The way I see it is this: (automatic insertion of my .o2 cents)
If Bell South can charge people extra for added services I can too.
You pay extra for call waiting, call forwarding, call blocking...etc - -
- you pay extra on my internet service to have me give your VoIP packets
prioritization! My packet prioritization is an extra added "value"
service that I am not required to do - I offer it as a service to my
PAYING clients.
< beating chest & flailing arms wildly > :-P
Mac Dearman
Maximum Access, LLC.
www.inetsouth.com
www.radioresponse.org (Katrina relief efforts)
318-728-8600 - Rayville
318-728-9600
Butch Evans wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jan 2006, Charles Wu wrote:
For some reason, I am getting a feeling that thread may be going
beyond "topic debate" to "personal attacks" -- so I will restate my
If you are referring to my comment, you are missing the point. I am
not, in any way, attacking you personally. I am simply saying that
you are overstating what I see others saying. If you take it
personally, you should re-read what I posted.
Read the following article and tell me what you think
http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2005/12/13/telecoms_want_
their_products_to_travel_on_a_faster_internet/?page=full
I'm not certain what you want to know. Personally (and this is
probably not a popular opinion here), I think that if the network
operator has the ability to offer a premium network service, they
should be allowed to do that. I believe that I, as a network
operator, should be allowed the same freedom. At the same time, I
think that there should be NO PUBLIC MONEY involved in the pool here.
Now, Look back at the original topic of debate and ask yourself the
following question...is there REALLY a distinction between the
"prioritization" and/or "discrimination (or blocking taken to the
Prioritization of "X" is NOT discrimination of "not X". THAT is the
point I was making before. No matter how many times you say it, or
how many ways you put it, it does not change a simple fact.
Nth degree) of certain types of Internet packets? If you think
Blocking on the other hand IS discrimination. For instance, I block
LOTS of traffic. I block ALL traffic to and from known "hacker
havens". I do not accept mail from certain servers. I only allow
certain volumes of P2P traffic to flow over my network. These things
enhance my service for my subscribers. I have a few customers who
have opted to move on to other ISPs as a result of these decisions.
That is their choice, and in the end, it benefits my remaining subs
all the more. The fact is, there has been customer movement in both
directions. I have moved several customer ONTO my network for the
same reason others have left.
about it, prioritizing "certain my preferred packets" across my
physical network is really no different than discriminating
(depreferencing or blocking) my competitors -- in fact, the Network
Neutrality (free love, etc) camp would argue that "allowing" certain
providers to pay for prioritized / privilege access is
Ok..now it's time for a personal attack. Those guys are KOOKS.
The topic of debate that I am addressing is the argument between
"it's my @[EMAIL PROTECTED] network so I can do whatever I want" vs. "the Internet
is a free and open medium or Network Neutrality).
I have no problem with this debate. I think it is a silly debate, but
there are others who will argue this till they are blue in the face.
I don't have time to do that, so I will most likely bow out and watch
from afar, as I have been doing.
SBC started it, now BellSouth is getting into the act. Two articles
(1, 2) highlight comments made by William L. Smith, CTO of BellSouth,
about how he'd really like to be able to charge internet companies
for priority access to his network and customers.
While I believe SBC (and BS <-- Is it just me, or does THIS
abbreviation belong with ALL the RBOCs?) would be shooting themselves
in the foot, they ought to be free to attempt to do this. Again, they
should be held accountable for what they have built with PUBLIC MONEY.
Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge
KOOKS! I can only agree with about 25% of what they say. Even that
is a liberal guess. Here are my retorts to the KOOK statements.
1. Consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content of
their choice;
Consumers are entitled to a free choice in a free market to decide
which network operator offers them the best "bang for their buck".
2. Consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their
choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement;
Consumers are entitled to a free choice in a free market to decide
which network operator offers them the best "bang for their buck".
3. Consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices
that do not harm the network; and
Consumers are entitled to a free choice in a free market to decide
which network operator offers them the best "bang for their buck".
4. Consumers are entitled to competition among network providers,
application and service providers, and content providers.
Hmm...1 out of 4...pretty close to 25% as I said above.
Now, lets open the floor for discussion...
Do that. I will watch from the "woodwork".
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/