[WISPA] Politics as Usual
After reading a story this morning on a industry related blog I wrote a letter to my Republican Congressman. I sent the same to my two Democrat Senators but just took out the reference to being a Republican. :) Anyway I'm putting it here just so you can remember that only we can keep the pressure up on our representatives on issues that affect us and this is as good of a subject as any to keep beating the drum: "A year ago I wrote you when the AT&T purchase was being approved stating we had to stay vigilant against the carriers blocking each other in what we refer to as Net Neutrality. You wrote back, and I thank you for that, stating there is no real proof of providers blocking any traffic. This despite my proof at the time that Clearwire was already blocking any Voice over IP service (Internet Phone) other then theirs. I felt your stand was naïve because trusting the Telephone companies is like trusting the prisoners to watch the prison. We're both good Republicans who want to let companies grow as they may to achieve profitability but the exclusionary tactics encouraging monopolistic behavior is alive as always in this industry. Here is a link showing how the wholly unregulated cable industry continues to set the standard of censorship and gradual demise of a free and open Internet: http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2007/10/comcast_is_bloc.html?cid=nl_IWK_daily It is my hope you will pay heed to my warning that open enterprise does not include making Internet access different by companies who make no public claims in their terms and conditions to their customers. This constitutes fraud as people buy Internet based on the belief that their subscription entitles them to a free and open network as it was built. I again greatly encourage you to consider Net Neutrality as a priority, or at the minimum, special written notification to their customers of blocked content, so the public can make an educated choice. These companies advertise they are an equal choice when they are not. Thank you, Forbes Mercy" ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON ** ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com ** ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at http://www.ispcon.com/register.php ** 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] Politics as Usual
Forbes, Thank you for having the awareness and taking the time to write your elected representatives. Your action sets an excellent example. If 10% of the WISP community would just follow your example, I think we would see a positive change for the better in our industry and for the "constituents" that we serve - the public. jack P.S. - It was good to see you at ISPCON. Forbes Mercy wrote: After reading a story this morning on a industry related blog I wrote a letter to my Republican Congressman. I sent the same to my two Democrat Senators but just took out the reference to being a Republican. :) Anyway I'm putting it here just so you can remember that only we can keep the pressure up on our representatives on issues that affect us and this is as good of a subject as any to keep beating the drum: "A year ago I wrote you when the AT&T purchase was being approved stating we had to stay vigilant against the carriers blocking each other in what we refer to as Net Neutrality. You wrote back, and I thank you for that, stating there is no real proof of providers blocking any traffic. This despite my proof at the time that Clearwire was already blocking any Voice over IP service (Internet Phone) other then theirs. I felt your stand was naïve because trusting the Telephone companies is like trusting the prisoners to watch the prison. We're both good Republicans who want to let companies grow as they may to achieve profitability but the exclusionary tactics encouraging monopolistic behavior is alive as always in this industry. Here is a link showing how the wholly unregulated cable industry continues to set the standard of censorship and gradual demise of a free and open Internet: http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2007/10/comcast_is_bloc.html?cid=nl_IWK_daily It is my hope you will pay heed to my warning that open enterprise does not include making Internet access different by companies who make no public claims in their terms and conditions to their customers. This constitutes fraud as people buy Internet based on the belief that their subscription entitles them to a free and open network as it was built. I again greatly encourage you to consider Net Neutrality as a priority, or at the minimum, special written notification to their customers of blocked content, so the public can make an educated choice. These companies advertise they are an equal choice when they are not. Thank you, Forbes Mercy" ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON ** ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com ** ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at http://www.ispcon.com/register.php ** 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/ -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. FCC License # PG-12-25133 Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs" True Vendor-Neutral Wireless Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting FCC Part 15 Certification for Manufacturers and Service Providers Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON ** ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com ** ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at http://www.ispcon.com/register.php ** 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] Politics as Usual
Well said Forbes! On Fri, 2007-10-26 at 09:29 -0700, Forbes Mercy wrote: > After reading a story this morning on a industry related blog I wrote a > letter to my Republican Congressman. I sent the same to my two Democrat > Senators but just took out the reference to being a Republican. :) Anyway > I'm putting it here just so you can remember that only we can keep the > pressure up on our representatives on issues that affect us and this is as > good of a subject as any to keep beating the drum: > > "A year ago I wrote you when the AT&T purchase was being approved stating we > had to stay vigilant against the carriers blocking each other in what we > refer to as Net Neutrality. You wrote back, and I thank you for that, > stating there is no real proof of providers blocking any traffic. This > despite my proof at the time that Clearwire was already blocking any Voice > over IP service (Internet Phone) other then theirs. > > I felt your stand was naïve because trusting the Telephone companies is like > trusting the prisoners to watch the prison. We're both good Republicans who > want to let companies grow as they may to achieve profitability but the > exclusionary tactics encouraging monopolistic behavior is alive as always in > this industry. Here is a link showing how the wholly unregulated cable > industry continues to set the standard of censorship and gradual demise of a > free and open Internet: > > http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2007/10/comcast_is_bloc.html?cid=nl_IWK_daily > > It is my hope you will pay heed to my warning that open enterprise does not > include making Internet access different by companies who make no public > claims in their terms and conditions to their customers. This constitutes > fraud as people buy Internet based on the belief that their subscription > entitles them to a free and open network as it was built. > > I again greatly encourage you to consider Net Neutrality as a priority, or at > the minimum, special written notification to their customers of blocked > content, so the public can make an educated choice. These companies > advertise they are an equal choice when they are not. > > Thank you, > Forbes Mercy" > > > > ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at > ISPCON ** > ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com ** > ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** > ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** > ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at > http://www.ispcon.com/register.php ** > > > 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/ ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON ** ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com ** ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at http://www.ispcon.com/register.php ** 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] Politics as Usual
I'll crack open the can of worms What are you suggesting here Forbes? If it's just truth in advertising then I'm behind you 100%. If however you are suggesting that an ISP should not be able to block traffic of a particular type I will have to disagree. Currently I do not shape traffic beyond bandwidth limits on my customers and blocking netbios traffic at each AP. I would hate to lose the ability to block ports 137-139 though from a security standpoint. I know there are many other ISPs that aggressively shape their bandwidth just to stay in business. Forcing them to open up the pipes will most likely end up with poorer service for more customers. If I were an uninvolved 3rd party it would be interesting to see the market react to legislation that forced no traffic shaping beyond bandwidth caps, but as an independent ISP I don't think I want to try to live through it. Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless Forbes Mercy wrote: After reading a story this morning on a industry related blog I wrote a letter to my Republican Congressman. I sent the same to my two Democrat Senators but just took out the reference to being a Republican. :) Anyway I'm putting it here just so you can remember that only we can keep the pressure up on our representatives on issues that affect us and this is as good of a subject as any to keep beating the drum: "A year ago I wrote you when the AT&T purchase was being approved stating we had to stay vigilant against the carriers blocking each other in what we refer to as Net Neutrality. You wrote back, and I thank you for that, stating there is no real proof of providers blocking any traffic. This despite my proof at the time that Clearwire was already blocking any Voice over IP service (Internet Phone) other then theirs. I felt your stand was naïve because trusting the Telephone companies is like trusting the prisoners to watch the prison. We're both good Republicans who want to let companies grow as they may to achieve profitability but the exclusionary tactics encouraging monopolistic behavior is alive as always in this industry. Here is a link showing how the wholly unregulated cable industry continues to set the standard of censorship and gradual demise of a free and open Internet: http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2007/10/comcast_is_bloc.html?cid=nl_IWK_daily It is my hope you will pay heed to my warning that open enterprise does not include making Internet access different by companies who make no public claims in their terms and conditions to their customers. This constitutes fraud as people buy Internet based on the belief that their subscription entitles them to a free and open network as it was built. I again greatly encourage you to consider Net Neutrality as a priority, or at the minimum, special written notification to their customers of blocked content, so the public can make an educated choice. These companies advertise they are an equal choice when they are not. Thank you, Forbes Mercy" ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON ** ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com ** ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at http://www.ispcon.com/register.php ** 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/ http://mail.shwisp.net/spam/dspam.cgi?template=history&user=tetherow&retrain=spam&signatureID=16,4722160f226407888450014";>!DSPAM:16,4722160f226407888450014! ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON ** ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com ** ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at http://www.ispcon.com/register.php ** 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] Politics as Usual
My take is that this is the that fateful "first step on a very slippery slope". Today they rate shape the traffic, next week they out right block it. I agree that any provider needs to use what ever tools they have to keep users "in line". The problem that Forbes is pointing out (I think) is that they are not telling customers they are doing this [rate shaping]. It also stems from the bad use of the word "unlimited" who's root is the heyday of dial-up [in terms of hours, not bandwidth or quantity of data). Regardless of weather I see it correctly or not, Very Good Work and we all should get writing. www.house.gov/writerep On 10/26/07, Sam Tetherow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'll crack open the can of worms > > What are you suggesting here Forbes? If it's just truth in advertising > then I'm behind you 100%. > > If however you are suggesting that an ISP should not be able to block > traffic of a particular type I will have to disagree. Currently I do > not shape traffic beyond bandwidth limits on my customers and blocking > netbios traffic at each AP. I would hate to lose the ability to block > ports 137-139 though from a security standpoint. > > I know there are many other ISPs that aggressively shape their bandwidth > just to stay in business. Forcing them to open up the pipes will most > likely end up with poorer service for more customers. > > If I were an uninvolved 3rd party it would be interesting to see the > market react to legislation that forced no traffic shaping beyond > bandwidth caps, but as an independent ISP I don't think I want to try to > live through it. > > Sam Tetherow > Sandhills Wireless > > Forbes Mercy wrote: > > After reading a story this morning on a industry related blog I wrote a > > letter to my Republican Congressman. I sent the same to my two Democrat > > Senators but just took out the reference to being a Republican. :) Anyway > > I'm putting it here just so you can remember that only we can keep the > > pressure up on our representatives on issues that affect us and this is as > > good of a subject as any to keep beating the drum: > > > > "A year ago I wrote you when the AT&T purchase was being approved stating > > we had to stay vigilant against the carriers blocking each other in what we > > refer to as Net Neutrality. You wrote back, and I thank you for that, > > stating there is no real proof of providers blocking any traffic. This > > despite my proof at the time that Clearwire was already blocking any Voice > > over IP service (Internet Phone) other then theirs. > > > > I felt your stand was naïve because trusting the Telephone companies is > > like trusting the prisoners to watch the prison. We're both good > > Republicans who want to let companies grow as they may to achieve > > profitability but the exclusionary tactics encouraging monopolistic > > behavior is alive as always in this industry. Here is a link showing how > > the wholly unregulated cable industry continues to set the standard of > > censorship and gradual demise of a free and open Internet: > > > > http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2007/10/comcast_is_bloc.html?cid=nl_IWK_daily > > > > It is my hope you will pay heed to my warning that open enterprise does not > > include making Internet access different by companies who make no public > > claims in their terms and conditions to their customers. This constitutes > > fraud as people buy Internet based on the belief that their subscription > > entitles them to a free and open network as it was built. > > > > I again greatly encourage you to consider Net Neutrality as a priority, or > > at the minimum, special written notification to their customers of blocked > > content, so the public can make an educated choice. These companies > > advertise they are an equal choice when they are not. > > > > Thank you, > > Forbes Mercy" > > > > > > > > ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at > > ISPCON ** > > ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com ** > > ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** > > ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** > > ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at > > http://www.ispcon.com/register.php ** > > > > > > 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/ > > > > > href="http://mail.shwisp.net/spam/dspam.cgi?template=history&user=tetherow&retrain=spam&signatureID=16,4722160f226407888450014";>!DSPAM:16,4722160f226407888450014! > > > > > > >
Re: [WISPA] Politics as Usual
To be honest, I don't agree with providers restricting traffic on a per-protocol basis, with, perhaps, the exception of SMB ports (137-139 & 445) simply because there very few people legitimately uses SMB over WAN outside of a VPN. The problem with allowing any blocking, even with full disclosure, is that there is very little choice in the market (2-3 service provider options is typical for most people, and a lot don't even have that). Likewise, the major service providers tend to mirror each other heavily enough that they are more or less interchangeable. In other words, it's not a matter of "well, if comcast doesn't allow bit torrent, I'll just go to a provider that does". If they are allowed to block, they will...the negative repurcussions of blocking are quite small compared to the benefit of forcing customers to their own services. By and large, I don't agree with the approach that some of the list members have espoused that would seem to suggest that such actions are ok for the small mom & pop providers but not for the major service providers. If you are going to provide Internet access, do your part to further the culture of a content-neutral policy. If nothing else, you'll at least be the provider that gives the alternative for customers want a more net netrality-minded service provider. On 10/26/07, Jeromie Reeves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > My take is that this is the that fateful "first step on a very > slippery slope". Today they rate shape the traffic, next week they out > right block it. I agree that any provider needs to use what ever tools > they have to keep users "in line". The problem that Forbes is pointing > out (I think) is that they are not telling customers they are doing > this [rate shaping]. It also stems from the bad use of the word > "unlimited" who's root is the heyday of dial-up [in terms of hours, > not bandwidth or quantity of data). Regardless of weather I see it > correctly or not, Very Good Work and we all should get writing. > www.house.gov/writerep > > > On 10/26/07, Sam Tetherow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I'll crack open the can of worms > > > > What are you suggesting here Forbes? If it's just truth in advertising > > then I'm behind you 100%. > > > > If however you are suggesting that an ISP should not be able to block > > traffic of a particular type I will have to disagree. Currently I do > > not shape traffic beyond bandwidth limits on my customers and blocking > > netbios traffic at each AP. I would hate to lose the ability to block > > ports 137-139 though from a security standpoint. > > > > I know there are many other ISPs that aggressively shape their bandwidth > > just to stay in business. Forcing them to open up the pipes will most > > likely end up with poorer service for more customers. > > > > If I were an uninvolved 3rd party it would be interesting to see the > > market react to legislation that forced no traffic shaping beyond > > bandwidth caps, but as an independent ISP I don't think I want to try to > > live through it. > > > > Sam Tetherow > > Sandhills Wireless > > > > Forbes Mercy wrote: > > > After reading a story this morning on a industry related blog I wrote a > > > letter to my Republican Congressman. I sent the same to my two Democrat > > > Senators but just took out the reference to being a Republican. :) > > > Anyway I'm putting it here just so you can remember that only we can keep > > > the pressure up on our representatives on issues that affect us and this > > > is as good of a subject as any to keep beating the drum: > > > > > > "A year ago I wrote you when the AT&T purchase was being approved stating > > > we had to stay vigilant against the carriers blocking each other in what > > > we refer to as Net Neutrality. You wrote back, and I thank you for that, > > > stating there is no real proof of providers blocking any traffic. This > > > despite my proof at the time that Clearwire was already blocking any > > > Voice over IP service (Internet Phone) other then theirs. > > > > > > I felt your stand was naïve because trusting the Telephone companies is > > > like trusting the prisoners to watch the prison. We're both good > > > Republicans who want to let companies grow as they may to achieve > > > profitability but the exclusionary tactics encouraging monopolistic > > > behavior is alive as always in this industry. Here is a link showing how > > > the wholly unregulated cable industry continues to set the standard of > > > censorship and gradual demise of a free and open Internet: > > > > > > http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2007/10/comcast_is_bloc.html?cid=nl_IWK_daily > > > > > > It is my hope you will pay heed to my warning that open enterprise does > > > not include making Internet access different by companies who make no > > > public claims in their terms and conditions to their customers. This > > > constitutes fraud as people buy Internet based on
Re: [WISPA] Politics as Usual
Inline. Clint Ricker wrote: To be honest, I don't agree with providers restricting traffic on a per-protocol basis, with, perhaps, the exception of SMB ports (137-139 & 445) simply because there very few people legitimately uses SMB over WAN outside of a VPN. The problem with allowing any blocking, even with full disclosure, is that there is very little choice in the market (2-3 service provider options is typical for most people, and a lot don't even have that). Likewise, the major service providers tend to mirror each other heavily enough that they are more or less interchangeable. In other words, it's not a matter of "well, if comcast doesn't allow bit torrent, I'll just go to a provider that does". If they are allowed to block, they will...the negative repurcussions of blocking are quite small compared to the benefit of forcing customers to their own services. 2-3 services providers sounds like a choice to me, I guess I'm not sure what the number would be. I guess if you just have 2-3 DSL resellers in an area that you would not have much choice but if between a DSL, cable and WISP you can't find what you are looking for, you are probably being unrealistic in your expectations. The only way that you could make actual net neutrality (the banning of any traffic shaping beyond a bit cap) work would be to move to Marlon's method of billing where you charge on a byte transferred basis. I don't know too many people that can survive in the residential model without heavy oversubscription and net neutrality will kill that model because if you oversubscribe 10 to 1 and you get more than 10% P2P traffic you are on the losing end of it. By and large, I don't agree with the approach that some of the list members have espoused that would seem to suggest that such actions are ok for the small mom & pop providers but not for the major service providers. If you are going to provide Internet access, do your part to further the culture of a content-neutral policy. If nothing else, you'll at least be the provider that gives the alternative for customers want a more net netrality-minded service provider. I agree with you here. To ask for a different set of rules makes us no different than the worst of the monopolies. Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless On 10/26/07, Jeromie Reeves <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: My take is that this is the that fateful "first step on a very slippery slope". Today they rate shape the traffic, next week they out right block it. I agree that any provider needs to use what ever tools they have to keep users "in line". The problem that Forbes is pointing out (I think) is that they are not telling customers they are doing this [rate shaping]. It also stems from the bad use of the word "unlimited" who's root is the heyday of dial-up [in terms of hours, not bandwidth or quantity of data). Regardless of weather I see it correctly or not, Very Good Work and we all should get writing. www.house.gov/writerep On 10/26/07, Sam Tetherow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I'll crack open the can of worms What are you suggesting here Forbes? If it's just truth in advertising then I'm behind you 100%. If however you are suggesting that an ISP should not be able to block traffic of a particular type I will have to disagree. Currently I do not shape traffic beyond bandwidth limits on my customers and blocking netbios traffic at each AP. I would hate to lose the ability to block ports 137-139 though from a security standpoint. I know there are many other ISPs that aggressively shape their bandwidth just to stay in business. Forcing them to open up the pipes will most likely end up with poorer service for more customers. If I were an uninvolved 3rd party it would be interesting to see the market react to legislation that forced no traffic shaping beyond bandwidth caps, but as an independent ISP I don't think I want to try to live through it. Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless Forbes Mercy wrote: After reading a story this morning on a industry related blog I wrote a letter to my Republican Congressman. I sent the same to my two Democrat Senators but just took out the reference to being a Republican. :) Anyway I'm putting it here just so you can remember that only we can keep the pressure up on our representatives on issues that affect us and this is as good of a subject as any to keep beating the drum: "A year ago I wrote you when the AT&T purchase was being approved stating we had to stay vigilant against the carriers blocking each other in what we refer to as Net Neutrality. You wrote back, and I thank you for that, stating there is no real proof of providers blocking any traffic. This despite my proof at the time that Clearwire was already blocking any Voice over IP service (Internet Phone) other then theirs. I felt your stand was naïve because trusting the Telephone companies is like trusting the prisoners to watch the
Re: [WISPA] Politics as Usual
2-3 services providers sounds like a choice to me, I guess I'm not sure what the number would be. I guess if you just have 2-3 DSL resellers in an area that you would not have much choice but if between a DSL, cable and WISP you can't find what you are looking for, you are probably being unrealistic in your expectations. Add in other alternatives, Verizon, Clear Wire and Hughes and there really is comnpetition. Not sure about others, But I've met quite a few who use the Verizon card as their only internet connection, and I'm pretty certain we'll see a lot morte. ** Join us at the WISPA Reception at 6:30 PM on October the 16th 2007 at ISPCON ** ** ISPCON Fall 2007 - October 16-18 - San Jose, CA www.ispcon.com ** ** THE INTERNET INDUSTRY EVENT ** ** FREE Exhibits and Events Pass available until August 31 ** ** Use Customer Code WSEMF7 when you register online at http://www.ispcon.com/register.php ** 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] Politics as Usual
Inline as well :) On 10/27/07, Sam Tetherow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Inline. > > Clint Ricker wrote: > > To be honest, I don't agree with providers restricting traffic on a > > per-protocol basis, with, perhaps, the exception of SMB ports (137-139 > > & 445) simply because there very few people legitimately uses SMB over > > WAN outside of a VPN. > > > > The problem with allowing any blocking, even with full disclosure, is > > that there is very little choice in the market (2-3 service provider > > options is typical for most people, and a lot don't even have that). > > Likewise, the major service providers tend to mirror each other > > heavily enough that they are more or less interchangeable. In other > > words, it's not a matter of "well, if comcast doesn't allow bit > > torrent, I'll just go to a provider that does". If they are allowed > > to block, they will...the negative repurcussions of blocking are quite > > small compared to the benefit of forcing customers to their own > > services. > > > 2-3 services providers sounds like a choice to me, I guess I'm not sure > what the number would be. I guess if you just have 2-3 DSL resellers in > an area that you would not have much choice but if between a DSL, cable > and WISP you can't find what you are looking for, you are probably being > unrealistic in your expectations. Not really. I use a # of online outlets to view most of my media--I download movies online, I watch Joost occasionally, etc... In aggregrate, I'm a very light user, though, in terms of what I use. I think this can apply to a large portion of the population. If...once...as.. it becomes acceptable for providers to block various services and protocols, these are the services that I expect to get impacted fairly soon, because they heavily impact the bread and butter of the cable MSOs as well as the ongoing investments of AT&T and Verizon. And, if one major provider does it, they will all do it soon enough. The problem of "disclosure" and "competition" as resolutions to this problem is that the major service providers do act in concert in a lot of these things (I think the correct term is "oligarchy", which gives the illusion of choice. When it comes down to it, there is very little substantive difference among service providers. If you want a good example of this, look at most of the major petitions for relief that have been filed at the FCC--is it coincidence that all the RBOCs just happened to file the same petition in the same week? Shop for cell phone service lately? I can't be the only one that feels like it's all just rebranded versions of the same terms of service and pricing with some very small variances in cell phones (and these small variences become even smaller once they are locked down by the carrier). I'm not naive about the economics of the industry--I've been around the block a time or two :). I'm also aware that what makes the Internet so successful IS that it is an open platform. I do feel that service providers have a moral and ethical obligation not to damage the product that they are selling, and, in the end, closing off avenues of innovation does damage the Internet. BTW, I find it odd that independent service providers get sucked into fighting battles that are largely in their competitors interest. YOU win when applications like Movielink, Joost, and yes, even Bit Torrent thrive because they wean customers away from cable tit. The fact of the matter is is that 99% of you do not have the ability to deliver television services and what all to your customers. You LOSE customers now because they can get bundled alternatives from the competition. On the other hand, if there are thriving independent alternatives (ie Joost) to watching television, you win because your customers no longer need traditional television service. (I realize that's not quite there yet--but, for some people, it already is a reasonable substitute and the time will come IF it doesn't get strangled first where it is a viable substitute). Having to slightly adjust your oversubscription ratios is a small price to pay for your customers not needing to go to the competition for the services that you can't possibly offer that they need/want. > > The only way that you could make actual net neutrality (the banning of > any traffic shaping beyond a bit cap) work would be to move to Marlon's > method of billing where you charge on a byte transferred basis. I don't > know too many people that can survive in the residential model without > heavy oversubscription and net neutrality will kill that model because > if you oversubscribe 10 to 1 and you get more than 10% P2P traffic you > are on the losing end of it. > I disagree with this. Do you pay any more for 1MB of P2P traffic than 1MB of, say, http? From your cost perspective, all traffic is equal. The only thing that kills an oversubscription model is customers using beyond the oversubscription. P2P, or any other type of traff
Re: [WISPA] Politics as Usual
Forbes, You brought up an interesting point of view. The definition of someone selling "Internet" access. Yes, Consumers believe the term "Internet" to be OPEN access in terms of NetNeutrality. And likely could be considered deceptive or Fraud to advertise "Internet" for sale and it not be open. But what if a carrier calls it's service for sale, "Broadband". Broadband has not been branded as having to be "open" or "Public". Only thing tied to "broadband"'s definition is connectivity over 200kbps symetrical. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband 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/
