Re: [WISPA] Network Neutrality talking points

2017-12-16 Thread Seth Mattinen
On 12/16/17 9:39 AM, Vance Shipley wrote: > > Sure they did. What would you do if a "customer" (from your perspective) > said to you that they were special and you shouldn't charge them anything? > > A) you would ignore them, or B) you would give them a price. Either way > it's your choice, at

Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality bandwidth providers

2017-12-16 Thread Jared Brown
Life isn't fair and you are not entitled to your oversubscription ratios.    I'm fine with lower cost plans that have higher contention during peak hours, as long as it's clearly and fairly disclosed.    I'm not fine with plans being advertised as XX Mbps, flatrate and no data caps and then

Re: [WISPA] Net neutrality bandwidth providers

2017-12-16 Thread Jared Brown
I counter your claims of fallacy with my own claim of bad analogy. The restaurant business is nothing like the ISP business, where critical inputs have lower and lower unit costs each year, the seller sets the rate of service and consumption has well know diurnal usage patterns.    However,

Re: [WISPA] Network Neutrality talking points

2017-12-16 Thread Rowell Dionicio
I agree. Prioritizing VoIP is to provide a better quality phone call for the user. On Sat, Dec 16, 2017 at 9:17 AM Marco Coelho wrote: > There is nothing wrong with prioritizing one type of service over another > (VOIP vs FTP). It leads to a better quality of service for

Re: [WISPA] Network Neutrality talking points

2017-12-16 Thread Jared Brown
On December 16, 2017, "Vance Shipley" wrote: > ... however if you agree that you'll save money on your upstream and want to > install a shared cost, meet in the middle, peering with > Netflix (Google, Amazon, Acme startup, ...) you've created a "fast lane" and > are now

Re: [WISPA] Network Neutrality talking points

2017-12-16 Thread Mike Hammett
Right. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP - Original Message - From: "Vance Shipley" To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 12:21:39 PM Subject: Re:

Re: [WISPA] Network Neutrality talking points

2017-12-16 Thread CBB - Jay Fuller
listenedenjoyed the calls from listeners too. good job! sounds like you may have got some business out of it too! - Original Message - From: t...@cherrycapitalconnection.com To: 'WISPA General List' Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 11:41 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA]

Re: [WISPA] Network Neutrality talking points

2017-12-16 Thread Vance Shipley
... however if you agree that you'll save money on your upstream and want to install a shared cost, meet in the middle, peering with Netflix (Google, Amazon, Acme startup, ...) you've created a "fast lane" and are now the enemy of ignorant net neutrality advocates. On Dec 16, 2017 23:39, "Mike

Re: [WISPA] Network Neutrality talking points

2017-12-16 Thread Mike Hammett
Correct. Netflix should not be entitled to free connections, but the ISP should see the advantage in doing so and accept. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP - Original Message - From: "Vance Shipley"

Re: [WISPA] Network Neutrality talking points

2017-12-16 Thread Vance Shipley
"You" are an ISP of any size but think of the current context of a WISP. "They" are some party who wants access to your network subscribers. To begin with, when you get that call, it looks identical to a potential customer wanting to order a dedicated access solution which you are happy to sell

Re: [WISPA] Network Neutrality talking points

2017-12-16 Thread Mike Hammett
Who is who here? We need to keep the conversation clear. I know I started with some ambiguity. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP - Original Message - From: "Vance Shipley" To: "WISPA General

Re: [WISPA] Network Neutrality talking points

2017-12-16 Thread tim
I was asked to speak on the issue of Net Neutrality. This is the recording http://wtcmradio.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Tim-Maylone-Cherry-Capital-Communications-12-01-17.mp3 Staying to point was one of my goals I thought I achieved. It was my first time in studio, Was kind of fun

Re: [WISPA] Network Neutrality talking points

2017-12-16 Thread Vance Shipley
On Dec 16, 2017 22:53, "Mike Hammett" wrote: They wanted paid peering and they got paid peering. NN didn't have any effect on that. The FCC specifically said they didn't understand how all that stuff works and didn't regulate Sure they did. What would you do if a

Re: [WISPA] Network Neutrality talking points

2017-12-16 Thread Mike Hammett
There is a lot of misunderstanding out there. You had to treat classes of traffic the same. All VoIP the same. All streaming video the same. All games the same, etc. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions Midwest Internet Exchange The Brothers WISP - Original

Re: [WISPA] Network Neutrality talking points

2017-12-16 Thread Josh Luthman
Legally there is. Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Dec 16, 2017 12:17 PM, "Marco Coelho" wrote: > There is nothing wrong with prioritizing one type of service over another > (VOIP vs FTP). It leads to a

Re: [WISPA] Network Neutrality talking points

2017-12-16 Thread Mike Hammett
"Fast Lanes" were an idea posed by the anti-ISP crowd and then when the big ISPs started to catch on to that, the anti-ISP latched onto that as the next evil. They wanted paid peering and they got paid peering. NN didn't have any effect on that. The FCC specifically said they didn't

Re: [WISPA] Network Neutrality talking points

2017-12-16 Thread Marco Coelho
There is nothing wrong with prioritizing one type of service over another (VOIP vs FTP). It leads to a better quality of service for the end user. Where this was going sideways earlier was when the big ISP companies were going to charge Netflix and Hulu directly if they wanted priority on their