered and
> distributed by the customers' monthly fees and any installation fees. If
> it's not, how are you still in business and still expanding?
>
>
> On Dec 16, 2017 4:10 PM, "Jason McKemie" <j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com>
> wrote:
>
>> There are other costs besides bandwidth.
>>
>> On Saturday, December 16, 2017, <fiber...@mail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Why shouldn't people expect the bill to be the same? The cost of
>>> bandwidth has gone down about 10-15x since Netflix streaming launched.
>>>
>>> Jared
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017
>>> From: "Jason McKemie" <j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com>
>>> To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
>>> I'm not saying that isn't the way it is, but I was selling internet
>>> service before Netflix was a thing - people use about 10-15x the bandwidth
>>> now, but expect their internet bill to be the same.
>>>
>>> On Saturday, December 16, 2017, Carl Peterson <
>>> cpeter...@portnetworks.com[mailto:cpeter...@portnetworks.com]> wrote:
>>>
>>> I don't get it.  That is what your customers are paying you to deliver
>>> to them.  Why should you be able to charge Netflix as well.  What if they
>>> say no.  What if they say screw you your IPs can't get Netflix and block
>>> you entirely.
>>>
>>> On Dec 16, 2017, at 11:34 AM, Jason McKemie <
>>> j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com[mailto:j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm pretty sure my network would not qualify for that, and while it
>>> would certainly help, it would not eliminate the cost entirely.
>>>
>>> On Saturday, December 16, 2017, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com[mailto:
>>> ch...@wbmfg.com]> wrote:
>>>
>>> I have had a netflix caching server for several years.  It was free.
>>> Does not add to my backbone cost as it fills itself during the off hours.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Jason McKemie
>>> Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 9:29 AM
>>> To: af@afmug.com
>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
>>>
>>> IMO, the true cost of a service like Netflix is more than the monthly
>>> rate that they bill their customers. As ISPs, we just have to absorb that
>>> cost or raise prices to compensate, doesn't help with the big bad ISP
>>> perception.
>>>
>>> On Saturday, December 16, 2017, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> It would mirror access charges in the telecom world.  There are some
>>> logical reasons why such a scheme would be fair, but it would really drive
>>> up the cost of everything.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Mike Hammett
>>> Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 8:18 AM
>>> To: af@afmug.com
>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
>>>
>>>
>>> A lot of people wanted to do that back in the day. I had no idea why.
>>>
>>>
>>> -
>>> Mike Hammett
>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions[http://www.ics-il.com/]
>>> [https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL][https://plus.google.com/+In
>>> telligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb][https://www.linkedin.com/
>>> company/intelligent-computing-solutions][https://twitter.com/ICSIL
>>> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL%5D%5Bhttps://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb%5D%5Bhttps://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions%5D%5Bhttps://twitter.com/ICSIL>
>>> ]
>>> Midwest Internet Exchange[http://www.midwest-ix.com/]
>>> [https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix][https://www.linkedin.com
>>> /company/midwest-internet-exchange][https://twitter.com/mdwestix]
>>> The Brothers WISP[http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/]
>>> [https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp][https://www.youtu
>>> be.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 
>>>
>>> From: "Ron M." <ccie4...@gmail.com>
>>> To: af@afmug.

Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

[Lewis Bergman]

While I always believe that if cost effective, peering should be done. We
saw our transit demands drop by 70 percent when we did it. Having said
that, bandwidth costs were only 8 percent of the expense side. Labor was
always the biggest, then equipment depreciation, and so on.
I guess I am just repeating what has already been said. If your sole plan
to deal with cost increases is to lower your bandwidth costs then you are
tripping over dollars to save dimes. It is an expensive business. We found
that aggressively upgrading equipment while reusing the older stuff for the
half of our customers that didn't want more bandwidth was one key.
Every market is different but my bet is that most people's bandwidth is not
the big not to crack.

On Sun, Dec 17, 2017, 1:29 AM Josh Reynolds  wrote:

> So focus more on the importance of peering to help unburden your transit
> costs. Transport will be what it is until you can do something about that.
>
> Peer directly with the major content providers and your costs can very
> likely go down.
>
> For those of you where locality or other factors exclude easy peering,
> that seems to be the next step in your region. Form an IX :)
>
> On Dec 16, 2017 5:37 PM, "Lewis Bergman"  wrote:
>
>> The content providers are what the ISP users are demanding. Users are not
>> demanding bandwidth to run speed tests... Ok, most of them aren't. They
>> want the content to watch from those providers. I would say the content
>> providers are still in the driver's seat.
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 16, 2017, 5:31 PM Jason McKemie <
>> j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> wrote:
>>
>
>>>
>>> On Saturday, December 16, 2017,  wrote:
>>>
 "Jason McKemie"  wrote:
 > When I said bandwidth, I was referring more to internet egress.
   Sure, I get that, but how is that related to the size of the
 consumer's bill, given that bandwidth prices have declined in sync with
 usage growth?
>>>
>>>
>>> Bandwidth prices per customer have not really dropped much at all based
>>> on how much more people are using.
>>>
>>>
 > Then there is more support time associated with streaming usage,
 inflation, etc etc.
   At the same time the customer base has grown, offsetting any other
 costs. So, tell me again, why should consumers expect a larger bill?
>>>
>>>
>>> Labor costs, taxes, everything else associated with doing business is
>>> more expensive now.
>>>

 > This would also allow the ISP to charge less to the consumer while
 recouping that money behind the scenes from the likes of Netflix -
 > basically the reverse of what they currently do.
   I don't think the ISPs are wearing the pants in this relationship.
 Wait until Netflix decides to charge the ISPs a carriage fee instead :)
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm not going to get Netflix to pay me, but Comcast, AT, and Verizon
>>> are definitely wearing the pants, and the content providers know it, hence
>>> the huge fight over NN.
>>>
>>>


 Jared

>>>

Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

[Josh Reynolds]

So focus more on the importance of peering to help unburden your transit
costs. Transport will be what it is until you can do something about that.

Peer directly with the major content providers and your costs can very
likely go down.

For those of you where locality or other factors exclude easy peering, that
seems to be the next step in your region. Form an IX :)

On Dec 16, 2017 5:37 PM, "Lewis Bergman"  wrote:

> The content providers are what the ISP users are demanding. Users are not
> demanding bandwidth to run speed tests... Ok, most of them aren't. They
> want the content to watch from those providers. I would say the content
> providers are still in the driver's seat.
>
> On Sat, Dec 16, 2017, 5:31 PM Jason McKemie  com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, December 16, 2017,  wrote:
>>
>>> "Jason McKemie"  wrote:
>>> > When I said bandwidth, I was referring more to internet egress.
>>>   Sure, I get that, but how is that related to the size of the
>>> consumer's bill, given that bandwidth prices have declined in sync with
>>> usage growth?
>>
>>
>> Bandwidth prices per customer have not really dropped much at all based
>> on how much more people are using.
>>
>>
>>> > Then there is more support time associated with streaming usage,
>>> inflation, etc etc.
>>>   At the same time the customer base has grown, offsetting any other
>>> costs. So, tell me again, why should consumers expect a larger bill?
>>
>>
>> Labor costs, taxes, everything else associated with doing business is
>> more expensive now.
>>
>>>
>>> > This would also allow the ISP to charge less to the consumer while
>>> recouping that money behind the scenes from the likes of Netflix -
>>> > basically the reverse of what they currently do.
>>>   I don't think the ISPs are wearing the pants in this relationship.
>>> Wait until Netflix decides to charge the ISPs a carriage fee instead :)
>>
>>
>> I'm not going to get Netflix to pay me, but Comcast, AT, and Verizon
>> are definitely wearing the pants, and the content providers know it, hence
>> the huge fight over NN.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Jared
>>>
>>

Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

[Josh Reynolds]

Infrastructure, overheard, maintenance, bandwidth. Should be covered and
distributed by the customers' monthly fees and any installation fees. If
it's not, how are you still in business and still expanding?


On Dec 16, 2017 4:10 PM, "Jason McKemie" <j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com>
wrote:

> There are other costs besides bandwidth.
>
> On Saturday, December 16, 2017, <fiber...@mail.com> wrote:
>
>> Why shouldn't people expect the bill to be the same? The cost of
>> bandwidth has gone down about 10-15x since Netflix streaming launched.
>>
>> Jared
>>
>>
>>
>> Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017
>> From: "Jason McKemie" <j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com>
>> To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
>> I'm not saying that isn't the way it is, but I was selling internet
>> service before Netflix was a thing - people use about 10-15x the bandwidth
>> now, but expect their internet bill to be the same.
>>
>> On Saturday, December 16, 2017, Carl Peterson <cpeter...@portnetworks.com
>> [mailto:cpeter...@portnetworks.com]> wrote:
>>
>> I don't get it.  That is what your customers are paying you to deliver to
>> them.  Why should you be able to charge Netflix as well.  What if they say
>> no.  What if they say screw you your IPs can't get Netflix and block you
>> entirely.
>>
>> On Dec 16, 2017, at 11:34 AM, Jason McKemie <
>> j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com[mailto:j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> I'm pretty sure my network would not qualify for that, and while it would
>> certainly help, it would not eliminate the cost entirely.
>>
>> On Saturday, December 16, 2017, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com[mailto:
>> ch...@wbmfg.com]> wrote:
>>
>> I have had a netflix caching server for several years.  It was free.
>> Does not add to my backbone cost as it fills itself during the off hours.
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Jason McKemie
>> Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 9:29 AM
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
>>
>> IMO, the true cost of a service like Netflix is more than the monthly
>> rate that they bill their customers. As ISPs, we just have to absorb that
>> cost or raise prices to compensate, doesn't help with the big bad ISP
>> perception.
>>
>> On Saturday, December 16, 2017, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote:
>>
>> It would mirror access charges in the telecom world.  There are some
>> logical reasons why such a scheme would be fair, but it would really drive
>> up the cost of everything.
>>
>>
>>
>> From: Mike Hammett
>> Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 8:18 AM
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
>>
>>
>> A lot of people wanted to do that back in the day. I had no idea why.
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions[http://www.ics-il.com/]
>> [https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL][https://plus.google.com/+In
>> telligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb][https://www.linkedin.com/
>> company/intelligent-computing-solutions][https://twitter.com/ICSIL
>> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL%5D%5Bhttps://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb%5D%5Bhttps://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions%5D%5Bhttps://twitter.com/ICSIL>
>> ]
>> Midwest Internet Exchange[http://www.midwest-ix.com/]
>> [https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix][https://www.linkedin.
>> com/company/midwest-internet-exchange][https://twitter.com/mdwestix]
>> The Brothers WISP[http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/]
>> [https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp][https://www.youtu
>> be.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg]
>>
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>> From: "Ron M." <ccie4...@gmail.com>
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 8:00:10 AM
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
>>
>>
>> What I'm thinking here... don't charge the end users. Get good IP traffic
>> accounting and charge the upstream content providers for carrying THEIR
>> sourced traffic. Don't penalize the end users. ;-)
>>  (My $0.02, can I have my change back now?)
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 2:21 PM, George Skorup <george.sko...@cbcast.com>
>> wrote:
>> One of our tech support guys asked me yesterday if we're going to start
>> charging for access to Facebook, Netflix, etc. I was just like, dude,
>

Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

[Adam Moffett]

What do you see as the "associated costs"?
I agree that the direct cost of bandwidth is not the big deal.  For most 
of us I'd bet it's a single digit percentage of cost.  The problem I see 
is if you built assuming you'd get 5 or 10 years out of equipment and 
then have to upgrade it within 3 years.  Then you either have to explain 
your increased Capex to unhappy investors or explain poor performance to 
the unhappy customers.


I just worked on a FTTx design where we planned around 25% consumption 
increases year over year.  Projecting what that's going to mean down the 
road was a bit monocle popping.  I'm planning (I hope) correctly for it 
now.  If I was doing this in 2006 I would have had a different outlook 
and I probably would have been wrong.


I don't see any relevance to NN, and it has never crossed my mind to try 
and charge a fee for access to streaming (or anything of the like) but 
it does have a bearing on price for the consumer.



-- Original Message --
From: fiber...@mail.com
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: 12/16/2017 5:45:36 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

Sure, but that was the argument you used. If it's not bandwidth usage 
and associated costs, why should people not expect their bill to be the 
same?


Jared



Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017
From: "Jason McKemie" <j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com>
To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
There are other costs besides bandwidth.

On Saturday, December 16, 2017, 
<fiber...@mail.com[mailto:fiber...@mail.com]> wrote:Why shouldn't 
people expect the bill to be the same? The cost of bandwidth has gone 
down about 10-15x since Netflix streaming launched.


Jared



Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017
From: "Jason McKemie" 
<j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com[mailto:j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com]>
To: "af@afmug.com[mailto:af@afmug.com]; 
<af@afmug.com[mailto:af@afmug.com]>

Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
I'm not saying that isn't the way it is, but I was selling internet 
service before Netflix was a thing - people use about 10-15x the 
bandwidth now, but expect their internet bill to be the same.


On Saturday, December 16, 2017, Carl Peterson 
<cpeter...@portnetworks.com[mailto:cpeter...@portnetworks.com][mailto:cpeter...@portnetworks.com[mailto:cpeter...@portnetworks.com]]> 
wrote:


I don't get it.  That is what your customers are paying you to deliver 
to them.  Why should you be able to charge Netflix as well.  What if 
they say no.  What if they say screw you your IPs can't get Netflix and 
block you entirely.


On Dec 16, 2017, at 11:34 AM, Jason McKemie 
<j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com[mailto:j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com][mailto:j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com[mailto:j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com]]> 
wrote:


I'm pretty sure my network would not qualify for that, and while it 
would certainly help, it would not eliminate the cost entirely.


On Saturday, December 16, 2017, Chuck McCown 
<ch...@wbmfg.com[mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com][mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com[mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com]]> 
wrote:


I have had a netflix caching server for several years.  It was free.  
Does not add to my backbone cost as it fills itself during the off 
hours.




From: Jason McKemie
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 9:29 AM
To: af@afmug.com[mailto:af@afmug.com]
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

IMO, the true cost of a service like Netflix is more than the monthly 
rate that they bill their customers. As ISPs, we just have to absorb 
that cost or raise prices to compensate, doesn't help with the big bad 
ISP perception.


On Saturday, December 16, 2017, Chuck McCown 
<ch...@wbmfg.com[mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com]> wrote:


It would mirror access charges in the telecom world.  There are some 
logical reasons why such a scheme would be fair, but it would really 
drive up the cost of everything.




From: Mike Hammett
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 8:18 AM
To: af@afmug.com[mailto:af@afmug.com]
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment


A lot of people wanted to do that back in the day. I had no idea why.


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing 
Solutions[http://www.ics-il.com/[http://www.ics-il.com/]]

[https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL][https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb][https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions][https://twitter.com/ICSIL[https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL][https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb][https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions][https://twitter.com/ICSIL]]
Midwest Internet 
Exchange[http://www.midwest-ix.com/[http://www.midwest-ix.com/]]

[https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix][https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange][https://twitter.com/mdwestix[https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix][https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange][https://twitter.com/mdwestix]]
The Brothers

Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

[chuck]

If you build it they will come.  One of my most popular packages now is 250 
Mbps.  (on fiber of course)
What do you do with 250 Mbps.  I dunno.  Unless you are a radiologist.  We have 
folks buying 500 and 1 Gig all day long too.   I think it is 
status/bragging/market cache/ignorance.  

From: Mathew Howard 
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 4:59 PM
To: af 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

Yeah, bandwidth costs for us may have dropped, but before Netflix, most people 
were perfectly happy with a 256k connection, and even with the bandwidth cost 
being lower, radios being better and everything else that's happened since, it 
was still cheaper and easier to get a 256k connection to the end user back then 
than it is to get a 10 meg connection to them now. 

But on the other hand, there's pretty large percentage of our customers that 
I'm fairly sure would cancel service and just use their smart phones for 
everything if it wasn't for the likes of Netflix.

On Sat, Dec 16, 2017 at 5:31 PM, Jason McKemie 
<j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> wrote:



  On Saturday, December 16, 2017, <fiber...@mail.com> wrote:

"Jason McKemie" <j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> wrote:
> When I said bandwidth, I was referring more to internet egress.
  Sure, I get that, but how is that related to the size of the consumer's 
bill, given that bandwidth prices have declined in sync with usage growth?

  Bandwidth prices per customer have not really dropped much at all based on 
how much more people are using. 


> Then there is more support time associated with streaming usage, 
inflation, etc etc.
  At the same time the customer base has grown, offsetting any other costs. 
So, tell me again, why should consumers expect a larger bill?

  Labor costs, taxes, everything else associated with doing business is more 
expensive now. 


> This would also allow the ISP to charge less to the consumer while 
recouping that money behind the scenes from the likes of Netflix -
> basically the reverse of what they currently do.
  I don't think the ISPs are wearing the pants in this relationship. Wait 
until Netflix decides to charge the ISPs a carriage fee instead :)

  I'm not going to get Netflix to pay me, but Comcast, AT, and Verizon are 
definitely wearing the pants, and the content providers know it, hence the huge 
fight over NN.



Jared

Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

[Mathew Howard]

Yeah, bandwidth costs for us may have dropped, but before Netflix, most
people were perfectly happy with a 256k connection, and even with the
bandwidth cost being lower, radios being better and everything else that's
happened since, it was still cheaper and easier to get a 256k connection to
the end user back then than it is to get a 10 meg connection to them now.

But on the other hand, there's pretty large percentage of our customers
that I'm fairly sure would cancel service and just use their smart phones
for everything if it wasn't for the likes of Netflix.

On Sat, Dec 16, 2017 at 5:31 PM, Jason McKemie <
j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Saturday, December 16, 2017,  wrote:
>
>> "Jason McKemie"  wrote:
>> > When I said bandwidth, I was referring more to internet egress.
>>   Sure, I get that, but how is that related to the size of the consumer's
>> bill, given that bandwidth prices have declined in sync with usage growth?
>
>
> Bandwidth prices per customer have not really dropped much at all based on
> how much more people are using.
>
>
>> > Then there is more support time associated with streaming usage,
>> inflation, etc etc.
>>   At the same time the customer base has grown, offsetting any other
>> costs. So, tell me again, why should consumers expect a larger bill?
>
>
> Labor costs, taxes, everything else associated with doing business is more
> expensive now.
>
>>
>> > This would also allow the ISP to charge less to the consumer while
>> recouping that money behind the scenes from the likes of Netflix -
>> > basically the reverse of what they currently do.
>>   I don't think the ISPs are wearing the pants in this relationship. Wait
>> until Netflix decides to charge the ISPs a carriage fee instead :)
>
>
> I'm not going to get Netflix to pay me, but Comcast, AT, and Verizon are
> definitely wearing the pants, and the content providers know it, hence the
> huge fight over NN.
>
>
>>
>>
>> Jared
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

[Lewis Bergman]

The content providers are what the ISP users are demanding. Users are not
demanding bandwidth to run speed tests... Ok, most of them aren't. They
want the content to watch from those providers. I would say the content
providers are still in the driver's seat.

On Sat, Dec 16, 2017, 5:31 PM Jason McKemie <
j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Saturday, December 16, 2017,  wrote:
>
>> "Jason McKemie"  wrote:
>> > When I said bandwidth, I was referring more to internet egress.
>>   Sure, I get that, but how is that related to the size of the consumer's
>> bill, given that bandwidth prices have declined in sync with usage growth?
>
>
> Bandwidth prices per customer have not really dropped much at all based on
> how much more people are using.
>
>
>> > Then there is more support time associated with streaming usage,
>> inflation, etc etc.
>>   At the same time the customer base has grown, offsetting any other
>> costs. So, tell me again, why should consumers expect a larger bill?
>
>
> Labor costs, taxes, everything else associated with doing business is more
> expensive now.
>
>>
>> > This would also allow the ISP to charge less to the consumer while
>> recouping that money behind the scenes from the likes of Netflix -
>> > basically the reverse of what they currently do.
>>   I don't think the ISPs are wearing the pants in this relationship. Wait
>> until Netflix decides to charge the ISPs a carriage fee instead :)
>
>
> I'm not going to get Netflix to pay me, but Comcast, AT, and Verizon are
> definitely wearing the pants, and the content providers know it, hence the
> huge fight over NN.
>
>
>>
>>
>> Jared
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

[Jason McKemie]

On Saturday, December 16, 2017,  wrote:

> "Jason McKemie"  wrote:
> > When I said bandwidth, I was referring more to internet egress.
>   Sure, I get that, but how is that related to the size of the consumer's
> bill, given that bandwidth prices have declined in sync with usage growth?


Bandwidth prices per customer have not really dropped much at all based on
how much more people are using.


> > Then there is more support time associated with streaming usage,
> inflation, etc etc.
>   At the same time the customer base has grown, offsetting any other
> costs. So, tell me again, why should consumers expect a larger bill?


Labor costs, taxes, everything else associated with doing business is more
expensive now.

>
> > This would also allow the ISP to charge less to the consumer while
> recouping that money behind the scenes from the likes of Netflix -
> > basically the reverse of what they currently do.
>   I don't think the ISPs are wearing the pants in this relationship. Wait
> until Netflix decides to charge the ISPs a carriage fee instead :)


I'm not going to get Netflix to pay me, but Comcast, AT, and Verizon are
definitely wearing the pants, and the content providers know it, hence the
huge fight over NN.


>
>
> Jared
>

Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

[fiberrun]

"Jason McKemie"  wrote:
> When I said bandwidth, I was referring more to internet egress.
  Sure, I get that, but how is that related to the size of the consumer's bill, 
given that bandwidth prices have declined in sync with usage growth?

> Then there is more support time associated with streaming usage, inflation, 
> etc etc.
  At the same time the customer base has grown, offsetting any other costs. So, 
tell me again, why should consumers expect a larger bill? 

> This would also allow the ISP to charge less to the consumer while recouping 
> that money behind the scenes from the likes of Netflix - 
> basically the reverse of what they currently do. 
  I don't think the ISPs are wearing the pants in this relationship. Wait until 
Netflix decides to charge the ISPs a carriage fee instead :)


Jared

Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

[chuck]

What upstream/edge provider would pay a bill for access like that?  In the 
telco world, the equivalent edge providers have to pay the last mile carrier 
due to tariffs.  But we don’t have tariffs and are now even farther away from 
that world.

It would take a consortium of the largest carriers to force something like that 
to happen, and the blowback would be enormous.  

From: Jason McKemie 
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 4:03 PM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

When I said bandwidth, I was referring more to internet egress. Then there is 
more support time associated with streaming usage, inflation, etc etc. 

It's not something I believe in applying on my network, but I can completely 
understand why an ISP would think that it is reasonable to somehow meter and 
charge upstream providers. This would also allow the ISP to charge less to the 
consumer while recouping that money behind the scenes from the likes of Netflix 
- basically the reverse of what they currently do. Just playing the part of 
devil's advocate I suppose.

On Saturday, December 16, 2017, <fiber...@mail.com> wrote:

  Sure, but that was the argument you used. If it's not bandwidth usage and 
associated costs, why should people not expect their bill to be the same?

  Jared
   
   

  Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017
  From: "Jason McKemie" <j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com>
  To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
  There are other costs besides bandwidth.

  On Saturday, December 16, 2017, <fiber...@mail.com[mailto:fiber...@mail.com]> 
wrote:Why shouldn't people expect the bill to be the same? The cost of 
bandwidth has gone down about 10-15x since Netflix streaming launched.

  Jared
   
   

  Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017
  From: "Jason McKemie" 
<j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com[mailto:j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com]>
  To: "af@afmug.com[mailto:af@afmug.com]; <af@afmug.com[mailto:af@afmug.com]>
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
  I'm not saying that isn't the way it is, but I was selling internet service 
before Netflix was a thing - people use about 10-15x the bandwidth now, but 
expect their internet bill to be the same.

  On Saturday, December 16, 2017, Carl Peterson 
<cpeter...@portnetworks.com[mailto:cpeter...@portnetworks.com][mailto:cpeter...@portnetworks.com[mailto:cpeter...@portnetworks.com]]>
 wrote:

  I don't get it.  That is what your customers are paying you to deliver to 
them.  Why should you be able to charge Netflix as well.  What if they say no.  
What if they say screw you your IPs can't get Netflix and block you entirely.  
   
  On Dec 16, 2017, at 11:34 AM, Jason McKemie 
<j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com[mailto:j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com][mailto:j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com[mailto:j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com]]>
 wrote:
   
  I'm pretty sure my network would not qualify for that, and while it would 
certainly help, it would not eliminate the cost entirely.

  On Saturday, December 16, 2017, Chuck McCown 
<ch...@wbmfg.com[mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com][mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com[mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com]]>
 wrote:

  I have had a netflix caching server for several years.  It was free.  Does 
not add to my backbone cost as it fills itself during the off hours. 

   

  From: Jason McKemie
  Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 9:29 AM
  To: af@afmug.com[mailto:af@afmug.com]
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
   
  IMO, the true cost of a service like Netflix is more than the monthly rate 
that they bill their customers. As ISPs, we just have to absorb that cost or 
raise prices to compensate, doesn't help with the big bad ISP perception.

  On Saturday, December 16, 2017, Chuck McCown 
<ch...@wbmfg.com[mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com]> wrote:

  It would mirror access charges in the telecom world.  There are some logical 
reasons why such a scheme would be fair, but it would really drive up the cost 
of everything. 

   

  From: Mike Hammett
  Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 8:18 AM
  To: af@afmug.com[mailto:af@afmug.com]
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
   

  A lot of people wanted to do that back in the day. I had no idea why.
   

  -
  Mike Hammett
  Intelligent Computing 
Solutions[http://www.ics-il.com/[http://www.ics-il.com/]]
  
[https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL][https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb][https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions][https://twitter.com/ICSIL[https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL][https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb][https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions][https://twitter.com/ICSIL]]
  Midwest Internet 
Exchange[http://www.midwest-ix.com/[http://www.midwest-ix.com/]]
  
[https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix][https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange][https://twitter.com/mdwestix[https://www.faceboo

Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

[Jason McKemie]

When I said bandwidth, I was referring more to internet egress. Then there
is more support time associated with streaming usage, inflation, etc etc.

It's not something I believe in applying on my network, but I can
completely understand why an ISP would think that it is reasonable to
somehow meter and charge upstream providers. This would also allow the ISP
to charge less to the consumer while recouping that money behind the scenes
from the likes of Netflix - basically the reverse of what they currently
do. Just playing the part of devil's advocate I suppose.

On Saturday, December 16, 2017, <fiber...@mail.com> wrote:

> Sure, but that was the argument you used. If it's not bandwidth usage and
> associated costs, why should people not expect their bill to be the same?
>
> Jared
>
>
>
> Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017
> From: "Jason McKemie" <j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com>
> To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
> There are other costs besides bandwidth.
>
> On Saturday, December 16, 2017, <fiber...@mail.com[mailto:
> fiber...@mail.com]> wrote:Why shouldn't people expect the bill to be the
> same? The cost of bandwidth has gone down about 10-15x since Netflix
> streaming launched.
>
> Jared
>
>
>
> Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017
> From: "Jason McKemie" <j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com[mailto:
> j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com]>
> To: "af@afmug.com[mailto:af@afmug.com]; <af@afmug.com[mailto:af@afmug.com
> ]>
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
> I'm not saying that isn't the way it is, but I was selling internet
> service before Netflix was a thing - people use about 10-15x the bandwidth
> now, but expect their internet bill to be the same.
>
> On Saturday, December 16, 2017, Carl Peterson <cpeter...@portnetworks.com
> [mailto:cpeter...@portnetworks.com][mailto:cpeter...@portnetworks.com
> [mailto:cpeter...@portnetworks.com]]> wrote:
>
> I don't get it.  That is what your customers are paying you to deliver to
> them.  Why should you be able to charge Netflix as well.  What if they say
> no.  What if they say screw you your IPs can't get Netflix and block you
> entirely.
>
> On Dec 16, 2017, at 11:34 AM, Jason McKemie <
> j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com[mailto:j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com
> ][mailto:j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com[mailto:
> j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com]]> wrote:
>
> I'm pretty sure my network would not qualify for that, and while it would
> certainly help, it would not eliminate the cost entirely.
>
> On Saturday, December 16, 2017, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com[mailto:
> ch...@wbmfg.com][mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com[mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com]]> wrote:
>
> I have had a netflix caching server for several years.  It was free.  Does
> not add to my backbone cost as it fills itself during the off hours.
>
>
>
> From: Jason McKemie
> Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 9:29 AM
> To: af@afmug.com[mailto:af@afmug.com]
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
>
> IMO, the true cost of a service like Netflix is more than the monthly rate
> that they bill their customers. As ISPs, we just have to absorb that cost
> or raise prices to compensate, doesn't help with the big bad ISP perception.
>
> On Saturday, December 16, 2017, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com[mailto:
> ch...@wbmfg.com]> wrote:
>
> It would mirror access charges in the telecom world.  There are some
> logical reasons why such a scheme would be fair, but it would really drive
> up the cost of everything.
>
>
>
> From: Mike Hammett
> Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 8:18 AM
> To: af@afmug.com[mailto:af@afmug.com]
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
>
>
> A lot of people wanted to do that back in the day. I had no idea why.
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions[http://www.ics-il.
> com/[http://www.ics-il.com/]]
> [https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL][https://plus.google.com/+
> IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb][https://www.linkedin.
> com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions][https://
> twitter.com/ICSIL[https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL][https://
> plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsD
> eKalb][https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-
> computing-solutions][https://twitter.com/ICSIL]]
> Midwest Internet Exchange[http://www.midwest-
> ix.com/[http://www.midwest-ix.com/]]
> [https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix][https://www.
> linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange][https://
> twitter.com/mdwestix[https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix][
> https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-
> exchange][https://twitter.com/mdwestix]]
> The Brothers WISP[http://www

Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

[fiberrun]

Sure, but that was the argument you used. If it's not bandwidth usage and 
associated costs, why should people not expect their bill to be the same?

Jared
 
 

Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017
From: "Jason McKemie" <j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com>
To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
There are other costs besides bandwidth.

On Saturday, December 16, 2017, <fiber...@mail.com[mailto:fiber...@mail.com]> 
wrote:Why shouldn't people expect the bill to be the same? The cost of 
bandwidth has gone down about 10-15x since Netflix streaming launched.

Jared
 
 

Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017
From: "Jason McKemie" 
<j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com[mailto:j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com]>
To: "af@afmug.com[mailto:af@afmug.com]; <af@afmug.com[mailto:af@afmug.com]>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
I'm not saying that isn't the way it is, but I was selling internet service 
before Netflix was a thing - people use about 10-15x the bandwidth now, but 
expect their internet bill to be the same.

On Saturday, December 16, 2017, Carl Peterson 
<cpeter...@portnetworks.com[mailto:cpeter...@portnetworks.com][mailto:cpeter...@portnetworks.com[mailto:cpeter...@portnetworks.com]]>
 wrote:

I don't get it.  That is what your customers are paying you to deliver to them. 
 Why should you be able to charge Netflix as well.  What if they say no.  What 
if they say screw you your IPs can't get Netflix and block you entirely.  
 
On Dec 16, 2017, at 11:34 AM, Jason McKemie 
<j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com[mailto:j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com][mailto:j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com[mailto:j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com]]>
 wrote:
 
I'm pretty sure my network would not qualify for that, and while it would 
certainly help, it would not eliminate the cost entirely.

On Saturday, December 16, 2017, Chuck McCown 
<ch...@wbmfg.com[mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com][mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com[mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com]]>
 wrote:

I have had a netflix caching server for several years.  It was free.  Does not 
add to my backbone cost as it fills itself during the off hours. 

 

From: Jason McKemie
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 9:29 AM
To: af@afmug.com[mailto:af@afmug.com]
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
 
IMO, the true cost of a service like Netflix is more than the monthly rate that 
they bill their customers. As ISPs, we just have to absorb that cost or raise 
prices to compensate, doesn't help with the big bad ISP perception.

On Saturday, December 16, 2017, Chuck McCown 
<ch...@wbmfg.com[mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com]> wrote:

It would mirror access charges in the telecom world.  There are some logical 
reasons why such a scheme would be fair, but it would really drive up the cost 
of everything. 

 

From: Mike Hammett
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 8:18 AM
To: af@afmug.com[mailto:af@afmug.com]
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
 

A lot of people wanted to do that back in the day. I had no idea why.
 

-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions[http://www.ics-il.com/[http://www.ics-il.com/]]
[https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL][https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb][https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions][https://twitter.com/ICSIL[https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL][https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb][https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions][https://twitter.com/ICSIL]]
Midwest Internet 
Exchange[http://www.midwest-ix.com/[http://www.midwest-ix.com/]]
[https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix][https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange][https://twitter.com/mdwestix[https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix][https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange][https://twitter.com/mdwestix]]
The Brothers 
WISP[http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/[http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/]]
[https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp][https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg[https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp][https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg]]


 


From: "Ron M." <ccie4...@gmail.com[mailto:ccie4...@gmail.com]>
To: af@afmug.com[mailto:af@afmug.com]
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 8:00:10 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
 

What I'm thinking here... don't charge the end users. Get good IP traffic 
accounting and charge the upstream content providers for carrying THEIR sourced 
traffic. Don't penalize the end users. ;-)
 (My $0.02, can I have my change back now?)

 
On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 2:21 PM, George Skorup 
<george.sko...@cbcast.com[mailto:george.sko...@cbcast.com]> wrote:
One of our tech support guys asked me yesterday if we're going to start 
charging for access to Facebook, Netflix, etc. I was just like, dude, 
seriously? Yeah, cuz that will surely get us customers. He said, but 

Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

[Jason McKemie]

I agree, but that puts you in the big bad ISP category in some people's
opinion. Many people are not firmly in touch with reality though.

On Saturday, December 16, 2017, Carl Peterson <cpeter...@portnetworks.com>
wrote:

> Just because someone wants something for a price doesn't mean you need to
> sell it for that price.  I see increasing demand as an opportunity.   As
> people cut the tv cord, we get to capture some of that additional revenue.
> Of course, with the end of NN, all bets are off as monopoly players we
> compete with may start squeezing additional revenue out of content
> providers to keep their subscriber costs down.  Doubt it though as they are
> greedy.
>
> In any case, it seems to me that bandwidth demand doubles every three
> years while cost per mb is cut in half every three years.  This seems to
> apply to everything but real estate and power.  Any increase above this
> baseline is an opportunity for me to sell higher priced plans.
>
> On Dec 16, 2017, at 3:27 PM, Jason McKemie <j.mckemie@veloxinetbroadband.
> com> wrote:
>
> It's also worth noting that I do not have this issue with my customers, it
> just seems to be the vocal majority online.
>
> On Saturday, December 16, 2017, Jason McKemie <
> j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm not saying that isn't the way it is, but I was selling internet
>> service before Netflix was a thing - people use about 10-15x the bandwidth
>> now, but expect their internet bill to be the same.
>>
>> On Saturday, December 16, 2017, Carl Peterson <cpeter...@portnetworks.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I don't get it.  That is what your customers are paying you to deliver
>>> to them.  Why should you be able to charge Netflix as well.  What if they
>>> say no.  What if they say screw you your IPs can't get Netflix and block
>>> you entirely.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Dec 16, 2017, at 11:34 AM, Jason McKemie <
>>> j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I'm pretty sure my network would not qualify for that, and while it
>>> would certainly help, it would not eliminate the cost entirely.
>>>
>>> On Saturday, December 16, 2017, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have had a netflix caching server for several years.  It was free.
>>>> Does not add to my backbone cost as it fills itself during the off hours.
>>>>
>>>> *From:* Jason McKemie
>>>> *Sent:* Saturday, December 16, 2017 9:29 AM
>>>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
>>>>
>>>> IMO, the true cost of a service like Netflix is more than the monthly
>>>> rate that they bill their customers. As ISPs, we just have to absorb that
>>>> cost or raise prices to compensate, doesn't help with the big bad ISP
>>>> perception.
>>>>
>>>> On Saturday, December 16, 2017, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> It would mirror access charges in the telecom world.  There are some
>>>>> logical reasons why such a scheme would be fair, but it would really drive
>>>>> up the cost of everything.
>>>>>
>>>>> *From:* Mike Hammett
>>>>> *Sent:* Saturday, December 16, 2017 8:18 AM
>>>>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>>>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
>>>>>
>>>>> A lot of people wanted to do that back in the day. I had no idea why.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -
>>>>> Mike Hammett
>>>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/>
>>>>> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>
>>>>> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>
>>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>
>>>>> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
>>>>> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
>>>>> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>
>>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>
>>>>> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
>>>>> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
>>>>> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
>>>>> --
>>>>> *From: *"Ron M.&quo

Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

[Jason McKemie]

There are other costs besides bandwidth.

On Saturday, December 16, 2017, <fiber...@mail.com> wrote:

> Why shouldn't people expect the bill to be the same? The cost of bandwidth
> has gone down about 10-15x since Netflix streaming launched.
>
> Jared
>
>
>
> Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017
> From: "Jason McKemie" <j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com>
> To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
> I'm not saying that isn't the way it is, but I was selling internet
> service before Netflix was a thing - people use about 10-15x the bandwidth
> now, but expect their internet bill to be the same.
>
> On Saturday, December 16, 2017, Carl Peterson <cpeter...@portnetworks.com
> [mailto:cpeter...@portnetworks.com]> wrote:
>
> I don't get it.  That is what your customers are paying you to deliver to
> them.  Why should you be able to charge Netflix as well.  What if they say
> no.  What if they say screw you your IPs can't get Netflix and block you
> entirely.
>
> On Dec 16, 2017, at 11:34 AM, Jason McKemie <
> j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com[mailto:j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com]>
> wrote:
>
> I'm pretty sure my network would not qualify for that, and while it would
> certainly help, it would not eliminate the cost entirely.
>
> On Saturday, December 16, 2017, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com[mailto:
> ch...@wbmfg.com]> wrote:
>
> I have had a netflix caching server for several years.  It was free.  Does
> not add to my backbone cost as it fills itself during the off hours.
>
>
>
> From: Jason McKemie
> Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 9:29 AM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
>
> IMO, the true cost of a service like Netflix is more than the monthly rate
> that they bill their customers. As ISPs, we just have to absorb that cost
> or raise prices to compensate, doesn't help with the big bad ISP perception.
>
> On Saturday, December 16, 2017, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote:
>
> It would mirror access charges in the telecom world.  There are some
> logical reasons why such a scheme would be fair, but it would really drive
> up the cost of everything.
>
>
>
> From: Mike Hammett
> Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 8:18 AM
> To: af@afmug.com
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
>
>
> A lot of people wanted to do that back in the day. I had no idea why.
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions[http://www.ics-il.com/]
> [https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL][https://plus.google.com/+
> IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb][https://www.linkedin.
> com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions][https://twitter.com/ICSIL]
> Midwest Internet Exchange[http://www.midwest-ix.com/]
> [https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix][https://www.
> linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange][https://
> twitter.com/mdwestix]
> The Brothers WISP[http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/]
> [https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp][https://www.
> youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg]
>
>
>
> 
>
> From: "Ron M." <ccie4...@gmail.com>
> To: af@afmug.com
> Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 8:00:10 AM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
>
>
> What I'm thinking here... don't charge the end users. Get good IP traffic
> accounting and charge the upstream content providers for carrying THEIR
> sourced traffic. Don't penalize the end users. ;-)
>  (My $0.02, can I have my change back now?)
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 2:21 PM, George Skorup <george.sko...@cbcast.com>
> wrote:
> One of our tech support guys asked me yesterday if we're going to start
> charging for access to Facebook, Netflix, etc. I was just like, dude,
> seriously? Yeah, cuz that will surely get us customers. He said, but now we
> can, so why wouldn't we? I said, but did we before NN? And then I realized
> he was just trying to annoy me. Same shit the media is doing. FUD dbag
> tactics. IT'S A TRAP!
>
> On 12/15/2017 2:59 PM, Adam Moffett wrote:
> Exactly.  I literally see people suggesting that ISP's will charge for
> access to Facebook or charge for access to Netflix.  Not. Going. To. Happen.
>
>
> -- Original Message --
> From: "Mathew Howard" <mhoward...@gmail.com>
> To: "af" <af@afmug.com>
>
> Sent: 12/15/2017 3:57:00 PM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
>
>
> Yeah, true, there were ways to legally do it before if you really wanted
> to. Bbut more to the point, nobody is going to do something like that
> anyway, because there's no way that it would be worth the cu

Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

[fiberrun]

Why shouldn't people expect the bill to be the same? The cost of bandwidth has 
gone down about 10-15x since Netflix streaming launched. 

Jared
 
 

Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017
From: "Jason McKemie" <j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com>
To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
I'm not saying that isn't the way it is, but I was selling internet service 
before Netflix was a thing - people use about 10-15x the bandwidth now, but 
expect their internet bill to be the same.

On Saturday, December 16, 2017, Carl Peterson 
<cpeter...@portnetworks.com[mailto:cpeter...@portnetworks.com]> wrote:

I don't get it.  That is what your customers are paying you to deliver to them. 
 Why should you be able to charge Netflix as well.  What if they say no.  What 
if they say screw you your IPs can't get Netflix and block you entirely.  
 
On Dec 16, 2017, at 11:34 AM, Jason McKemie 
<j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com[mailto:j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com]> 
wrote:
 
I'm pretty sure my network would not qualify for that, and while it would 
certainly help, it would not eliminate the cost entirely.

On Saturday, December 16, 2017, Chuck McCown 
<ch...@wbmfg.com[mailto:ch...@wbmfg.com]> wrote:

I have had a netflix caching server for several years.  It was free.  Does not 
add to my backbone cost as it fills itself during the off hours. 

 

From: Jason McKemie
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 9:29 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
 
IMO, the true cost of a service like Netflix is more than the monthly rate that 
they bill their customers. As ISPs, we just have to absorb that cost or raise 
prices to compensate, doesn't help with the big bad ISP perception.

On Saturday, December 16, 2017, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote:

It would mirror access charges in the telecom world.  There are some logical 
reasons why such a scheme would be fair, but it would really drive up the cost 
of everything. 

 

From: Mike Hammett
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 8:18 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
 

A lot of people wanted to do that back in the day. I had no idea why.
 

-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions[http://www.ics-il.com/]
[https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL][https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb][https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions][https://twitter.com/ICSIL]
Midwest Internet Exchange[http://www.midwest-ix.com/]
[https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix][https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange][https://twitter.com/mdwestix]
The Brothers WISP[http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/]
[https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp][https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg]


 


From: "Ron M." <ccie4...@gmail.com>
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 8:00:10 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
 

What I'm thinking here... don't charge the end users. Get good IP traffic 
accounting and charge the upstream content providers for carrying THEIR sourced 
traffic. Don't penalize the end users. ;-)
 (My $0.02, can I have my change back now?)

 
On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 2:21 PM, George Skorup <george.sko...@cbcast.com> wrote:
One of our tech support guys asked me yesterday if we're going to start 
charging for access to Facebook, Netflix, etc. I was just like, dude, 
seriously? Yeah, cuz that will surely get us customers. He said, but now we 
can, so why wouldn't we? I said, but did we before NN? And then I realized he 
was just trying to annoy me. Same shit the media is doing. FUD dbag tactics. 
IT'S A TRAP!
 
On 12/15/2017 2:59 PM, Adam Moffett wrote:
Exactly.  I literally see people suggesting that ISP's will charge for access 
to Facebook or charge for access to Netflix.  Not. Going. To. Happen.
 
 
-- Original Message --
From: "Mathew Howard" <mhoward...@gmail.com>
To: "af" <af@afmug.com>

Sent: 12/15/2017 3:57:00 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
 

Yeah, true, there were ways to legally do it before if you really wanted to. 
Bbut more to the point, nobody is going to do something like that anyway, 
because there's no way that it would be worth the customer backlash they'd have 
to deal with.
 Nah, nobody is going to have the sense to feel silly about it... they'll just 
keep whining for awhile, and then forget about it. Or else, they'll find 
something that's completely unrelated that they don't like and blame it on the 
lack of NN.

 
On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 2:49 PM, Adam Moffett <dmmoff...@gmail.com> wrote:

You would have to justify that as "reasonable network management".  They 
defined reasonable network management as being driven by technical reasons 
rather than business reasons (paraphrased).  Not disagreeing with you, just 
clarifying.
 
The bigg

Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

[Carl Peterson]

Just because someone wants something for a price doesn't mean you need to sell 
it for that price.  I see increasing demand as an opportunity.   As people cut 
the tv cord, we get to capture some of that additional revenue.  Of course, 
with the end of NN, all bets are off as monopoly players we compete with may 
start squeezing additional revenue out of content providers to keep their 
subscriber costs down.  Doubt it though as they are greedy.  

In any case, it seems to me that bandwidth demand doubles every three years 
while cost per mb is cut in half every three years.  This seems to apply to 
everything but real estate and power.  Any increase above this baseline is an 
opportunity for me to sell higher priced plans.   

> On Dec 16, 2017, at 3:27 PM, Jason McKemie <j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> 
> wrote:
> 
> It's also worth noting that I do not have this issue with my customers, it 
> just seems to be the vocal majority online.
> 
>> On Saturday, December 16, 2017, Jason McKemie 
>> <j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> wrote:
>> I'm not saying that isn't the way it is, but I was selling internet service 
>> before Netflix was a thing - people use about 10-15x the bandwidth now, but 
>> expect their internet bill to be the same.
>> 
>>> On Saturday, December 16, 2017, Carl Peterson <cpeter...@portnetworks.com> 
>>> wrote:
>>> I don't get it.  That is what your customers are paying you to deliver to 
>>> them.  Why should you be able to charge Netflix as well.  What if they say 
>>> no.  What if they say screw you your IPs can't get Netflix and block you 
>>> entirely.  
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Dec 16, 2017, at 11:34 AM, Jason McKemie 
>>>> <j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> I'm pretty sure my network would not qualify for that, and while it would 
>>>> certainly help, it would not eliminate the cost entirely.
>>>> 
>>>>> On Saturday, December 16, 2017, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote:
>>>>> I have had a netflix caching server for several years.  It was free.  
>>>>> Does not add to my backbone cost as it fills itself during the off hours. 
>>>>>  
>>>>> From: Jason McKemie
>>>>> Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 9:29 AM
>>>>> To: af@afmug.com
>>>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
>>>>>  
>>>>> IMO, the true cost of a service like Netflix is more than the monthly 
>>>>> rate that they bill their customers. As ISPs, we just have to absorb that 
>>>>> cost or raise prices to compensate, doesn't help with the big bad ISP 
>>>>> perception.
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Saturday, December 16, 2017, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote:
>>>>>> It would mirror access charges in the telecom world.  There are some 
>>>>>> logical reasons why such a scheme would be fair, but it would really 
>>>>>> drive up the cost of everything. 
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> From: Mike Hammett
>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 8:18 AM
>>>>>> To: af@afmug.com
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
>>>>>>  
>>>>>> A lot of people wanted to do that back in the day. I had no idea why.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -
>>>>>> Mike Hammett
>>>>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Midwest Internet Exchange
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The Brothers WISP
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> From: "Ron M." <ccie4...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> To: af@afmug.com
>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 8:00:10 AM
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> What I'm thinking here... don't charge the end users. Get good IP 
>>>>>> traffic accounting and charge the upstream content providers for 
>>>>>> carrying THEIR sourced traffic. Don't penalize the end users. ;-)
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> (My $0.02, can I have my change back now?)
>>>>>>  
>>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 2:21 PM, George Skorup 
>>>>>>> <george.sko...@cbcast.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> One of our tech support

Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

[Jason McKemie]

It's also worth noting that I do not have this issue with my customers, it
just seems to be the vocal majority online.

On Saturday, December 16, 2017, Jason McKemie <
j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> wrote:

> I'm not saying that isn't the way it is, but I was selling internet
> service before Netflix was a thing - people use about 10-15x the bandwidth
> now, but expect their internet bill to be the same.
>
> On Saturday, December 16, 2017, Carl Peterson <cpeter...@portnetworks.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I don't get it.  That is what your customers are paying you to deliver to
>> them.  Why should you be able to charge Netflix as well.  What if they say
>> no.  What if they say screw you your IPs can't get Netflix and block you
>> entirely.
>>
>>
>> On Dec 16, 2017, at 11:34 AM, Jason McKemie <
>> j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> wrote:
>>
>> I'm pretty sure my network would not qualify for that, and while it would
>> certainly help, it would not eliminate the cost entirely.
>>
>> On Saturday, December 16, 2017, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I have had a netflix caching server for several years.  It was free.
>>> Does not add to my backbone cost as it fills itself during the off hours.
>>>
>>> *From:* Jason McKemie
>>> *Sent:* Saturday, December 16, 2017 9:29 AM
>>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
>>>
>>> IMO, the true cost of a service like Netflix is more than the monthly
>>> rate that they bill their customers. As ISPs, we just have to absorb that
>>> cost or raise prices to compensate, doesn't help with the big bad ISP
>>> perception.
>>>
>>> On Saturday, December 16, 2017, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It would mirror access charges in the telecom world.  There are some
>>>> logical reasons why such a scheme would be fair, but it would really drive
>>>> up the cost of everything.
>>>>
>>>> *From:* Mike Hammett
>>>> *Sent:* Saturday, December 16, 2017 8:18 AM
>>>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
>>>>
>>>> A lot of people wanted to do that back in the day. I had no idea why.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -
>>>> Mike Hammett
>>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/>
>>>> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>
>>>> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>
>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>
>>>> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
>>>> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
>>>> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>
>>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>
>>>> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
>>>> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
>>>> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
>>>> --
>>>> *From: *"Ron M." <ccie4...@gmail.com>
>>>> *To: *af@afmug.com
>>>> *Sent: *Saturday, December 16, 2017 8:00:10 AM
>>>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
>>>>
>>>> What I'm thinking here... don't charge the end users. Get good IP
>>>> traffic accounting and charge the upstream content providers for carrying
>>>> THEIR sourced traffic. Don't penalize the end users. ;-)
>>>>
>>>> (My $0.02, can I have my change back now?)
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 2:21 PM, George Skorup <
>>>> george.sko...@cbcast.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> One of our tech support guys asked me yesterday if we're going to
>>>>> start charging for access to Facebook, Netflix, etc. I was just like, 
>>>>> dude,
>>>>> seriously? Yeah, cuz that will surely get us customers. He said, but now 
>>>>> we
>>>>> can, so why wouldn't we? I said, but did we before NN? And then I realized
>>>>> he was just trying to annoy me. Same shit the media is doing. FUD dbag
>>>>> tactics. IT'S A TRAP!
>>>>>
>>>>> On 12/15/2017 2:59 PM, Adam Moffett wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Exactly.  I literally see people suggesting that

Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

[Jason McKemie]

I'm not saying that isn't the way it is, but I was selling internet service
before Netflix was a thing - people use about 10-15x the bandwidth now, but
expect their internet bill to be the same.

On Saturday, December 16, 2017, Carl Peterson <cpeter...@portnetworks.com>
wrote:

> I don't get it.  That is what your customers are paying you to deliver to
> them.  Why should you be able to charge Netflix as well.  What if they say
> no.  What if they say screw you your IPs can't get Netflix and block you
> entirely.
>
>
> On Dec 16, 2017, at 11:34 AM, Jason McKemie <j.mckemie@veloxinetbroadband.
> com> wrote:
>
> I'm pretty sure my network would not qualify for that, and while it would
> certainly help, it would not eliminate the cost entirely.
>
> On Saturday, December 16, 2017, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote:
>
>> I have had a netflix caching server for several years.  It was free.
>> Does not add to my backbone cost as it fills itself during the off hours.
>>
>> *From:* Jason McKemie
>> *Sent:* Saturday, December 16, 2017 9:29 AM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
>>
>> IMO, the true cost of a service like Netflix is more than the monthly
>> rate that they bill their customers. As ISPs, we just have to absorb that
>> cost or raise prices to compensate, doesn't help with the big bad ISP
>> perception.
>>
>> On Saturday, December 16, 2017, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote:
>>
>>> It would mirror access charges in the telecom world.  There are some
>>> logical reasons why such a scheme would be fair, but it would really drive
>>> up the cost of everything.
>>>
>>> *From:* Mike Hammett
>>> *Sent:* Saturday, December 16, 2017 8:18 AM
>>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
>>>
>>> A lot of people wanted to do that back in the day. I had no idea why.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -
>>> Mike Hammett
>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/>
>>> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>
>>> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>
>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>
>>> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
>>> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
>>> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>
>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>
>>> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
>>> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
>>> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>
>>>
>>>
>>> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
>>> --
>>> *From: *"Ron M." <ccie4...@gmail.com>
>>> *To: *af@afmug.com
>>> *Sent: *Saturday, December 16, 2017 8:00:10 AM
>>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
>>>
>>> What I'm thinking here... don't charge the end users. Get good IP
>>> traffic accounting and charge the upstream content providers for carrying
>>> THEIR sourced traffic. Don't penalize the end users. ;-)
>>>
>>> (My $0.02, can I have my change back now?)
>>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 2:21 PM, George Skorup <george.sko...@cbcast.com
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> One of our tech support guys asked me yesterday if we're going to start
>>>> charging for access to Facebook, Netflix, etc. I was just like, dude,
>>>> seriously? Yeah, cuz that will surely get us customers. He said, but now we
>>>> can, so why wouldn't we? I said, but did we before NN? And then I realized
>>>> he was just trying to annoy me. Same shit the media is doing. FUD dbag
>>>> tactics. IT'S A TRAP!
>>>>
>>>> On 12/15/2017 2:59 PM, Adam Moffett wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Exactly.  I literally see people suggesting that ISP's will charge for
>>>> access to Facebook or charge for access to Netflix.  Not. Going. To. 
>>>> Happen.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -- Original Message --
>>>> From: "Mathew Howard" <mhoward...@gmail.com>
>>>> To: "af" <af@afmug.com>
>>>> Sent: 12/15/2017 3:57:00 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, true, there were ways to legally do it before if you really
>>>> wanted to. Bbut more to the point

Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

[Carl Peterson]

I don't get it.  That is what your customers are paying you to deliver to them. 
 Why should you be able to charge Netflix as well.  What if they say no.  What 
if they say screw you your IPs can't get Netflix and block you entirely.  


> On Dec 16, 2017, at 11:34 AM, Jason McKemie 
> <j.mcke...@veloxinetbroadband.com> wrote:
> 
> I'm pretty sure my network would not qualify for that, and while it would 
> certainly help, it would not eliminate the cost entirely.
> 
>> On Saturday, December 16, 2017, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote:
>> I have had a netflix caching server for several years.  It was free.  Does 
>> not add to my backbone cost as it fills itself during the off hours. 
>>  
>> From: Jason McKemie
>> Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 9:29 AM
>> To: af@afmug.com
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
>>  
>> IMO, the true cost of a service like Netflix is more than the monthly rate 
>> that they bill their customers. As ISPs, we just have to absorb that cost or 
>> raise prices to compensate, doesn't help with the big bad ISP perception.
>> 
>>> On Saturday, December 16, 2017, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote:
>>> It would mirror access charges in the telecom world.  There are some 
>>> logical reasons why such a scheme would be fair, but it would really drive 
>>> up the cost of everything. 
>>>  
>>> From: Mike Hammett
>>> Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 8:18 AM
>>> To: af@afmug.com
>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
>>>  
>>> A lot of people wanted to do that back in the day. I had no idea why.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -
>>> Mike Hammett
>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>>> 
>>> Midwest Internet Exchange
>>> 
>>> The Brothers WISP
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> From: "Ron M." <ccie4...@gmail.com>
>>> To: af@afmug.com
>>> Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 8:00:10 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
>>> 
>>> What I'm thinking here... don't charge the end users. Get good IP traffic 
>>> accounting and charge the upstream content providers for carrying THEIR 
>>> sourced traffic. Don't penalize the end users. ;-)
>>> 
>>> (My $0.02, can I have my change back now?)
>>>  
>>>> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 2:21 PM, George Skorup <george.sko...@cbcast.com> 
>>>> wrote:
>>>> One of our tech support guys asked me yesterday if we're going to start 
>>>> charging for access to Facebook, Netflix, etc. I was just like, dude, 
>>>> seriously? Yeah, cuz that will surely get us customers. He said, but now 
>>>> we can, so why wouldn't we? I said, but did we before NN? And then I 
>>>> realized he was just trying to annoy me. Same shit the media is doing. FUD 
>>>> dbag tactics. IT'S A TRAP!
>>>> 
>>>> On 12/15/2017 2:59 PM, Adam Moffett wrote:
>>>> Exactly.  I literally see people suggesting that ISP's will charge for 
>>>> access to Facebook or charge for access to Netflix.  Not. Going. To. 
>>>> Happen.
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>> -- Original Message --
>>>> From: "Mathew Howard" <mhoward...@gmail.com>
>>>> To: "af" <af@afmug.com>
>>>> Sent: 12/15/2017 3:57:00 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
>>>>  
>>>> Yeah, true, there were ways to legally do it before if you really wanted 
>>>> to. Bbut more to the point, nobody is going to do something like that 
>>>> anyway, because there's no way that it would be worth the customer 
>>>> backlash they'd have to deal with.
>>>> 
>>>> Nah, nobody is going to have the sense to feel silly about it... they'll 
>>>> just keep whining for awhile, and then forget about it. Or else, they'll 
>>>> find something that's completely unrelated that they don't like and blame 
>>>> it on the lack of NN.
>>>>  
>>>>> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 2:49 PM, Adam Moffett <dmmoff...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> You would have to justify that as "reasonable network management".  They 
>>>>> defined reasonable network management as being driven by technical 
>>>>> reasons rather than business reasons (paraphrased).  Not disagreeing with 
>>>>> you, just clarifying.
>>>>>  
>>>>> The bigger loophole I saw 

Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

[Jason McKemie]

I'm pretty sure my network would not qualify for that, and while it would
certainly help, it would not eliminate the cost entirely.

On Saturday, December 16, 2017, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote:

> I have had a netflix caching server for several years.  It was free.  Does
> not add to my backbone cost as it fills itself during the off hours.
>
> *From:* Jason McKemie
> *Sent:* Saturday, December 16, 2017 9:29 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
>
> IMO, the true cost of a service like Netflix is more than the monthly rate
> that they bill their customers. As ISPs, we just have to absorb that cost
> or raise prices to compensate, doesn't help with the big bad ISP perception.
>
> On Saturday, December 16, 2017, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote:
>
>> It would mirror access charges in the telecom world.  There are some
>> logical reasons why such a scheme would be fair, but it would really drive
>> up the cost of everything.
>>
>> *From:* Mike Hammett
>> *Sent:* Saturday, December 16, 2017 8:18 AM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
>>
>> A lot of people wanted to do that back in the day. I had no idea why.
>>
>>
>>
>> -
>> Mike Hammett
>> Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/>
>> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>
>> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>
>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>
>> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
>> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
>> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>
>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>
>> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
>> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
>> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>
>>
>>
>> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
>> --
>> *From: *"Ron M." <ccie4...@gmail.com>
>> *To: *af@afmug.com
>> *Sent: *Saturday, December 16, 2017 8:00:10 AM
>> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
>>
>> What I'm thinking here... don't charge the end users. Get good IP traffic
>> accounting and charge the upstream content providers for carrying THEIR
>> sourced traffic. Don't penalize the end users. ;-)
>>
>> (My $0.02, can I have my change back now?)
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 2:21 PM, George Skorup <george.sko...@cbcast.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> One of our tech support guys asked me yesterday if we're going to start
>>> charging for access to Facebook, Netflix, etc. I was just like, dude,
>>> seriously? Yeah, cuz that will surely get us customers. He said, but now we
>>> can, so why wouldn't we? I said, but did we before NN? And then I realized
>>> he was just trying to annoy me. Same shit the media is doing. FUD dbag
>>> tactics. IT'S A TRAP!
>>>
>>> On 12/15/2017 2:59 PM, Adam Moffett wrote:
>>>
>>> Exactly.  I literally see people suggesting that ISP's will charge for
>>> access to Facebook or charge for access to Netflix.  Not. Going. To. Happen.
>>>
>>>
>>> -- Original Message --
>>> From: "Mathew Howard" <mhoward...@gmail.com>
>>> To: "af" <af@afmug.com>
>>> Sent: 12/15/2017 3:57:00 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah, true, there were ways to legally do it before if you really wanted
>>> to. Bbut more to the point, nobody is going to do something like that
>>> anyway, because there's no way that it would be worth the customer backlash
>>> they'd have to deal with.
>>>
>>> Nah, nobody is going to have the sense to feel silly about it... they'll
>>> just keep whining for awhile, and then forget about it. Or else, they'll
>>> find something that's completely unrelated that they don't like and blame
>>> it on the lack of NN.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 2:49 PM, Adam Moffett <dmmoff...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> You would have to justify that as "reasonable network management".
>>>> They defined reasonable network management as being driven by technical
>>>> reasons rather than business reasons (paraphrased).  Not disagreeing with
>>>> you, just clarifying.
>>>>
>>>> The bigger loophole I saw was that transit providers were excluded from
>

Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

[Chuck McCown]

I have had a netflix caching server for several years.  It was free.  Does not 
add to my backbone cost as it fills itself during the off hours.  

From: Jason McKemie 
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 9:29 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

IMO, the true cost of a service like Netflix is more than the monthly rate that 
they bill their customers. As ISPs, we just have to absorb that cost or raise 
prices to compensate, doesn't help with the big bad ISP perception.

On Saturday, December 16, 2017, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote:

  It would mirror access charges in the telecom world.  There are some logical 
reasons why such a scheme would be fair, but it would really drive up the cost 
of everything.  

  From: Mike Hammett 
  Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 8:18 AM
  To: af@afmug.com 
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

  A lot of people wanted to do that back in the day. I had no idea why.




  -
  Mike Hammett
  Intelligent Computing Solutions

  Midwest Internet Exchange

  The Brothers WISP






--

  From: "Ron M." <ccie4...@gmail.com>
  To: af@afmug.com
  Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 8:00:10 AM
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment


  What I'm thinking here... don't charge the end users. Get good IP traffic 
accounting and charge the upstream content providers for carrying THEIR sourced 
traffic. Don't penalize the end users. ;-)


  (My $0.02, can I have my change back now?)


  On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 2:21 PM, George Skorup <george.sko...@cbcast.com> 
wrote:

One of our tech support guys asked me yesterday if we're going to start 
charging for access to Facebook, Netflix, etc. I was just like, dude, 
seriously? Yeah, cuz that will surely get us customers. He said, but now we 
can, so why wouldn't we? I said, but did we before NN? And then I realized he 
was just trying to annoy me. Same shit the media is doing. FUD dbag tactics. 
IT'S A TRAP!


On 12/15/2017 2:59 PM, Adam Moffett wrote:

  Exactly.  I literally see people suggesting that ISP's will charge for 
access to Facebook or charge for access to Netflix.  Not. Going. To. Happen.


  -- Original Message --
  From: "Mathew Howard" <mhoward...@gmail.com>
  To: "af" <af@afmug.com>
      Sent: 12/15/2017 3:57:00 PM
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

Yeah, true, there were ways to legally do it before if you really 
wanted to. Bbut more to the point, nobody is going to do something like that 
anyway, because there's no way that it would be worth the customer backlash 
they'd have to deal with.


Nah, nobody is going to have the sense to feel silly about it... 
they'll just keep whining for awhile, and then forget about it. Or else, 
they'll find something that's completely unrelated that they don't like and 
blame it on the lack of NN.


On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 2:49 PM, Adam Moffett <dmmoff...@gmail.com> 
wrote:

  You would have to justify that as "reasonable network management".  
They defined reasonable network management as being driven by technical reasons 
rather than business reasons (paraphrased).  Not disagreeing with you, just 
clarifying.

  The bigger loophole I saw was that transit providers were excluded 
from all the rules.
  Put an AS in between you and your upstream who just does filtering 
for you.  They're a transit provider so they have no NN rules.

  It was very frustrating to witness all the crazy theories about what 
would happen.  I wonder if anyone will have the sense to feel silly about 
pontificating on Facebook when absolutely nothing changes.


  -- Original Message --
  From: "Dennis Burgess" <dmburg...@linktechs.net>
  To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
  Sent: 12/15/2017 3:43:06 PM
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

NN did not disallow you to block facebook, just have to disclose 
it.  J  So it really did’ent do anything.  



Dennis Burgess – Network Solution Engineer – Consultant 

MikroTik Certified Trainer/Consultant – MTCNA, MTCRE, MTCWE, 
MTCTCE, MTCINE



For Wireless Hardware/Routers visit www.linktechs.net

Radio Frequency Coverages: www.towercoverage.com 

Office: 314-735-0270

E-Mail: dmburg...@linktechs.net 



From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mathew Howard
    Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017 3:24 PM
To: af <af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment



Awesome! I think I'll go block Facebook, and see how that goes...



On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 1:52 PM, Steve Jones 
<thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:

  

Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

[Jason McKemie]

IMO, the true cost of a service like Netflix is more than the monthly rate
that they bill their customers. As ISPs, we just have to absorb that cost
or raise prices to compensate, doesn't help with the big bad ISP perception.

On Saturday, December 16, 2017, Chuck McCown <ch...@wbmfg.com> wrote:

> It would mirror access charges in the telecom world.  There are some
> logical reasons why such a scheme would be fair, but it would really drive
> up the cost of everything.
>
> *From:* Mike Hammett
> *Sent:* Saturday, December 16, 2017 8:18 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
>
> A lot of people wanted to do that back in the day. I had no idea why.
>
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions <http://www.ics-il.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>
> <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>
> <https://twitter.com/ICSIL>
> Midwest Internet Exchange <http://www.midwest-ix.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>
> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>
> <https://twitter.com/mdwestix>
> The Brothers WISP <http://www.thebrotherswisp.com/>
> <https://www.facebook.com/thebrotherswisp>
>
>
> <https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCXSdfxQv7SpoRQYNyLwntZg>
> ------
> *From: *"Ron M." <ccie4...@gmail.com>
> *To: *af@afmug.com
> *Sent: *Saturday, December 16, 2017 8:00:10 AM
> *Subject: *Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
>
> What I'm thinking here... don't charge the end users. Get good IP traffic
> accounting and charge the upstream content providers for carrying THEIR
> sourced traffic. Don't penalize the end users. ;-)
>
> (My $0.02, can I have my change back now?)
>
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 2:21 PM, George Skorup <george.sko...@cbcast.com>
> wrote:
>
>> One of our tech support guys asked me yesterday if we're going to start
>> charging for access to Facebook, Netflix, etc. I was just like, dude,
>> seriously? Yeah, cuz that will surely get us customers. He said, but now we
>> can, so why wouldn't we? I said, but did we before NN? And then I realized
>> he was just trying to annoy me. Same shit the media is doing. FUD dbag
>> tactics. IT'S A TRAP!
>>
>> On 12/15/2017 2:59 PM, Adam Moffett wrote:
>>
>> Exactly.  I literally see people suggesting that ISP's will charge for
>> access to Facebook or charge for access to Netflix.  Not. Going. To. Happen.
>>
>>
>> -- Original Message --
>> From: "Mathew Howard" <mhoward...@gmail.com>
>> To: "af" <af@afmug.com>
>> Sent: 12/15/2017 3:57:00 PM
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
>>
>>
>> Yeah, true, there were ways to legally do it before if you really wanted
>> to. Bbut more to the point, nobody is going to do something like that
>> anyway, because there's no way that it would be worth the customer backlash
>> they'd have to deal with.
>>
>> Nah, nobody is going to have the sense to feel silly about it... they'll
>> just keep whining for awhile, and then forget about it. Or else, they'll
>> find something that's completely unrelated that they don't like and blame
>> it on the lack of NN.
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 2:49 PM, Adam Moffett <dmmoff...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> You would have to justify that as "reasonable network management".  They
>>> defined reasonable network management as being driven by technical reasons
>>> rather than business reasons (paraphrased).  Not disagreeing with you, just
>>> clarifying.
>>>
>>> The bigger loophole I saw was that transit providers were excluded from
>>> all the rules.
>>> Put an AS in between you and your upstream who just does filtering for
>>> you.  They're a transit provider so they have no NN rules.
>>>
>>> It was very frustrating to witness all the crazy theories about what
>>> would happen.  I wonder if anyone will have the sense to feel silly about
>>> pontificating on Facebook when absolutely nothing changes.
>>>
>>>
>>> -- Original Message --
>>> From: "Dennis Burgess" <dmburg...@linktechs.net>
>>> To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
>>> Sent: 12/15/2017 3:43:06 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
>>>
>>>
>>> NN did not disallow you to block facebook, just have to disclose it.  J
>>> So it really d

Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

[Chuck McCown]

It would mirror access charges in the telecom world.  There are some logical 
reasons why such a scheme would be fair, but it would really drive up the cost 
of everything.  

From: Mike Hammett 
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 8:18 AM
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

A lot of people wanted to do that back in the day. I had no idea why.




-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions

Midwest Internet Exchange

The Brothers WISP








From: "Ron M." <ccie4...@gmail.com>
To: af@afmug.com
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 8:00:10 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment


What I'm thinking here... don't charge the end users. Get good IP traffic 
accounting and charge the upstream content providers for carrying THEIR sourced 
traffic. Don't penalize the end users. ;-)


(My $0.02, can I have my change back now?)


On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 2:21 PM, George Skorup <george.sko...@cbcast.com> wrote:

  One of our tech support guys asked me yesterday if we're going to start 
charging for access to Facebook, Netflix, etc. I was just like, dude, 
seriously? Yeah, cuz that will surely get us customers. He said, but now we 
can, so why wouldn't we? I said, but did we before NN? And then I realized he 
was just trying to annoy me. Same shit the media is doing. FUD dbag tactics. 
IT'S A TRAP!


  On 12/15/2017 2:59 PM, Adam Moffett wrote:

Exactly.  I literally see people suggesting that ISP's will charge for 
access to Facebook or charge for access to Netflix.  Not. Going. To. Happen.


-- Original Message --
From: "Mathew Howard" <mhoward...@gmail.com>
To: "af" <af@afmug.com>
    Sent: 12/15/2017 3:57:00 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

  Yeah, true, there were ways to legally do it before if you really wanted 
to. Bbut more to the point, nobody is going to do something like that anyway, 
because there's no way that it would be worth the customer backlash they'd have 
to deal with.


  Nah, nobody is going to have the sense to feel silly about it... they'll 
just keep whining for awhile, and then forget about it. Or else, they'll find 
something that's completely unrelated that they don't like and blame it on the 
lack of NN.


  On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 2:49 PM, Adam Moffett <dmmoff...@gmail.com> wrote:

You would have to justify that as "reasonable network management".  
They defined reasonable network management as being driven by technical reasons 
rather than business reasons (paraphrased).  Not disagreeing with you, just 
clarifying.

The bigger loophole I saw was that transit providers were excluded from 
all the rules.
Put an AS in between you and your upstream who just does filtering for 
you.  They're a transit provider so they have no NN rules.

It was very frustrating to witness all the crazy theories about what 
would happen.  I wonder if anyone will have the sense to feel silly about 
pontificating on Facebook when absolutely nothing changes.


-- Original Message --
From: "Dennis Burgess" <dmburg...@linktechs.net>
To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
Sent: 12/15/2017 3:43:06 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

  NN did not disallow you to block facebook, just have to disclose it.  
J  So it really did’ent do anything.  



  Dennis Burgess – Network Solution Engineer – Consultant 

  MikroTik Certified Trainer/Consultant – MTCNA, MTCRE, MTCWE, MTCTCE, 
MTCINE



  For Wireless Hardware/Routers visit www.linktechs.net

  Radio Frequency Coverages: www.towercoverage.com 

  Office: 314-735-0270

  E-Mail: dmburg...@linktechs.net 



  From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mathew Howard
  Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017 3:24 PM
  To: af <af@afmug.com>
  Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment



  Awesome! I think I'll go block Facebook, and see how that goes...



  On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 1:52 PM, Steve Jones 
<thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:


http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2017/12/15/net_neutrality_s_end_was_mostly_celebrated_by_the_far_right.html



Apparently now we ISPs can lawfully block individual sites and will 
do so with impunity.



These people with these petty ideas I dont think understand how 
poorly granularity scales.



On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Josh Baird <joshba...@gmail.com> 
wrote:

  I like this as well.  I was thinking it would be a good idea to 
put out a statement..



  On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Paul McCall <pa...@pdmnet.net> 
wrote:

Yep, that is concise and effective

Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

[Mike Hammett]

A lot of people wanted to do that back in the day. I had no idea why. 




- 
Mike Hammett 
Intelligent Computing Solutions 

Midwest Internet Exchange 

The Brothers WISP 




- Original Message -

From: "Ron M." <ccie4...@gmail.com> 
To: af@afmug.com 
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 8:00:10 AM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment 



What I'm thinking here... don't charge the end users. Get good IP traffic 
accounting and charge the upstream content providers for carrying THEIR sourced 
traffic. Don't penalize the end users. ;-) 

(My $0.02, can I have my change back now?) 



On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 2:21 PM, George Skorup < george.sko...@cbcast.com > 
wrote: 



One of our tech support guys asked me yesterday if we're going to start 
charging for access to Facebook, Netflix, etc. I was just like, dude, 
seriously? Yeah, cuz that will surely get us customers. He said, but now we 
can, so why wouldn't we? I said, but did we before NN? And then I realized he 
was just trying to annoy me. Same shit the media is doing. FUD dbag tactics. 
IT'S A TRAP! 


On 12/15/2017 2:59 PM, Adam Moffett wrote: 



Exactly. I literally see people suggesting that ISP's will charge for access to 
Facebook or charge for access to Netflix. Not. Going. To. Happen. 




-- Original Message -- 
From: "Mathew Howard" < mhoward...@gmail.com > 
To: "af" < af@afmug.com > 


Sent: 12/15/2017 3:57:00 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment 






Yeah, true, there were ways to legally do it before if you really wanted to. 
Bbut more to the point, nobody is going to do something like that anyway, 
because there's no way that it would be worth the customer backlash they'd have 
to deal with. 

Nah, nobody is going to have the sense to feel silly about it... they'll just 
keep whining for awhile, and then forget about it. Or else, they'll find 
something that's completely unrelated that they don't like and blame it on the 
lack of NN. 



On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 2:49 PM, Adam Moffett < dmmoff...@gmail.com > wrote: 




You would have to justify that as "reasonable network management". They defined 
reasonable network management as being driven by technical reasons rather than 
business reasons (paraphrased). Not disagreeing with you, just clarifying. 


The bigger loophole I saw was that transit providers were excluded from all the 
rules. 
Put an AS in between you and your upstream who just does filtering for you. 
They're a transit provider so they have no NN rules. 


It was very frustrating to witness all the crazy theories about what would 
happen. I wonder if anyone will have the sense to feel silly about 
pontificating on Facebook when absolutely nothing changes. 




-- Original Message -- 
From: "Dennis Burgess" < dmburg...@linktechs.net > 
To: " af@afmug.com " < af@afmug.com > 
Sent: 12/15/2017 3:43:06 PM 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment 






NN did not disallow you to block facebook, just have to disclose it. J So it 
really did’ent do anything. 

Dennis Burgess – Network Solution Engineer – Consultant 
MikroTik Certified Trainer/Consultant – MTCNA, MTCRE, MTCWE, MTCTCE, MTCINE 

For Wireless Hardware/Routers visit www.linktechs.net 
Radio Frequency Coverages: www.towercoverage.com 
Office: 314-735-0270 
E-Mail: dmburg...@linktechs.net 

From: Af [mailto: af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Mathew Howard 
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017 3:24 PM 
To: af < af@afmug.com > 
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment 


Awesome! I think I'll go block Facebook, and see how that goes... 



On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 1:52 PM, Steve Jones < thatoneguyst...@gmail.com > 
wrote: 





http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2017/12/15/net_neutrality_s_end_was_mostly_celebrated_by_the_far_right.html
 



Apparently now we ISPs can lawfully block individual sites and will do so with 
impunity. 



These people with these petty ideas I dont think understand how poorly 
granularity scales. 





On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Josh Baird < joshba...@gmail.com > wrote: 



I like this as well. I was thinking it would be a good idea to put out a 
statement.. 





On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Paul McCall < pa...@pdmnet.net > wrote: 




Yep, that is concise and effective 



From: Af [mailto: af-boun...@afmug.com ] On Behalf Of Gino A. Villarini 
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017 7:57 AM 
To: af@afmug.com 
Subject: [AFMUG] Our NN statment 


What do you guys think? Lots of customers calling! 




Aeronet Statement on Net Neutrality 



AeroNet, a ISP that provides advanced Internet services to Business and 
individuals in PR, USVI and Miami, applauds any action taken that promotes 
innovation and advancement of connectivity for all consumers. In Aeronet’s 17 
years of history, our pricing structure has always been simple, unlimited and 
without any toll gates. The placement and remova

Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

[Mark Radabaugh]

You mean like this: 
http://www.netcompetition.org/congress/the-multi-billion-dollar-impact-of-fcc-title-ii-broadband-for-google-entire-internet-ecosystem


Mark


On 12/16/17 9:00 AM, Ron M. wrote:
What I'm thinking here... don't charge the end users. Get good IP 
traffic accounting and charge the upstream content providers for 
carrying THEIR sourced traffic. Don't penalize the end users. ;-)


(My $0.02, can I have my change back now?)

On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 2:21 PM, George Skorup 
<george.sko...@cbcast.com <mailto:george.sko...@cbcast.com>> wrote:


One of our tech support guys asked me yesterday if we're going to
start charging for access to Facebook, Netflix, etc. I was just
like, dude, seriously? Yeah, cuz that will surely get us
customers. He said, but now we can, so why wouldn't we? I said,
but did we before NN? And then I realized he was just trying to
annoy me. Same shit the media is doing. FUD dbag tactics. IT'S A TRAP!

On 12/15/2017 2:59 PM, Adam Moffett wrote:

Exactly.  I literally see people suggesting that ISP's will
charge for access to Facebook or charge for access to Netflix.
 Not. Going. To. Happen.


-- Original Message --
From: "Mathew Howard" <mhoward...@gmail.com
<mailto:mhoward...@gmail.com>>
To: "af" <af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>>
    Sent: 12/15/2017 3:57:00 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment


Yeah, true, there were ways to legally do it before if you
really wanted to. Bbut more to the point, nobody is going to do
something like that anyway, because there's no way that it would
be worth the customer backlash they'd have to deal with.

Nah, nobody is going to have the sense to feel silly about it...
they'll just keep whining for awhile, and then forget about it.
Or else, they'll find something that's completely unrelated that
they don't like and blame it on the lack of NN.

On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 2:49 PM, Adam Moffett
<dmmoff...@gmail.com <mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com>> wrote:

You would have to justify that as "reasonable network
management".  They defined reasonable network management as
being driven by technical reasons rather than business
reasons (paraphrased).  Not disagreeing with you, just
clarifying.

The bigger loophole I saw was that transit providers were
excluded from all the rules.
Put an AS in between you and your upstream who just does
filtering for you.  They're a transit provider so they have
no NN rules.

It was very frustrating to witness all the crazy theories
about what would happen.  I wonder if anyone will have the
sense to feel silly about pontificating on Facebook when
absolutely nothing changes.


-- Original Message --
From: "Dennis Burgess" <dmburg...@linktechs.net
<mailto:dmburg...@linktechs.net>>
To: "af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>" <af@afmug.com
<mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Sent: 12/15/2017 3:43:06 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment


NN did not disallow you to block facebook, just have to
disclose it. JSo it really did’ent do anything.

*/_Dennis Burgess_/**–**Network Solution Engineer –
Consultant *

MikroTik Certified Trainer/Consultant
<http://www.linktechs.net/productcart/pc/viewcontent.asp?idpage=5>–
MTCNA, MTCRE, MTCWE, MTCTCE, MTCINE

For Wireless Hardware/Routers visit www.linktechs.net
<http://www.linktechs.net/>

Radio Frequency Coverages: www.towercoverage.com
<http://www.towercoverage.com/>

Office: 314-735-0270 <tel:%28314%29%20735-0270>

E-Mail: dmburg...@linktechs.net
<mailto:dmburg...@linktechs.net>

*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com
<mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com>] *On Behalf Of *Mathew Howard
*Sent:* Friday, December 15, 2017 3:24 PM
*To:* af <af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>>
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

Awesome! I think I'll go block Facebook, and see how that
goes...

On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 1:52 PM, Steve Jones
<thatoneguyst...@gmail.com
<mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com>> wrote:


http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2017/12/15/net_neutrality_s_end_was_mostly_celebrated_by_the_far_right.html

<http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2017/12/15/net_neutrality_s_end_was_mostly_celebrated_by_the_far_right.html>

Apparently now we ISPs can lawfully block individual
sites and will do so with impunity.

These people with these petty ideas I dont think
understand h

Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

[Ron M.]

What I'm thinking here... don't charge the end users. Get good IP traffic
accounting and charge the upstream content providers for carrying THEIR
sourced traffic. Don't penalize the end users. ;-)

(My $0.02, can I have my change back now?)

On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 2:21 PM, George Skorup <george.sko...@cbcast.com>
wrote:

> One of our tech support guys asked me yesterday if we're going to start
> charging for access to Facebook, Netflix, etc. I was just like, dude,
> seriously? Yeah, cuz that will surely get us customers. He said, but now we
> can, so why wouldn't we? I said, but did we before NN? And then I realized
> he was just trying to annoy me. Same shit the media is doing. FUD dbag
> tactics. IT'S A TRAP!
>
> On 12/15/2017 2:59 PM, Adam Moffett wrote:
>
> Exactly.  I literally see people suggesting that ISP's will charge for
> access to Facebook or charge for access to Netflix.  Not. Going. To. Happen.
>
>
> -- Original Message --
> From: "Mathew Howard" <mhoward...@gmail.com>
> To: "af" <af@afmug.com>
> Sent: 12/15/2017 3:57:00 PM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
>
> Yeah, true, there were ways to legally do it before if you really wanted
> to. Bbut more to the point, nobody is going to do something like that
> anyway, because there's no way that it would be worth the customer backlash
> they'd have to deal with.
>
> Nah, nobody is going to have the sense to feel silly about it... they'll
> just keep whining for awhile, and then forget about it. Or else, they'll
> find something that's completely unrelated that they don't like and blame
> it on the lack of NN.
>
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 2:49 PM, Adam Moffett <dmmoff...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> You would have to justify that as "reasonable network management".  They
>> defined reasonable network management as being driven by technical reasons
>> rather than business reasons (paraphrased).  Not disagreeing with you, just
>> clarifying.
>>
>> The bigger loophole I saw was that transit providers were excluded from
>> all the rules.
>> Put an AS in between you and your upstream who just does filtering for
>> you.  They're a transit provider so they have no NN rules.
>>
>> It was very frustrating to witness all the crazy theories about what
>> would happen.  I wonder if anyone will have the sense to feel silly about
>> pontificating on Facebook when absolutely nothing changes.
>>
>>
>> -- Original Message --
>> From: "Dennis Burgess" <dmburg...@linktechs.net>
>> To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
>> Sent: 12/15/2017 3:43:06 PM
>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
>>
>> NN did not disallow you to block facebook, just have to disclose it.  J
>> So it really did’ent do anything.
>>
>>
>>
>> *Dennis Burgess** –** Network Solution Engineer – Consultant *
>>
>> MikroTik Certified Trainer/Consultant
>> <http://www.linktechs.net/productcart/pc/viewcontent.asp?idpage=5> –
>> MTCNA, MTCRE, MTCWE, MTCTCE, MTCINE
>>
>>
>>
>> For Wireless Hardware/Routers visit www.linktechs.net
>>
>> Radio Frequency Coverages: www.towercoverage.com
>>
>> Office: 314-735-0270 <%28314%29%20735-0270>
>>
>> E-Mail: dmburg...@linktechs.net
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Mathew Howard
>> *Sent:* Friday, December 15, 2017 3:24 PM
>> *To:* af <af@afmug.com>
>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
>>
>>
>>
>> Awesome! I think I'll go block Facebook, and see how that goes...
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 1:52 PM, Steve Jones <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2017/12/15/net_neutr
>> ality_s_end_was_mostly_celebrated_by_the_far_right.html
>>
>>
>>
>> Apparently now we ISPs can lawfully block individual sites and will do so
>> with impunity.
>>
>>
>>
>> These people with these petty ideas I dont think understand how poorly
>> granularity scales.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Josh Baird <joshba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I like this as well.  I was thinking it would be a good idea to put out a
>> statement..
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Paul McCall <pa...@pdmnet.net> wrote:
>>
>> Yep, that is concise and effective
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Gino A. Villarini
>> *Sent:* Friday, 

Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

[George Skorup]

One of our tech support guys asked me yesterday if we're going to start 
charging for access to Facebook, Netflix, etc. I was just like, dude, 
seriously? Yeah, cuz that will surely get us customers. He said, but now 
we can, so why wouldn't we? I said, but did we before NN? And then I 
realized he was just trying to annoy me. Same shit the media is doing. 
FUD dbag tactics. IT'S A TRAP!


On 12/15/2017 2:59 PM, Adam Moffett wrote:
Exactly.  I literally see people suggesting that ISP's will charge for 
access to Facebook or charge for access to Netflix.  Not. Going. To. 
Happen.



-- Original Message --
From: "Mathew Howard" <mhoward...@gmail.com <mailto:mhoward...@gmail.com>>
To: "af" <af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Sent: 12/15/2017 3:57:00 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

Yeah, true, there were ways to legally do it before if you really 
wanted to. Bbut more to the point, nobody is going to do something 
like that anyway, because there's no way that it would be worth the 
customer backlash they'd have to deal with.


Nah, nobody is going to have the sense to feel silly about it... 
they'll just keep whining for awhile, and then forget about it. Or 
else, they'll find something that's completely unrelated that they 
don't like and blame it on the lack of NN.


On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 2:49 PM, Adam Moffett <dmmoff...@gmail.com 
<mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com>> wrote:


You would have to justify that as "reasonable network
management".  They defined reasonable network management as being
driven by technical reasons rather than business reasons
(paraphrased). Not disagreeing with you, just clarifying.

The bigger loophole I saw was that transit providers were
excluded from all the rules.
Put an AS in between you and your upstream who just does
filtering for you.  They're a transit provider so they have no NN
rules.

It was very frustrating to witness all the crazy theories about
what would happen.  I wonder if anyone will have the sense to
feel silly about pontificating on Facebook when absolutely
nothing changes.


-- Original Message --
From: "Dennis Burgess" <dmburg...@linktechs.net
<mailto:dmburg...@linktechs.net>>
To: "af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>" <af@afmug.com
<mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Sent: 12/15/2017 3:43:06 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment


NN did not disallow you to block facebook, just have to disclose
it. JSo it really did’ent do anything.

*/_Dennis Burgess_/**–**Network Solution Engineer – Consultant *

MikroTik Certified Trainer/Consultant
<http://www.linktechs.net/productcart/pc/viewcontent.asp?idpage=5>–
MTCNA, MTCRE, MTCWE, MTCTCE, MTCINE

For Wireless Hardware/Routers visit www.linktechs.net
<http://www.linktechs.net/>

Radio Frequency Coverages: www.towercoverage.com
<http://www.towercoverage.com/>

Office: 314-735-0270 <tel:%28314%29%20735-0270>

E-Mail: dmburg...@linktechs.net <mailto:dmburg...@linktechs.net>

*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com
<mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com>] *On Behalf Of *Mathew Howard
*Sent:* Friday, December 15, 2017 3:24 PM
*To:* af <af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>>
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

Awesome! I think I'll go block Facebook, and see how that goes...

On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 1:52 PM, Steve Jones
<thatoneguyst...@gmail.com <mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com>>
wrote:


http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2017/12/15/net_neutrality_s_end_was_mostly_celebrated_by_the_far_right.html

<http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2017/12/15/net_neutrality_s_end_was_mostly_celebrated_by_the_far_right.html>

Apparently now we ISPs can lawfully block individual sites
and will do so with impunity.

These people with these petty ideas I dont think understand
how poorly granularity scales.

On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Josh Baird
<joshba...@gmail.com <mailto:joshba...@gmail.com>> wrote:

I like this as well.  I was thinking it would be a good
idea to put out a statement..

On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Paul McCall
<pa...@pdmnet.net <mailto:pa...@pdmnet.net>> wrote:

Yep, that is concise and effective

*From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com
<mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com>] *On Behalf Of *Gino
A. Villarini
*Sent:* Friday, December 15, 2017 7:57 AM
*To:* af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>
*Subject:* [AFMUG] Our NN statment

What do you guys think? Lots of customers calling!

   

Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

[George Skorup]

What happened before NN? Oh gee, there were standard business laws that 
took care of the shady tactics by the big guys. If anything, NN just 
made what they were doing legal if they put it in 1pt font on the last 
page of a contract.


On 12/15/2017 2:57 PM, Mathew Howard wrote:
Yeah, true, there were ways to legally do it before if you really 
wanted to. Bbut more to the point, nobody is going to do something 
like that anyway, because there's no way that it would be worth the 
customer backlash they'd have to deal with.


Nah, nobody is going to have the sense to feel silly about it... 
they'll just keep whining for awhile, and then forget about it. Or 
else, they'll find something that's completely unrelated that they 
don't like and blame it on the lack of NN.


On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 2:49 PM, Adam Moffett <dmmoff...@gmail.com 
<mailto:dmmoff...@gmail.com>> wrote:


You would have to justify that as "reasonable network
management".  They defined reasonable network management as being
driven by technical reasons rather than business reasons
(paraphrased).  Not disagreeing with you, just clarifying.

The bigger loophole I saw was that transit providers were excluded
from all the rules.
Put an AS in between you and your upstream who just does filtering
for you.  They're a transit provider so they have no NN rules.

It was very frustrating to witness all the crazy theories about
what would happen.  I wonder if anyone will have the sense to feel
silly about pontificating on Facebook when absolutely nothing changes.


-- Original Message --
From: "Dennis Burgess" <dmburg...@linktechs.net
<mailto:dmburg...@linktechs.net>>
To: "af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>" <af@afmug.com
<mailto:af@afmug.com>>
Sent: 12/15/2017 3:43:06 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment


NN did not disallow you to block facebook, just have to disclose
it. JSo it really did’ent do anything.

*/_Dennis Burgess_/**–**Network Solution Engineer – Consultant *

MikroTik Certified Trainer/Consultant
<http://www.linktechs.net/productcart/pc/viewcontent.asp?idpage=5>–
MTCNA, MTCRE, MTCWE, MTCTCE, MTCINE

For Wireless Hardware/Routers visit www.linktechs.net
<http://www.linktechs.net/>

Radio Frequency Coverages: www.towercoverage.com
<http://www.towercoverage.com/>

Office: 314-735-0270 <tel:%28314%29%20735-0270>

E-Mail: dmburg...@linktechs.net <mailto:dmburg...@linktechs.net>

*From:*Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com
<mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com>] *On Behalf Of *Mathew Howard
*Sent:* Friday, December 15, 2017 3:24 PM
*To:* af <af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>>
*Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

Awesome! I think I'll go block Facebook, and see how that goes...

On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 1:52 PM, Steve Jones
<thatoneguyst...@gmail.com <mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com>> wrote:


http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2017/12/15/net_neutrality_s_end_was_mostly_celebrated_by_the_far_right.html

<http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2017/12/15/net_neutrality_s_end_was_mostly_celebrated_by_the_far_right.html>

Apparently now we ISPs can lawfully block individual sites
and will do so with impunity.

These people with these petty ideas I dont think understand
how poorly granularity scales.

On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Josh Baird
<joshba...@gmail.com <mailto:joshba...@gmail.com>> wrote:

I like this as well.  I was thinking it would be a good
idea to put out a statement..

On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Paul McCall
<pa...@pdmnet.net <mailto:pa...@pdmnet.net>> wrote:

Yep, that is concise and effective

*From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com
<mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com>] *On Behalf Of *Gino A.
            Villarini
*Sent:* Friday, December 15, 2017 7:57 AM
*To:* af@afmug.com <mailto:af@afmug.com>
*Subject:* [AFMUG] Our NN statment

What do you guys think? Lots of customers calling!

Aeronet Statement on Net Neutrality

AeroNet, a ISP that provides advanced Internet
services to Business and individuals in PR, USVI and
Miami, applauds any action taken  that promotes
 innovation and advancement of connectivity for all
consumers. In Aeronet’s  17 years of history, our
pricing structure has always been simple, unlimited
and without any toll gates. The placement and removal
of Net Neutrality rules have not and will not modify
  

Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

[Adam Moffett]

Exactly.  I literally see people suggesting that ISP's will charge for 
access to Facebook or charge for access to Netflix.  Not. Going. To. 
Happen.



-- Original Message --
From: "Mathew Howard" <mhoward...@gmail.com>
To: "af" <af@afmug.com>
Sent: 12/15/2017 3:57:00 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

Yeah, true, there were ways to legally do it before if you really 
wanted to. Bbut more to the point, nobody is going to do something like 
that anyway, because there's no way that it would be worth the customer 
backlash they'd have to deal with.


Nah, nobody is going to have the sense to feel silly about it... 
they'll just keep whining for awhile, and then forget about it. Or 
else, they'll find something that's completely unrelated that they 
don't like and blame it on the lack of NN.


On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 2:49 PM, Adam Moffett <dmmoff...@gmail.com> 
wrote:
You would have to justify that as "reasonable network management".  
They defined reasonable network management as being driven by 
technical reasons rather than business reasons (paraphrased).  Not 
disagreeing with you, just clarifying.


The bigger loophole I saw was that transit providers were excluded 
from all the rules.
Put an AS in between you and your upstream who just does filtering for 
you.  They're a transit provider so they have no NN rules.


It was very frustrating to witness all the crazy theories about what 
would happen.  I wonder if anyone will have the sense to feel silly 
about pontificating on Facebook when absolutely nothing changes.



-- Original Message --
From: "Dennis Burgess" <dmburg...@linktechs.net>
To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
Sent: 12/15/2017 3:43:06 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

NN did not disallow you to block facebook, just have to disclose it.  
J  So it really did’ent do anything.




Dennis Burgess – Network Solution Engineer – Consultant

MikroTik Certified Trainer/Consultant 
<http://www.linktechs.net/productcart/pc/viewcontent.asp?idpage=5> – 
MTCNA, MTCRE, MTCWE, MTCTCE, MTCINE




For Wireless Hardware/Routers visit www.linktechs.net

Radio Frequency Coverages: www.towercoverage.com

Office: 314-735-0270 <tel:(314)%20735-0270>

E-Mail: dmburg...@linktechs.net



From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mathew Howard
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017 3:24 PM
To: af <af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment



Awesome! I think I'll go block Facebook, and see how that goes...



On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 1:52 PM, Steve Jones 
<thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:


http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2017/12/15/net_neutrality_s_end_was_mostly_celebrated_by_the_far_right.html 
<http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2017/12/15/net_neutrality_s_end_was_mostly_celebrated_by_the_far_right.html>




Apparently now we ISPs can lawfully block individual sites and will 
do so with impunity.




These people with these petty ideas I dont think understand how 
poorly granularity scales.




On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Josh Baird <joshba...@gmail.com> 
wrote:


I like this as well.  I was thinking it would be a good idea to put 
out a statement..




On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Paul McCall <pa...@pdmnet.net> 
wrote:



Yep, that is concise and effective



From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Gino A. 
Villarini

Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017 7:57 AM
To:af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] Our NN statment



What do you guys think? Lots of customers calling!



Aeronet Statement on Net Neutrality



AeroNet, a ISP that provides advanced Internet services to 
Business and individuals in PR, USVI and Miami, applauds any 
action taken  that promotes  innovation and advancement of 
connectivity for all consumers. In Aeronet’s  17 years of history, 
our pricing structure has always been simple, unlimited and 
without any toll gates.  The placement and removal of Net 
Neutrality rules have not and will not modify our pricing policy.  
We maintain our commitment to provide the fastest and most 
reliable service to our customers, with innovative solutions that 
fulfill our customers needs.




Gino A. Villarini

President

Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968

Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

[Mathew Howard]

Yeah, true, there were ways to legally do it before if you really wanted
to. Bbut more to the point, nobody is going to do something like that
anyway, because there's no way that it would be worth the customer backlash
they'd have to deal with.

Nah, nobody is going to have the sense to feel silly about it... they'll
just keep whining for awhile, and then forget about it. Or else, they'll
find something that's completely unrelated that they don't like and blame
it on the lack of NN.

On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 2:49 PM, Adam Moffett <dmmoff...@gmail.com> wrote:

> You would have to justify that as "reasonable network management".  They
> defined reasonable network management as being driven by technical reasons
> rather than business reasons (paraphrased).  Not disagreeing with you, just
> clarifying.
>
> The bigger loophole I saw was that transit providers were excluded from
> all the rules.
> Put an AS in between you and your upstream who just does filtering for
> you.  They're a transit provider so they have no NN rules.
>
> It was very frustrating to witness all the crazy theories about what would
> happen.  I wonder if anyone will have the sense to feel silly about
> pontificating on Facebook when absolutely nothing changes.
>
>
> -- Original Message --
> From: "Dennis Burgess" <dmburg...@linktechs.net>
> To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
> Sent: 12/15/2017 3:43:06 PM
> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
>
> NN did not disallow you to block facebook, just have to disclose it.  J
> So it really did’ent do anything.
>
>
>
> *Dennis Burgess** –** Network Solution Engineer – Consultant *
>
> MikroTik Certified Trainer/Consultant
> <http://www.linktechs.net/productcart/pc/viewcontent.asp?idpage=5> –
> MTCNA, MTCRE, MTCWE, MTCTCE, MTCINE
>
>
>
> For Wireless Hardware/Routers visit www.linktechs.net
>
> Radio Frequency Coverages: www.towercoverage.com
>
> Office: 314-735-0270 <(314)%20735-0270>
>
> E-Mail: dmburg...@linktechs.net
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Mathew Howard
> *Sent:* Friday, December 15, 2017 3:24 PM
> *To:* af <af@afmug.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
>
>
>
> Awesome! I think I'll go block Facebook, and see how that goes...
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 1:52 PM, Steve Jones <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2017/12/15/net_
> neutrality_s_end_was_mostly_celebrated_by_the_far_right.html
>
>
>
> Apparently now we ISPs can lawfully block individual sites and will do so
> with impunity.
>
>
>
> These people with these petty ideas I dont think understand how poorly
> granularity scales.
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Josh Baird <joshba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I like this as well.  I was thinking it would be a good idea to put out a
> statement..
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Paul McCall <pa...@pdmnet.net> wrote:
>
> Yep, that is concise and effective
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Gino A. Villarini
> *Sent:* Friday, December 15, 2017 7:57 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* [AFMUG] Our NN statment
>
>
>
> What do you guys think? Lots of customers calling!
>
>
>
> Aeronet Statement on Net Neutrality
>
>
>
> AeroNet, a ISP that provides advanced Internet services to Business and
> individuals in PR, USVI and Miami, applauds any action taken  that promotes
>  innovation and advancement of connectivity for all consumers. In Aeronet’s
>  17 years of history, our pricing structure has always been simple,
> unlimited and without any toll gates.  The placement and removal of Net
> Neutrality rules have not and will not modify our pricing policy.  We
> maintain our commitment to provide the fastest and most reliable service to
> our customers, with innovative solutions that fulfill our customers needs.
>
>
>
> *Gino A. Villarini*
>
> President
>
> Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

[Adam Moffett]

You would have to justify that as "reasonable network management".  They 
defined reasonable network management as being driven by technical 
reasons rather than business reasons (paraphrased).  Not disagreeing 
with you, just clarifying.


The bigger loophole I saw was that transit providers were excluded from 
all the rules.
Put an AS in between you and your upstream who just does filtering for 
you.  They're a transit provider so they have no NN rules.


It was very frustrating to witness all the crazy theories about what 
would happen.  I wonder if anyone will have the sense to feel silly 
about pontificating on Facebook when absolutely nothing changes.



-- Original Message --
From: "Dennis Burgess" <dmburg...@linktechs.net>
To: "af@afmug.com" <af@afmug.com>
Sent: 12/15/2017 3:43:06 PM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

NN did not disallow you to block facebook, just have to disclose it.  J 
 So it really did’ent do anything.




Dennis Burgess – Network Solution Engineer – Consultant

MikroTik Certified Trainer/Consultant 
<http://www.linktechs.net/productcart/pc/viewcontent.asp?idpage=5> – 
MTCNA, MTCRE, MTCWE, MTCTCE, MTCINE




For Wireless Hardware/Routers visit www.linktechs.net

Radio Frequency Coverages: www.towercoverage.com

Office: 314-735-0270

E-Mail: dmburg...@linktechs.net



From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mathew Howard
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017 3:24 PM
To: af <af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment



Awesome! I think I'll go block Facebook, and see how that goes...



On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 1:52 PM, Steve Jones 
<thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:



http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2017/12/15/net_neutrality_s_end_was_mostly_celebrated_by_the_far_right.html



Apparently now we ISPs can lawfully block individual sites and will do 
so with impunity.




These people with these petty ideas I dont think understand how poorly 
granularity scales.




On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Josh Baird <joshba...@gmail.com> 
wrote:


I like this as well.  I was thinking it would be a good idea to put 
out a statement..




On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Paul McCall <pa...@pdmnet.net> 
wrote:



Yep, that is concise and effective



From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Gino A. 
Villarini

Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017 7:57 AM
To:af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] Our NN statment



What do you guys think? Lots of customers calling!



Aeronet Statement on Net Neutrality



AeroNet, a ISP that provides advanced Internet services to Business 
and individuals in PR, USVI and Miami, applauds any action taken  
that promotes  innovation and advancement of connectivity for all 
consumers. In Aeronet’s  17 years of history, our pricing structure 
has always been simple, unlimited and without any toll gates.  The 
placement and removal of Net Neutrality rules have not and will not 
modify our pricing policy.  We maintain our commitment to provide 
the fastest and most reliable service to our customers, with 
innovative solutions that fulfill our customers needs.




Gino A. Villarini

President

Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968

Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

[Dennis Burgess]

NN did not disallow you to block facebook, just have to disclose it.  ☺  So it 
really did’ent do anything.

Dennis Burgess – Network Solution Engineer – Consultant
MikroTik Certified 
Trainer/Consultant<http://www.linktechs.net/productcart/pc/viewcontent.asp?idpage=5>
 – MTCNA, MTCRE, MTCWE, MTCTCE, MTCINE

For Wireless Hardware/Routers visit www.linktechs.net<http://www.linktechs.net/>
Radio Frequency Coverages: www.towercoverage.com<http://www.towercoverage.com/>
Office: 314-735-0270
E-Mail: dmburg...@linktechs.net<mailto:dmburg...@linktechs.net>

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Mathew Howard
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017 3:24 PM
To: af <af@afmug.com>
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

Awesome! I think I'll go block Facebook, and see how that goes...

On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 1:52 PM, Steve Jones 
<thatoneguyst...@gmail.com<mailto:thatoneguyst...@gmail.com>> wrote:
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2017/12/15/net_neutrality_s_end_was_mostly_celebrated_by_the_far_right.html

Apparently now we ISPs can lawfully block individual sites and will do so with 
impunity.

These people with these petty ideas I dont think understand how poorly 
granularity scales.

On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Josh Baird 
<joshba...@gmail.com<mailto:joshba...@gmail.com>> wrote:
I like this as well.  I was thinking it would be a good idea to put out a 
statement..

On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Paul McCall 
<pa...@pdmnet.net<mailto:pa...@pdmnet.net>> wrote:
Yep, that is concise and effective

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com<mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com>] On Behalf 
Of Gino A. Villarini
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017 7:57 AM
To: af@afmug.com<mailto:af@afmug.com>
Subject: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

What do you guys think? Lots of customers calling!

Aeronet Statement on Net Neutrality

AeroNet, a ISP that provides advanced Internet services to Business and 
individuals in PR, USVI and Miami, applauds any action taken  that promotes  
innovation and advancement of connectivity for all consumers. In Aeronet’s  17 
years of history, our pricing structure has always been simple, unlimited and 
without any toll gates.  The placement and removal of Net Neutrality rules have 
not and will not modify our pricing policy.  We maintain our commitment to 
provide the fastest and most reliable service to our customers, with innovative 
solutions that fulfill our customers needs.



Gino A. Villarini

President

Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968


[cid:image001.png@01D375BB.62CD6B40]

Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

[Mathew Howard]

Awesome! I think I'll go block Facebook, and see how that goes...

On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 1:52 PM, Steve Jones <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2017/12/15/net_
> neutrality_s_end_was_mostly_celebrated_by_the_far_right.html
>
> Apparently now we ISPs can lawfully block individual sites and will do so
> with impunity.
>
> These people with these petty ideas I dont think understand how poorly
> granularity scales.
>
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Josh Baird <joshba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I like this as well.  I was thinking it would be a good idea to put out a
>> statement..
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Paul McCall <pa...@pdmnet.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Yep, that is concise and effective
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Gino A.
>>> Villarini
>>> *Sent:* Friday, December 15, 2017 7:57 AM
>>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>>> *Subject:* [AFMUG] Our NN statment
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> What do you guys think? Lots of customers calling!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Aeronet Statement on Net Neutrality
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> AeroNet, a ISP that provides advanced Internet services to Business and
>>> individuals in PR, USVI and Miami, applauds any action taken  that promotes
>>>  innovation and advancement of connectivity for all consumers. In Aeronet’s
>>>  17 years of history, our pricing structure has always been simple,
>>> unlimited and without any toll gates.  The placement and removal of Net
>>> Neutrality rules have not and will not modify our pricing policy.  We
>>> maintain our commitment to provide the fastest and most reliable service to
>>> our customers, with innovative solutions that fulfill our customers needs.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> *Gino A. Villarini*
>>>
>>> President
>>>
>>> Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968
>>>
>>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

[Steve Jones]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2017/12/15/net_neutrality_s_end_was_mostly_celebrated_by_the_far_right.html

Apparently now we ISPs can lawfully block individual sites and will do so
with impunity.

These people with these petty ideas I dont think understand how poorly
granularity scales.

On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 10:08 AM, Josh Baird <joshba...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I like this as well.  I was thinking it would be a good idea to put out a
> statement..
>
> On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Paul McCall <pa...@pdmnet.net> wrote:
>
>> Yep, that is concise and effective
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Gino A. Villarini
>> *Sent:* Friday, December 15, 2017 7:57 AM
>> *To:* af@afmug.com
>> *Subject:* [AFMUG] Our NN statment
>>
>>
>>
>> What do you guys think? Lots of customers calling!
>>
>>
>>
>> Aeronet Statement on Net Neutrality
>>
>>
>>
>> AeroNet, a ISP that provides advanced Internet services to Business and
>> individuals in PR, USVI and Miami, applauds any action taken  that promotes
>>  innovation and advancement of connectivity for all consumers. In Aeronet’s
>>  17 years of history, our pricing structure has always been simple,
>> unlimited and without any toll gates.  The placement and removal of Net
>> Neutrality rules have not and will not modify our pricing policy.  We
>> maintain our commitment to provide the fastest and most reliable service to
>> our customers, with innovative solutions that fulfill our customers needs.
>>
>>
>>
>> *Gino A. Villarini*
>>
>> President
>>
>> Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968
>>
>>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

[Josh Baird]

I like this as well.  I was thinking it would be a good idea to put out a
statement..

On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 10:45 AM, Paul McCall <pa...@pdmnet.net> wrote:

> Yep, that is concise and effective
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Gino A. Villarini
> *Sent:* Friday, December 15, 2017 7:57 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* [AFMUG] Our NN statment
>
>
>
> What do you guys think? Lots of customers calling!
>
>
>
> Aeronet Statement on Net Neutrality
>
>
>
> AeroNet, a ISP that provides advanced Internet services to Business and
> individuals in PR, USVI and Miami, applauds any action taken  that promotes
>  innovation and advancement of connectivity for all consumers. In Aeronet’s
>  17 years of history, our pricing structure has always been simple,
> unlimited and without any toll gates.  The placement and removal of Net
> Neutrality rules have not and will not modify our pricing policy.  We
> maintain our commitment to provide the fastest and most reliable service to
> our customers, with innovative solutions that fulfill our customers needs.
>
>
>
> *Gino A. Villarini*
>
> President
>
> Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

[Jaime Solorza]

Mafia style, forget about it!
Jamaica style, no big if man!
Chicano style, no piri ese!

Jaime Solorza

On Dec 15, 2017 8:45 AM, "Paul McCall" <pa...@pdmnet.net> wrote:

> Yep, that is concise and effective
>
>
>
> *From:* Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] *On Behalf Of *Gino A. Villarini
> *Sent:* Friday, December 15, 2017 7:57 AM
> *To:* af@afmug.com
> *Subject:* [AFMUG] Our NN statment
>
>
>
> What do you guys think? Lots of customers calling!
>
>
>
> Aeronet Statement on Net Neutrality
>
>
>
> AeroNet, a ISP that provides advanced Internet services to Business and
> individuals in PR, USVI and Miami, applauds any action taken  that promotes
>  innovation and advancement of connectivity for all consumers. In Aeronet’s
>  17 years of history, our pricing structure has always been simple,
> unlimited and without any toll gates.  The placement and removal of Net
> Neutrality rules have not and will not modify our pricing policy.  We
> maintain our commitment to provide the fastest and most reliable service to
> our customers, with innovative solutions that fulfill our customers needs.
>
>
>
> *Gino A. Villarini*
>
> President
>
> Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968
>
>

Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

[Paul McCall]

Yep, that is concise and effective

From: Af [mailto:af-boun...@afmug.com] On Behalf Of Gino A. Villarini
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017 7:57 AM
To: af@afmug.com
Subject: [AFMUG] Our NN statment

What do you guys think? Lots of customers calling!

Aeronet Statement on Net Neutrality

AeroNet, a ISP that provides advanced Internet services to Business and 
individuals in PR, USVI and Miami, applauds any action taken  that promotes  
innovation and advancement of connectivity for all consumers. In Aeronet's  17 
years of history, our pricing structure has always been simple, unlimited and 
without any toll gates.  The placement and removal of Net Neutrality rules have 
not and will not modify our pricing policy.  We maintain our commitment to 
provide the fastest and most reliable service to our customers, with innovative 
solutions that fulfill our customers needs.



Gino A. Villarini

President

Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968


[cid:image001.png@01D37591.CBB71F40]

[AFMUG] Our NN statment

[Gino A. Villarini]

What do you guys think? Lots of customers calling!

Aeronet Statement on Net Neutrality

AeroNet, a ISP that provides advanced Internet services to Business and 
individuals in PR, USVI and Miami, applauds any action taken  that promotes  
innovation and advancement of connectivity for all consumers. In Aeronet’s  17 
years of history, our pricing structure has always been simple, unlimited and 
without any toll gates.  The placement and removal of Net Neutrality rules have 
not and will not modify our pricing policy.  We maintain our commitment to 
provide the fastest and most reliable service to our customers, with innovative 
solutions that fulfill our customers needs.



Gino A. Villarini


President
Metro Office Park #18 Suite 304 Guaynabo, Puerto Rico 00968

[cid:aeronet-logo_310cfc3e-6691-4f69-bd49-b37b834b9238.png]