"Blocking on the other hand IS discrimination. "
Well that depends how you do it and look at it.
I do not believe in outright blocking completely. Allowing the call to go
through in some capacity, does not hurt the consumer hard. 911 must still go
through,etc. However, I pefer to suggest blocking by slowing down traffic.
As a result only the QOS of the call goes down. Which incourages the
Provider to pay up or play fair, for them to ahve adequate QOS, and
equivellent service to the premium service I offer my clients with our own
service. Do you really feel you should have to give competitors better
service possibly than you give your own paying clients? I'd control it so my
clients lways has a distinquishable improved quality of service.
Is that wrong? Whats the difference really from prioritizing traffic versus
slowing traffic? In directly it the same results. If I prioritize my
traffic, by default the others traffic gets shoved behind and slowed, if I
purposely slow down competitor's traffic it reserves bandwdith so that my
customers do not get a degrated service level inadvertently. Slowing down
may be a bit more agressive, but noe the less its the same result. The
reasons is that by slowing down competitors traffic, there is a larger
chance that the priority speed given to my subscriber will actually work.
Its protection measures. Prioritzing on the other hand is not always doable
based on limitations on the technology and nature of TCPIP.
Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
----- Original Message -----
From: "Butch Evans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 8:23 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] VOIP / CommPartners -- "big dumb
pipeprovider"vs.end-to-endconnectivity/content provider (html formatted for
easier reading)
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".
--
Butch Evans
BPS Networks http://www.bpsnetworks.com/
Bernie, MO
Mikrotik Certified Consultant
(http://www.mikrotik.com/consultants.html)
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
