Couple of thoughts on this.
Seeing they are moving to fee based non profit rather than a community
group that is being financed by themselves and their node hosts,
Fine, let the them go to the school of hard nocks and figure out why our
subs are not allowed to run servers on the network without us the
network operator approval and pre configuration.
The second thought I have about beng able to hook up "Legal Devices",
How are they going to get anyone to pay them for their bandwidth if
their subs connect 12dbi omni's on 200mw cards as free open wifi
networks and give the whole neighborhood free inet.
As a matter of fact, I would say both of these are interwoven and they
will soon be singing a different song after they get their diplomas.
George
John Scrivner wrote:
Frank,
I have a problem with the second item listed on the challenge myself. It
states:
2) Consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their
choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement
<http://www.cybertelecom.org/security/Calea.htm>;
I do not allow my broadband subscribers to use their connection for
applications or services which act as a server or daemon for delivering
content to others. Broadband networks are not designed to be content
delivery networks from the customer end generally. In the case of
wireless broadband access, customers can cause network problems if they
allow thousands of open ports to a popular file download. I have seen
this many times and I have provisions in my AUP which allow me to turn
customers off who cause network problems from trying to use broadband as
a content delivery mechanism. I welcome other thoughts but I believe we
need to have the ability to stop abuses of a network which can cause us
problems. With that said I agree that there needs to be some commitment
from operators to allow access to their networks for free and open
competition. I just do not agree that there can be no limits to what we
can or cannot allow on the network. Especially when some things can harm
network functionality.
John Scrivner
Frank Muto wrote:
In light of SBC CEO Edward Whitacre’s comments about charging websites
a fee
for providing services to SBC broadband customers, NYCwireless is
launching
the NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge.
NYCwireless is challenging every company that provides broadband
services in
NYC to make a public statement supporting the 4 Network Neutrality
principles outlined below. We will keep a scorecard on the NYCwireless
website showing which companies have shown a commitment to free trade and
open access by embracing these principles.
Broadband Challenge
http://www.nycwireless.net/tiki-index.php?page=BroadbandChallenge
Broadband Challenge Scorecard
http://www.nycwireless.net/tiki-index.php?page=BroadbandChallengeScoreCard
Every provider should include a web page with their public statement on
their own websites. We suggest that the URL to find a provider’s
stance on
Network Neutrality be made available to the Internet community via the
URL
http://YourISPWebsite/neutral.html.
Frank Muto
Co-founder - Washington Bureau for ISP Advocacy - WBIA
Telecom Summit Ad Hoc Committee
http://gigabytemarch.blog.com/ www.wbia.us
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
