Re: [AFMUG] Our NN statment
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
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 Reynoldswrote: > 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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"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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Awesome! I think I'll go block Facebook, and see how that goes... On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 1:52 PM, Steve Joneswrote: > 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 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 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
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 Bairdwrote: > 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 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
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 McCallwrote: > 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
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"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
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]