[WISPA] Free Press Floods the FCC With Net Neutrality Petitions

[Rick Harnish]

While normally an ally of WISPA, in this case Free Press is taking a
position that is opposite WISPs feelings on this topic.  This is a MAJOR
reason while it is absolutely essential that ALL WISPs take the time to file
by 5:00 PM tomorrow.  I have attached the WISPA filing and a template to
use.

 

Once you have customized the letter, please make a .pdf copy or a .doc file
and upload it at the following website.
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/upload/display?z=rhroc.  If you choose not to
use the WISPA template letter but want to write your own comments, you can
either follow the previous procedure or use the Express filing method at
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/upload/display?z=nc5cd.  The proceeding number
ET Docket Nos. 09-191 and WC Docket No. 07-52.  You can add the second
Proceeding Number by clicking Add Proceeding.

 

 


Free Press Floods FCC With Net Neutrality Petitions


Group wants Commission to toughen up chairman's proposed compromise order


By John Eggerton -- Broadcasting & Cable, 12/13/2010 11:45:52 AM


Free Press is killing some trees to try and "save" the Internet.

Free Press says that

SavetheInternet.com volunteers will be hand-delivering 2 million petitions
to the FCC, with volunteers making the trek every hour on the hour until
sometime Tuesday.

Free Press wants the FCC to toughen up the chairman's proposed compromise
order expanding and codifying its network openness rules. The order does not
rely on reclassifying broadband access under some common carrier regs (Title
II), allows for specialized services, and does not apply most of them to
wireless broadband.

The FCC is planning to vote on the order Dec. 21, which is still subject to
edits and emendations as the commissioners vet the draft.

Free Press calls the chairmen's proposal a "toothless" effort that "give[s]
just about everything to giant phone and cable companies, and leave[s]
Internet users with almost nothing."

That two million are not all in response to the compromise FCC proposal, but
represent the names on a number of different petitions on net neutrality
cirucluated over the past couple of years, according to Free Press' Craig
Aaron.

Copies of the different petitions are being attached to the appropriate list
of names, approximately 50,000 per boxful, which are being delivered hourly
to the commission through Tuesday. 

To monitor the progress of the data drop, go to
 marathon.savetheinternet.com

 

Respectfully,

 

Rick Harnish

Executive Director

WISPA

260-307-4000 cell

866-317-2851 WISPA Office

Skype: rick.harnish.

rharn...@wispa.org

 




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Free Press Floods the FCC With Net Neutrality Petitions

[Cameron Crum]

I just sent ours in.

Cameron

On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Rick Harnish  wrote:

>  While normally an ally of WISPA, in this case Free Press is taking a
> position that is opposite WISPs feelings on this topic.  This is a MAJOR
> reason while it is absolutely essential that ALL WISPs take the time to file
> by 5:00 PM tomorrow.  I have attached the WISPA filing and a template to
> use.
>
>
>
> Once you have customized the letter, please make a .pdf copy or a .doc file
> and upload it at the following website.
> http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/upload/display?z=rhroc.  If you choose not
> to use the WISPA template letter but want to write your own comments, you
> can either follow the previous procedure or use the Express filing method at
> http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/upload/display?z=nc5cd.  The proceeding
> number ET Docket Nos. 09-191 and WC Docket No. 07-52.  You can add the
> second Proceeding Number by clicking Add Proceeding.
>
>
>
>
>  Free Press Floods FCC With Net Neutrality Petitions
> Group wants Commission to toughen up chairman's proposed compromise order
> *By John Eggerton -- Broadcasting & Cable, 12/13/2010 11:45:52 AM*
>
> Free Press is killing some trees to try and "save" the Internet.
>
> Free Press says that *SavetheInternet.com volunteers will be
> hand-delivering 2 million 
> petitions*
>  to the FCC, with volunteers making the trek every hour on the hour until
> sometime Tuesday.
>
> Free Press wants the FCC to toughen up the chairman's proposed compromise
> order expanding and codifying its network openness rules. The order does not
> rely on reclassifying broadband access under some common carrier regs (Title
> II), allows for specialized services, and does not apply most of them to
> wireless broadband.
>
> The FCC is planning to vote on the order Dec. 21, which is still subject to
> edits and emendations as the commissioners vet the draft.
>
> Free Press calls the chairmen's proposal a "toothless" effort that "give[s]
> just about everything to giant phone and cable companies, and leave[s]
> Internet users with almost nothing."
>
> That two million are not all in response to the compromise FCC proposal,
> but represent the names on a number of different petitions on net neutrality
> cirucluated over the past couple of years, according to Free Press' Craig
> Aaron.
>
> Copies of the different petitions are being attached to the appropriate
> list of names, approximately 50,000 per boxful, which are being delivered
> hourly to the commission through Tuesday.
>
> To monitor the progress of the data drop, go to *
> marathon.savetheinternet.com*
>
>
>
> Respectfully,
>
>
>
> *Rick Harnish*
>
> Executive Director
>
> WISPA
>
> 260-307-4000 cell
>
> 866-317-2851 WISPA Office
>
> Skype: rick.harnish.
>
> rharn...@wispa.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
>
> 
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Free Press Floods the FCC With Net Neutrality Petitions

[Tom DeReggi]

Oldest trick in the book, attach a position to an ideological word that people 
cant disagree with. Who can disagree with "freedom".

Little does the public know they are supporting a position that could reduce 
freedom and possibly even destroy their freedom of choice, as they signon to 
positition that will reduce speeds, increase costs, reduce investment, and 
destroy small competitive providers. 

Freedom really means no regulation, so providers can have the freedom to build 
networks without unnecessary beurocracy and burdens.
Freedom to allow people to build businesses based without strings attached.

Ironically, Google is one of the largest advocates of NEtNEutrality but yet one 
of the largeset threats to freedom. NetNEutrality is best purposed to stop 
abuse of power by those with market power. I'd argue Google has majority market 
power beyond that of any single access provider. Google has more eyeballs and 
and steers Internet traffic more than any other entity. 

What would happen if we made a "Save the Small Provider, the real Open 
Internet" or "Vote Content Neutrality not NetNeutrality for an Open Internet" 
would it get a top indexing on search engines? Or would the "Save the INternet" 
Pro NetNEutrality get the top Indexing? 

Google has the power allow consumers to see the point of view of content 
providers, but to prevent their access to view Access provider's point of view.
On a critical vote week like this week, Google has power to censor what 
consumers can find and have access to.  What preventing Google from doing that 
right now, and compromising our Free country?   

What makes content providers a better steward of Freedom than Access providers?

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


  - Original Message - 
  From: Cameron Crum 
  To: WISPA General List 
  Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 4:32 PM
  Subject: Re: [WISPA] Free Press Floods the FCC With Net Neutrality Petitions


  I just sent ours in.

  Cameron


  On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Rick Harnish  wrote:

While normally an ally of WISPA, in this case Free Press is taking a 
position that is opposite WISPs feelings on this topic.  This is a MAJOR reason 
while it is absolutely essential that ALL WISPs take the time to file by 5:00 
PM tomorrow.  I have attached the WISPA filing and a template to use.



Once you have customized the letter, please make a .pdf copy or a .doc file 
and upload it at the following website.  
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/upload/display?z=rhroc.  If you choose not to use 
the WISPA template letter but want to write your own comments, you can either 
follow the previous procedure or use the Express filing method at 
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/upload/display?z=nc5cd.  The proceeding number ET 
Docket Nos. 09-191 and WC Docket No. 07-52.  You can add the second Proceeding 
Number by clicking Add Proceeding.





Free Press Floods FCC With Net Neutrality Petitions
Group wants Commission to toughen up chairman's proposed compromise order
By John Eggerton -- Broadcasting & Cable, 12/13/2010 11:45:52 AM
Free Press is killing some trees to try and "save" the Internet.

Free Press says that SavetheInternet.com volunteers will be hand-delivering 
2 million petitions to the FCC, with volunteers making the trek every hour on 
the hour until sometime Tuesday.

Free Press wants the FCC to toughen up the chairman's proposed compromise 
order expanding and codifying its network openness rules. The order does not 
rely on reclassifying broadband access under some common carrier regs (Title 
II), allows for specialized services, and does not apply most of them to 
wireless broadband.

The FCC is planning to vote on the order Dec. 21, which is still subject to 
edits and emendations as the commissioners vet the draft.

Free Press calls the chairmen's proposal a "toothless" effort that "give[s] 
just about everything to giant phone and cable companies, and leave[s] Internet 
users with almost nothing."

That two million are not all in response to the compromise FCC proposal, 
but represent the names on a number of different petitions on net neutrality 
cirucluated over the past couple of years, according to Free Press' Craig Aaron.

Copies of the different petitions are being attached to the appropriate 
list of names, approximately 50,000 per boxful, which are being delivered 
hourly to the commission through Tuesday. 

To monitor the progress of the data drop, go to marathon.savetheinternet.com



Respectfully,



Rick Harnish

Executive Director

WISPA

260-307-4000 cell

866-317-2851 WISPA Office

Skype: rick.harnish.

rharn...@wispa.org







-

Re: [WISPA] Free Press Floods the FCC With Net Neutrality Petitions

[Jeff Broadwick - Lists]

You nailed it Tom!

 

Regards,

Jeff
ImageStream Sales Manager
800-813-5123 x106

  _  

From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Tom DeReggi
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 2:30 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Free Press Floods the FCC With Net Neutrality Petitions

 

Oldest trick in the book, attach a position to an ideological word that
people cant disagree with. Who can disagree with "freedom".

 

Little does the public know they are supporting a position that could reduce
freedom and possibly even destroy their freedom of choice, as they signon to
positition that will reduce speeds, increase costs, reduce investment, and
destroy small competitive providers. 

 

Freedom really means no regulation, so providers can have the freedom to
build networks without unnecessary beurocracy and burdens.

Freedom to allow people to build businesses based without strings attached.

 

Ironically, Google is one of the largest advocates of NEtNEutrality but yet
one of the largeset threats to freedom. NetNEutrality is best purposed to
stop abuse of power by those with market power. I'd argue Google has
majority market power beyond that of any single access provider. Google has
more eyeballs and and steers Internet traffic more than any other entity. 

 

What would happen if we made a "Save the Small Provider, the real Open
Internet" or "Vote Content Neutrality not NetNeutrality for an Open
Internet" would it get a top indexing on search engines? Or would the "Save
the INternet" Pro NetNEutrality get the top Indexing? 

 

Google has the power allow consumers to see the point of view of content
providers, but to prevent their access to view Access provider's point of
view.

On a critical vote week like this week, Google has power to censor what
consumers can find and have access to.  What preventing Google from doing
that right now, and compromising our Free country?   

 

What makes content providers a better steward of Freedom than Access
providers?

 

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband

 

 

- Original Message - 

From: Cameron Crum <mailto:cc...@wispmon.com>  

To: WISPA General List <mailto:wireless@wispa.org>  

Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 4:32 PM

Subject: Re: [WISPA] Free Press Floods the FCC With Net Neutrality Petitions

 

I just sent ours in.

Cameron

On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 3:03 PM, Rick Harnish  wrote:

While normally an ally of WISPA, in this case Free Press is taking a
position that is opposite WISPs feelings on this topic.  This is a MAJOR
reason while it is absolutely essential that ALL WISPs take the time to file
by 5:00 PM tomorrow.  I have attached the WISPA filing and a template to
use.

 

Once you have customized the letter, please make a .pdf copy or a .doc file
and upload it at the following website.
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/upload/display?z=rhroc.  If you choose not to
use the WISPA template letter but want to write your own comments, you can
either follow the previous procedure or use the Express filing method at
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs/upload/display?z=nc5cd.  The proceeding number
ET Docket Nos. 09-191 and WC Docket No. 07-52.  You can add the second
Proceeding Number by clicking Add Proceeding.

 

 


Free Press Floods FCC With Net Neutrality Petitions


Group wants Commission to toughen up chairman's proposed compromise order


By John Eggerton -- Broadcasting & Cable, 12/13/2010 11:45:52 AM


Free Press is killing some trees to try and "save" the Internet.

Free Press says that
<http://www.broadcastingcable.com/common/jumplink.php?target=http%3A%2F%2Fac
t2.freepress.net%2Fsign%2Freal_net_neutrality%2F%3Fsource%3Dposterous>
SavetheInternet.com volunteers will be hand-delivering 2 million petitions
to the FCC, with volunteers making the trek every hour on the hour until
sometime Tuesday.

Free Press wants the FCC to toughen up the chairman's proposed compromise
order expanding and codifying its network openness rules. The order does not
rely on reclassifying broadband access under some common carrier regs (Title
II), allows for specialized services, and does not apply most of them to
wireless broadband.

The FCC is planning to vote on the order Dec. 21, which is still subject to
edits and emendations as the commissioners vet the draft.

Free Press calls the chairmen's proposal a "toothless" effort that "give[s]
just about everything to giant phone and cable companies, and leave[s]
Internet users with almost nothing."

That two million are not all in response to the compromise FCC proposal, but
represent the names on a number of different petitions on net neutrality
cirucluated over the past couple of years, according to Free Press' Craig
Aaron.

Copies of the different petitions are being attached to the appropriate list
of names, 

Re: [WISPA] Free Press Floods the FCC With Net Neutrality Petitions

[Charles N Wyble]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 12/14/2010 11:29 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote:
> Oldest trick in the book, attach a position to an ideological word that 
> people cant disagree with. Who can disagree with "freedom".
> 
> Little does the public know they are supporting a position that could reduce 
> freedom and possibly even destroy their freedom of choice, as they signon to 
> positition that will reduce speeds, increase costs, reduce investment, and 
> destroy small competitive providers. 
> 
> Freedom really means no regulation, so providers can have the freedom to 
> build networks without unnecessary beurocracy and burdens.
> Freedom to allow people to build businesses based without strings attached.

Um no regulation? Really? So if I build out a large cable plant I
can charge whatever I want, deny access to people, sue anyone who tries
to compete into the ground, not upgrade my infrastructure and provide
best effort 911 service?

I know that many in the operations community oppose regulation, but it's
a two edged sword.


> 
> Ironically, Google is one of the largest advocates of NEtNEutrality but yet 
> one of the largeset threats to freedom. NetNEutrality is best purposed to 
> stop abuse of power by those with market power. I'd argue Google has majority 
> market power beyond that of any single access provider. Google has more 
> eyeballs and and steers Internet traffic more than any other entity. 
> 
> What would happen if we made a "Save the Small Provider, the real Open 
> Internet" or "Vote Content Neutrality not NetNeutrality for an Open Internet" 
> would it get a top indexing on search engines? Or would the "Save the 
> INternet" Pro NetNEutrality get the top Indexing? 
> 
> Google has the power allow consumers to see the point of view of content 
> providers, but to prevent their access to view Access provider's point of 
> view.
> On a critical vote week like this week, Google has power to censor what 
> consumers can find and have access to.  What preventing Google from doing 
> that right now, and compromising our Free country?   

Google is an advertising company. A very successful one. Having done
extensive work in the advertising industry, I can tell you that
censorship is the least of your worries. The threats to freedom come
from the amount of information that is collected and collated on
individuals and used to target advertising.

Yes they possess extensive capabilities to support their distribution
channel. Yes that channel is getting more and more extensive on a
regular basis (search/maps/mail/mobile/tv).

They have an open peering policy. They actively encourage people to peer
with them and work out the best traffic engineering policies.

How many folks here have peered with google and built TE policies? I
know of at least one WISP that has. I have worked for organizations that
exchanged massive amounts of traffic with google/microsoft and other
large brands.

There is a massive amount of things that happen behind the scenes, when
you move from the access to distribution layer. Most people that speak
publicly in the operations community are at the access layer (running
eyeball networks). Very few people from the content
provider/distribution space speak publicly. I am limited in what I can
say, as I'm bound by various NDA. However I can say that the content
providers and eye ball networks are interested in working out a good
deal for everyone because of all the interdependencies in the digital
asset supply chain. (Comcast being the obvious exception).


Now I am of the impression that we need to have some regulation. It
needs to let us run our networks in the best way possible. That means
everything from traffic shaping on our customer facing links, to
whatever traffic engineering policies we deem necessary to improve the
bottom line.

Also WISPS do need to be recognized (at a national level) as wireline
replacement. We should not be lumped in with the JOKE that is "mobile
broadband ^H^H^H toy broadband".

> 
> What makes content providers a better steward of Freedom than Access 
> providers?

Take a look at the supply chain sometime. The market will dictate self
regulation. It's only when people like Comcast get greedy and have a
monopoly, that things get nasty. At that point it is my opinion that the
market rapidly steps in and shuts out that player. AT&T/Verizion/WISPS
should be aggressively targeting Comcast subscribers with much better
rates, and peering with L3/Netflix everywhere.

This is what an ASN and your own IP space buys you.

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJNCRuDAAoJEMvvG/TyLEAt9LEP/3bsR6dcyXUVBTGIF6kM++pA
5pg+vEqL0G5d6i+XR1DvDs+SlfILOfdSWsv3oRFSN/AHmopznq/2lB4AR/9SMqZs
fdntkaB2wiuQBbAFeZUhXxJkKo8i/3hFzFLfzKApfTA0I6NoD3uUpO4kbzLFjMsq
17SJAN2RX9RxhmNTayyPnpb4Fj+otX4/NukWMB2da04k6f04jP1ok5uuAQOFErMm
O6yi+KOVycp432LecNrVsHXwYHLdR0flpqfy8++S

Re: [WISPA] Free Press Floods the FCC With Net Neutrality Petitions

[Tom DeReggi]

> AT&T/Verizion/WISPS
> should be aggressively targeting Comcast subscribers with much better
> rates, and peering with L3/Netflix everywhere.
>
> This is what an ASN and your own IP space buys you.
>

Well thats part of the problem. Do we really have that option?

L3 and Netflix often deny peering requests from smaller operators. They dont 
let us play, and dont always allow us the option to share in the savings.
So what do you think NetFlix's mentality is If we were to want to 
interconnect Would they ask us to eat the cost to build out to them, or 
would they eat the csot to build out to us, or would we share the csot and 
meet in the middle? Everyone thinks they are more valluable than the small 
local provider, and the small local provider usually gets leveraged into 
paying the cost to interconnect.  Why shouldn't WISPs have peering 
relationships direct with NetFlix, where either party pays the other for 
having higher push traffic? Why are we not worthy to be the recipient of 
compinsation in peering?

Dont misunderstand me, I do not mean to stereo type and I am not saying for 
sure that NetFlix or any content provider aren't willing to peer or talk 
about fair terms. I'm just saying, who's in control of whether it will 
occur?

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - 
From: "Charles N Wyble" 
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 2:48 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Free Press Floods the FCC With Net Neutrality Petitions


> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 12/14/2010 11:29 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote:
>> Oldest trick in the book, attach a position to an ideological word that 
>> people cant disagree with. Who can disagree with "freedom".
>>
>> Little does the public know they are supporting a position that could 
>> reduce freedom and possibly even destroy their freedom of choice, as they 
>> signon to positition that will reduce speeds, increase costs, reduce 
>> investment, and destroy small competitive providers.
>>
>> Freedom really means no regulation, so providers can have the freedom to 
>> build networks without unnecessary beurocracy and burdens.
>> Freedom to allow people to build businesses based without strings 
>> attached.
>
> Um no regulation? Really? So if I build out a large cable plant I
> can charge whatever I want, deny access to people, sue anyone who tries
> to compete into the ground, not upgrade my infrastructure and provide
> best effort 911 service?
>
> I know that many in the operations community oppose regulation, but it's
> a two edged sword.
>
>
>>
>> Ironically, Google is one of the largest advocates of NEtNEutrality but 
>> yet one of the largeset threats to freedom. NetNEutrality is best 
>> purposed to stop abuse of power by those with market power. I'd argue 
>> Google has majority market power beyond that of any single access 
>> provider. Google has more eyeballs and and steers Internet traffic more 
>> than any other entity.
>>
>> What would happen if we made a "Save the Small Provider, the real Open 
>> Internet" or "Vote Content Neutrality not NetNeutrality for an Open 
>> Internet" would it get a top indexing on search engines? Or would the 
>> "Save the INternet" Pro NetNEutrality get the top Indexing?
>>
>> Google has the power allow consumers to see the point of view of content 
>> providers, but to prevent their access to view Access provider's point of 
>> view.
>> On a critical vote week like this week, Google has power to censor what 
>> consumers can find and have access to.  What preventing Google from doing 
>> that right now, and compromising our Free country?
>
> Google is an advertising company. A very successful one. Having done
> extensive work in the advertising industry, I can tell you that
> censorship is the least of your worries. The threats to freedom come
> from the amount of information that is collected and collated on
> individuals and used to target advertising.
>
> Yes they possess extensive capabilities to support their distribution
> channel. Yes that channel is getting more and more extensive on a
> regular basis (search/maps/mail/mobile/tv).
>
> They have an open peering policy. They actively encourage people to peer
> with them and work out the best traffic engineering policies.
>
> How many folks here have peered with google and built TE policies? I
> know of at least one WISP that has. I have worked for organizations that
> exchanged massive amounts of traffic with google/microsoft and other
> large brands.
&g

Re: [WISPA] Free Press Floods the FCC With Net Neutrality Petitions

[Fred Goldstein]

At 12/16/2010 05:07 AM, Tom DeReggi wrote:
> > AT&T/Verizion/WISPS
> > should be aggressively targeting Comcast subscribers with much better
> > rates, and peering with L3/Netflix everywhere.
> >
> > This is what an ASN and your own IP space buys you.
> >
>
>Well thats part of the problem. Do we really have that option?
>
>L3 and Netflix often deny peering requests from smaller operators. They dont
>let us play, and dont always allow us the option to share in the savings.
>So what do you think NetFlix's mentality is If we were to want to
>interconnect Would they ask us to eat the cost to build out to them, or
>would they eat the csot to build out to us, or would we share the csot and
>meet in the middle? Everyone thinks they are more valluable than the small
>local provider, and the small local provider usually gets leveraged into
>paying the cost to interconnect.  Why shouldn't WISPs have peering
>relationships direct with NetFlix, where either party pays the other for
>having higher push traffic? Why are we not worthy to be the recipient of
>compinsation in peering?
>
>Dont misunderstand me, I do not mean to stereo type and I am not saying for
>sure that NetFlix or any content provider aren't willing to peer or talk
>about fair terms. I'm just saying, who's in control of whether it will
>occur?

Be careful what you wish for; you might get it.

The reason that the Internet works today is that nobody's in 
charge.  Beyond the limited number of access providers, is as close 
as we come these days to a "free market".  Hence the price paid by 
one provider to another is set by negotiation, not rules.  Contrast 
this to the PSTN where there are elaborate, complex, ambiguous, 
overlapping rules for "intercarrier compensation" and carrier can 
spend huge sums on lawyers arguing over it.

The dispute between Level 3 and Comcast hinges over who gets the most 
value out of the deal.  Comcast can refuse to take Level 3's CDN 
traffic, and thus its subscribers won't get the same quality of 
Netflix.  They might lose subscribers.  Or their backbone expenses 
might rise.  Akamai apparently was paying Comcast; Level 3 doesn't want to pay.

Once regulations get written and interconnection moves from voluntary 
to mandatory (this could be part of "neutrality"), the ISPs with the 
most expensive, limited capacity are the first to get hurt.  Guess 
who that is.  Not Comcast, not AT&T.  Do you really want to tie up 
your radios with the super-low-value bits of streaming TV?

  --
  Fred Goldsteink1io   fgoldstein "at" ionary.com
  ionary Consulting  http://www.ionary.com/
  +1 617 795 2701 




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Free Press Floods the FCC With Net Neutrality Petitions

[Mike Hammett]

You wouldn't connect to NetFlix, but to LimeLight, Akamai, or Level3.

This is where multiple WISPs buying bandwidth in aggregate helps out.  
Could WISPs with bigger (gig+) pipes let us know what percentage of your 
traffic goes to ASNs 20940 and 22822?

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



On 12/16/2010 4:07 AM, Tom DeReggi wrote:
>> AT&T/Verizion/WISPS
>> should be aggressively targeting Comcast subscribers with much better
>> rates, and peering with L3/Netflix everywhere.
>>
>> This is what an ASN and your own IP space buys you.
>>
> Well thats part of the problem. Do we really have that option?
>
> L3 and Netflix often deny peering requests from smaller operators. They dont
> let us play, and dont always allow us the option to share in the savings.
> So what do you think NetFlix's mentality is If we were to want to
> interconnect Would they ask us to eat the cost to build out to them, or
> would they eat the csot to build out to us, or would we share the csot and
> meet in the middle? Everyone thinks they are more valluable than the small
> local provider, and the small local provider usually gets leveraged into
> paying the cost to interconnect.  Why shouldn't WISPs have peering
> relationships direct with NetFlix, where either party pays the other for
> having higher push traffic? Why are we not worthy to be the recipient of
> compinsation in peering?
>
> Dont misunderstand me, I do not mean to stereo type and I am not saying for
> sure that NetFlix or any content provider aren't willing to peer or talk
> about fair terms. I'm just saying, who's in control of whether it will
> occur?
>
> Tom DeReggi
> RapidDSL&  Wireless, Inc
> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
>
>
> - Original Message -----
> From: "Charles N Wyble"
> To: "WISPA General List"
> Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 2:48 PM
> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Free Press Floods the FCC With Net Neutrality Petitions
>
>
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 12/14/2010 11:29 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote:
>>> Oldest trick in the book, attach a position to an ideological word that
>>> people cant disagree with. Who can disagree with "freedom".
>>>
>>> Little does the public know they are supporting a position that could
>>> reduce freedom and possibly even destroy their freedom of choice, as they
>>> signon to positition that will reduce speeds, increase costs, reduce
>>> investment, and destroy small competitive providers.
>>>
>>> Freedom really means no regulation, so providers can have the freedom to
>>> build networks without unnecessary beurocracy and burdens.
>>> Freedom to allow people to build businesses based without strings
>>> attached.
>> Um no regulation? Really? So if I build out a large cable plant I
>> can charge whatever I want, deny access to people, sue anyone who tries
>> to compete into the ground, not upgrade my infrastructure and provide
>> best effort 911 service?
>>
>> I know that many in the operations community oppose regulation, but it's
>> a two edged sword.
>>
>>
>>> Ironically, Google is one of the largest advocates of NEtNEutrality but
>>> yet one of the largeset threats to freedom. NetNEutrality is best
>>> purposed to stop abuse of power by those with market power. I'd argue
>>> Google has majority market power beyond that of any single access
>>> provider. Google has more eyeballs and and steers Internet traffic more
>>> than any other entity.
>>>
>>> What would happen if we made a "Save the Small Provider, the real Open
>>> Internet" or "Vote Content Neutrality not NetNeutrality for an Open
>>> Internet" would it get a top indexing on search engines? Or would the
>>> "Save the INternet" Pro NetNEutrality get the top Indexing?
>>>
>>> Google has the power allow consumers to see the point of view of content
>>> providers, but to prevent their access to view Access provider's point of
>>> view.
>>> On a critical vote week like this week, Google has power to censor what
>>> consumers can find and have access to.  What preventing Google from doing
>>> that right now, and compromising our Free country?
>> Google is an advertising company. A very successful one. Having done
>> extensive work in the advertising industry, I can tell you that
>> censorship is the least of your worries. The threats to freedom come
>> from the amount of information that 

Re: [WISPA] Free Press Floods the FCC With Net Neutrality Petitions

[Charles N Wyble]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 12/16/2010 02:07 AM, Tom DeReggi wrote:
>> AT&T/Verizion/WISPS
>> should be aggressively targeting Comcast subscribers with much better
>> rates, and peering with L3/Netflix everywhere.
>>
>> This is what an ASN and your own IP space buys you.
>>
> 
> Well thats part of the problem. Do we really have that option?
> 
> L3 and Netflix often deny peering requests from smaller operators. They dont 
> let us play, and dont always allow us the option to share in the savings.
> So what do you think NetFlix's mentality is If we were to want to 
> interconnect Would they ask us to eat the cost to build out to them, or 
> would they eat the csot to build out to us, or would we share the csot and 
> meet in the middle? Everyone thinks they are more valluable than the small 
> local provider, and the small local provider usually gets leveraged into 
> paying the cost to interconnect.  Why shouldn't WISPs have peering 
> relationships direct with NetFlix, where either party pays the other for 
> having higher push traffic? Why are we not worthy to be the recipient of 
> compinsation in peering?

Let's get some data around this. How many WISPS here have tried to peer?
With whom? On what terms? I know Akamai has traffic commits. Do the
other players? Let's start some open dialog and as an industry leverage
our collective bargaining power to peer. Generic hand waving and saying
"big boys won't let us in the sandbox" doesn't work for me as an
operator. I like specifics.

That's something I'm hoping to do with socalwifi.net. I want to create a
WISP friendly carrier. Peer with me over a private AS and I'll peer with
all the other guys at various interconnection points. Or something like
that. I'm working with some top tier networking talent here in the
southland to build out the infrastructure.

In short I'm building my own middle mile. Of course the socal area is
full of carrier neutral interconnection points with wireless meet me
rooms. Other areas of the country not so much.



> 
> Dont misunderstand me, I do not mean to stereo type and I am not saying for 
> sure that NetFlix or any content provider aren't willing to peer or talk 
> about fair terms. I'm just saying, who's in control of whether it will 
> occur?

Simple. The eyeball network and the content provider. Not the feds. Not
the FCC. A direct 1 to 1 relationship (or an open peering fabric).
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
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=TldW
-END PGP SIGNATURE-



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Free Press Floods the FCC With Net Neutrality Petitions

[Charles N Wyble]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 12/16/2010 09:34 AM, Mike Hammett wrote:
> You wouldn't connect to NetFlix, but to LimeLight, Akamai, or Level3.

Sure. You are absolutely correct. Ideally you would connect to an open
peering fabric that has all these players on it. That way you don't need
to meet Akamai traffic commits, as they are already in a vast majority
of the exchanges.


> 
> This is where multiple WISPs buying bandwidth in aggregate helps out.  

Absoultetly. This is one of the core tenants of socalwifi.net model.
Aggregation/collective bargaining power.


-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
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=H4YQ
-END PGP SIGNATURE-



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Free Press Floods the FCC With Net Neutrality Petitions

[Brian Webster]

This sounds like a good idea. To help this I think we should get every WISP
to put a pushpin on Google Earth at their peering point(s) and create a
master file to talk with these peering partners.



Thank You,
Brian Webster
www.wirelessmapping.com
www.Broadband-Mapping.com


-Original Message-
From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
Behalf Of Charles N Wyble
Sent: Thursday, December 16, 2010 2:56 PM
To: wireless@wispa.org
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Free Press Floods the FCC With Net Neutrality Petitions

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 12/16/2010 02:07 AM, Tom DeReggi wrote:
>> AT&T/Verizion/WISPS
>> should be aggressively targeting Comcast subscribers with much better
>> rates, and peering with L3/Netflix everywhere.
>>
>> This is what an ASN and your own IP space buys you.
>>
> 
> Well thats part of the problem. Do we really have that option?
> 
> L3 and Netflix often deny peering requests from smaller operators. They
dont 
> let us play, and dont always allow us the option to share in the savings.
> So what do you think NetFlix's mentality is If we were to want to 
> interconnect Would they ask us to eat the cost to build out to them,
or 
> would they eat the csot to build out to us, or would we share the csot and

> meet in the middle? Everyone thinks they are more valluable than the small

> local provider, and the small local provider usually gets leveraged into 
> paying the cost to interconnect.  Why shouldn't WISPs have peering 
> relationships direct with NetFlix, where either party pays the other for 
> having higher push traffic? Why are we not worthy to be the recipient of 
> compinsation in peering?

Let's get some data around this. How many WISPS here have tried to peer?
With whom? On what terms? I know Akamai has traffic commits. Do the
other players? Let's start some open dialog and as an industry leverage
our collective bargaining power to peer. Generic hand waving and saying
"big boys won't let us in the sandbox" doesn't work for me as an
operator. I like specifics.

That's something I'm hoping to do with socalwifi.net. I want to create a
WISP friendly carrier. Peer with me over a private AS and I'll peer with
all the other guys at various interconnection points. Or something like
that. I'm working with some top tier networking talent here in the
southland to build out the infrastructure.

In short I'm building my own middle mile. Of course the socal area is
full of carrier neutral interconnection points with wireless meet me
rooms. Other areas of the country not so much.



> 
> Dont misunderstand me, I do not mean to stereo type and I am not saying
for 
> sure that NetFlix or any content provider aren't willing to peer or talk 
> about fair terms. I'm just saying, who's in control of whether it will 
> occur?

Simple. The eyeball network and the content provider. Not the feds. Not
the FCC. A direct 1 to 1 relationship (or an open peering fabric).
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
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=TldW
-END PGP SIGNATURE-




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/


 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Free Press Floods the FCC With Net Neutrality Petitions

[jp]

On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 11:56:11AM -0800, Charles N Wyble wrote:
> Let's get some data around this. How many WISPS here have tried to peer?
> With whom? On what terms? I know Akamai has traffic commits. Do the
> other players? Let's start some open dialog and as an industry leverage
> our collective bargaining power to peer. Generic hand waving and saying
> "big boys won't let us in the sandbox" doesn't work for me as an
> operator. I like specifics.

I've peered in the past with an ISP because we both were part of a 
statewide frame relay network and it was just the cost of a PVC to do 
it. 

The current impediments to small ISPs peering are:
1. BGP skills and hardware. It used to be the only reliable thing for 
BGP was a big cisco decked out with overpriced ram. Now anyone can do 
BGP private peering with a PC running MT/vyatta/linux or an 
MT routerboard, or their cisco or their juniper. Still, few have BGP 
experience to do this comfortably. 

You can get the talent in socal, but it's not nationwide. People could 
hire Butch or someone on guru.com to setup bgp, but they like to have 
the self sufficiency to DIY in many cases. I've probably met face to 
face all the people in my state who are proven BGP skillful and it's not 
a lot.

2. very high speed links between ISPs. Chances are ISPs with somewhat 
overlapping service areas don't have core network speeds all the way to 
each other's edge, and a peering connection would then be slower than 
just using your uplink. Getting these super high speed and reliable 
connections between WISPs is doable, but not cheap in all situations. 
If you were in the same city, yes, it could be very cost efficient.

Arra middle-mile projects, friendly clecs, or cheap backhaul radios 
could change this. For example, Maine will have a 3-ring-binder fiber 
network where most of the ISPs or their upstream will connect to it. 
They will then be able to connect to each other with extreme speeds 
exceeding their uplinks.

3. decreasing uplink costs. Used to be you'd do anything to save a 
precious megabit and peering was one such thing. I had a satellite 
receiver system for receive usenet to offload the bandwidth back in 
97ish. Now it's just outsourced. We used to cache a lot more web traffic 
too. Now it's helpful but not so important. If there were an occasional 
megabit of traffic going to another local ISP, I wouldn't really 
consider it worth the effort of peering. I would suspect most of the 
traffic between WISPs is email and a little random p2p, and perhaps some 
vpn activity between employees and businesses that use different service 
providers. The peers despite the extreme minimalist financial investment 
should be more reliable than the uplink to make good sense as well.


> That's something I'm hoping to do with socalwifi.net. I want to create a
> WISP friendly carrier. Peer with me over a private AS and I'll peer with
> all the other guys at various interconnection points. Or something like
> that. I'm working with some top tier networking talent here in the
> southland to build out the infrastructure.
> 
> In short I'm building my own middle mile. Of course the socal area is
> full of carrier neutral interconnection points with wireless meet me
> rooms. Other areas of the country not so much.
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > Dont misunderstand me, I do not mean to stereo type and I am not saying for 
> > sure that NetFlix or any content provider aren't willing to peer or talk 
> > about fair terms. I'm just saying, who's in control of whether it will 
> > occur?
> 
> Simple. The eyeball network and the content provider. Not the feds. Not
> the FCC. A direct 1 to 1 relationship (or an open peering fabric).
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
> 
> iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJNCm7bAAoJEMvvG/TyLEAtf7MP/R62xrf3a1v/G+mQMCzrA3xi
> HvbUg7OglDal1JvqFvSrEnIxvq6gmwlrII+XABVo/dlKIGkX9tx6OA8Ni0IOftrn
> hp6ba5tVdN3nSmkBCKhIK7BpaABHfYDmYlVnGLP7GCweBWClODGK6v0tSUmam//d
> oXFRtInH7XX+fNC0OQpFPWCJE5TLDRi54Py1Usui+2uYMvyNM1FvqzIgIgJwfgBb
> gTKRqI+cAzCWch3AlLbdxJhNcNEj4FLo+Fqi8IqNSOB7PbH28hF6Xt7MnuNnvFN8
> LmEvHfilhVX2uH908zhvmk93UaJxI1b3SlOnGvstbN/FxBHOpTxjIJhzLyEoD1eO
> 3muxK9pI7n+XmetTbamBrNVPMGa3S55x8dDCpZiCe2raPukhbiYGEWPRYvslK3/D
> 1yc2KxZI7Oj7hG88qin9hIqjWOt1I/aoAAGezv0N1Rt/y0oRpP8jubNev+clMcB0
> xQzoft8oibP1M+j3J8YvTcYG8fST889MpIrzNCDpKT2NDhpv9XKYDxL+uUvSwf+n
> Ar10XzASgyle4Ao+z+aIru4rUk44gdGeswbyWhGleAxz7GG+ZlE0NfqA5A6nKH5e
> JtE2lo+HiE9xDzzOmVVGWy68xHtLYjodQZOM8e0RfolIbtbNCBWUxWBc3PyRuCjv
> si2j+0ooCeAvT5ZIXe0o
> =TldW
> -END PGP SIGNATURE-
> 
> 
> 
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> 
>  
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
> 
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
> 

Re: [WISPA] Free Press Floods the FCC With Net Neutrality Petitions

[Charles N Wyble]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On 12/16/2010 01:01 PM, jp wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 11:56:11AM -0800, Charles N Wyble wrote:
>> Let's get some data around this. How many WISPS here have tried to peer?
>> With whom? On what terms? I know Akamai has traffic commits. Do the
>> other players? Let's start some open dialog and as an industry leverage
>> our collective bargaining power to peer. Generic hand waving and saying
>> "big boys won't let us in the sandbox" doesn't work for me as an
>> operator. I like specifics.
> 
> I've peered in the past with an ISP because we both were part of a 
> statewide frame relay network and it was just the cost of a PVC to do 
> it. 

It's not about access networks peering. That's usually not worth the
effort for the reasons you outlined below. It's about peering with the
content provider networks.


> 
> The current impediments to small ISPs peering are:
> 1. BGP skills and hardware. It used to be the only reliable thing for 
> BGP was a big cisco decked out with overpriced ram. Now anyone can do 
> BGP private peering with a PC running MT/vyatta/linux or an 
> MT routerboard, or their cisco or their juniper. Still, few have BGP 
> experience to do this comfortably. 

The level of effort is hopefully nothing more the a textbook templatized
config that connects you to the fabric. The talent is in running the
fabric.

> 
> You can get the talent in socal, but it's not nationwide. People could 
> hire Butch or someone on guru.com to setup bgp, but they like to have 
> the self sufficiency to DIY in many cases. I've probably met face to 
> face all the people in my state who are proven BGP skillful and it's not 
> a lot.

Yeah it's a small subset for sure.

> 
> 3. decreasing uplink costs. Used to be you'd do anything to save a 
> precious megabit and peering was one such thing. I had a satellite 
> receiver system for receive usenet to offload the bandwidth back in 
> 97ish. Now it's just outsourced. We used to cache a lot more web traffic 
> too. Now it's helpful but not so important. If there were an occasional 
> megabit of traffic going to another local ISP, I wouldn't really 
> consider it worth the effort of peering. I would suspect most of the 
> traffic between WISPs is email and a little random p2p, and perhaps some 
> vpn activity between employees and businesses that use different service 
> providers. The peers despite the extreme minimalist financial investment 
> should be more reliable than the uplink to make good sense as well.

Again it's not about access networks. It's about content networks and
access networks.

-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
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=9aVZ
-END PGP SIGNATURE-



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/