Mark Koskenmaki wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Sam Tetherow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 20, 2006 8:56 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality
Responses inline...
----- Original Message -----
*From:* David Sovereen <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
*To:* WISPA General List <mailto:wireless@wispa.org>
*Sent:* Tuesday, June 20, 2006 1:37 PM
*Subject:* Re: [WISPA] WCA Weighs In Against Net Neutrality
I respectfully disagree and think that WCA's position of less
regulation and allowing network operators operate their networks
how they want is the right approach. Net neutrality legislation
opens the door for content companies and your subscribers to force
open and equal access to all content on the Internet.
>>>> I don't see the problem with content companies and
subscribers having equal access to each other. That, after
all... IS WHAT I PROVIDE!
Not according to what you reply below. Limiting P2P and prioritizing
VOIP is not equal access to all content on the Internet.
There is equal access. I limit the amount of data transferred.
How many WISPs on this list are limiting P2P traffic separate from
other traffic? I'll bite... I am.
>>>> Me too, but this has little to do with net neutrality, since
peer to peer sharing involves HOSTING, and that I specifically
don't generally allow. Terms of Service has covered hosting
forever - since long before Napster was someone's dream.
So you only limit the upload on your peer to peer traffic?
In my opinion it has everything to do with net neutrality. If VZ can't
deprioritize VOIP to outside servers you why would you be able to
deprioritize peer to peer traffic. Who is to say that P2P traffic is
less important than VOIP?
P2P works no matter jitter, latency, etc. VOIP does not. Even video has
issues.
How many WISPs on this list are prioritizing VoIP traffic separate
from other traffic? I'll bite. I am. And I only prioritize VoIP
traffic to and from my own VoIP servers and not VoIP traffic from
Vonage or anyone else.
>>>>> I will eventually, and I will be entirely neutral as to
whose servers it goes to...after all, if I can't serve my
customer's needs, then what the heck am I? A fraud?
Again, you are not providing equal access to the internet, you are
saying that someone's VOIP traffic has a higher priority then my web
traffic which in turn has a higher priority than someone else's P2P
traffic. This seems pretty arbitrary to me.
Because you're not involved and you, as a content provider, have NO interest
in my network. My customer, however, DOES want his VOIP phone to work, as
well as your pages to load. Both can happen with QOS employed, no? Your
web page loads no matter what. His VOIP phone needs specific network
qualities to work right.
I'm am not making that statement as a web hosting company, I am making
the statement as one of your customers. If I don't use VOIP, why should
someone else's VOIP traffic be prioritized over my web traffic?
What if I as a provider
feel that web and email are top priority over VOIP and P2P?
I don't give a rip. I only care about the CUSTOMER wants.
After all I
am in the business of providing internet service not voice. What if I
prioritize my VOIP traffic only since it only has to make it to my NOC
before it switches to POTs whereas vonage is eating my general IP
bandwidth? Am I allowed to charge clients extra for dedicated VOIP
prioritization?
I dunno. Why don't you ask them?
How many WISPs on this list are filtering NetBIOS, RPC, and other
traffic deemed malicious? I'll bite... I am again.
>>>>> Yeah. Me too. Again, this has nothing whatsoever to do
with limiting access to content.
Yes it does, you are blocking netbios and RPC, what makes them any
different then VOIP or P2P or streaming video?
My customers ASK me to protect them from malevolent attack. They do,
however, want thier phone and video to work and work smoothly, at least to
not have my network make them NOT work properly.
So all of your customers have come to you and said they want you to
blocks ports x, y and z. And what would you do if a customer requested
those ports to be open on their network connection?
Another question, am I allowed to maintain a blacklist and block at my
edge router? What if time warner makes it on my blacklist or vonage for
some reason, can I now be fined by the FCC for not providing equal
access? What about outgoing or incoming email? Do I have to allow it
all?
Have you asked your customers if they want you to restrict thier access to
TimeWarner's IP blocks?
Do you ask all of your customers if they mind you blacklisting an IP
block that is continuously scanning your network?
Now the last one, I can't imagine being sued over, but I hope you
see my point.
These controls are important for me to manage my network and
ensure a quality of service my customers expect.
Net neutrality takes these controls away.
>>>> I seriously doubt that.
Why? If the FCC can say you are not allowed to prioritize one service
over another how can you have control of the traffic and utilization on
your network?
Because as far as I can tell, the whole debate has nothing to do with any of
this, but about a third party being asked to pay to have a network's
customers be able to access thier services.
That is the arguments that are being bandied about by the pro net
neutrality people. But net neutrality is not limited to content
provider access. The FCC has already ruled once that an RBOC is not
allowed to restrict access to VOIP services. It seems like WISPs
respond to this with a yeah, sticking it to the big guy. But my thought
is be careful what you wish for. If the FCC says an ISP (in this case
an RBOC) is required to allow a specific type of traffic on their
network (VOIP service). What is to stop them from doing the same for
some other service with some other provider, say P2P traffic on your
network?
Net neutrality is about giving regulatory control over your business to
the FCC.
QOS is to make my customer's phone work. Or his video work. You, as a
web provider, have no interest and no claims on this relationship. Now,
along comes Verizon or Quest, and comes to YOU as web provider and says "pay
up or we block our customer from your site", then I see a serious issue.
I'm not talking about VZ going to yahoo, that is campaigning spin used
by the pro net neutrality side of the issue. The heart of the issue in
my opinion is VOIP traffic and soon streaming video.
So IF there is any regulatory role in this... . It has to do with consumers
finding themselves being restricted from access unless they or a third party
contracts to make it available. Now, if ISP's are simply required to
inform thier customers of what they block or deprioritize, then I have no
problem with them doing so.
If this was the case it would take care of itself. Someone will come
along and offer equal access to all web providers and the people will
flock to them for their service because they don't have to worry about
what web sites they visit and then pick and ISP based on that.
If providers block things outside thier network and refuse allow it, unless
a third and unrelated party pays up... then there's an issue. So, if my
customer wants prioritized VOIP and video and so on and I only provide that
at an increase cost... big deal.
If I tell him that all search engines and content providers that don't pay
me are offlimits... then there's a problem. It all revolves around this:
Is the connection I pay for.. owned by the ISP or the customer? If I sell
a customer a connection, he owns it. Verizon says that the customer
doesn't, that they do, and they can control thier customer against his
wishes in a move to blackmail money from content providers.
So, basically my point is that if we're going to argue about "net
neutrality', let's make sure that what we're talking about the same thing.
Are we talking about an ISP's ability to service a customer as the customer
wants, or are we talking about an ISP attempting to "censor" the net in
something remeniscent of blackmail? The CEO's are not stirring up the
advocacy folks by talking about implementing QOS to make VOIP and other
sensitive technologies work... They're talking about demanding that the
content provider pay them for letting the customer reach them.
What we are talking about is giving the FCC regulatory control over the
ISP business. As it stands right now they don't. They have control
over spectrum, they have control over RBOC/LECs but this would allow
them to extend that control to the ISP realm. I suppose if people
believe the government is here to help them, they might look at this as
a good thing. I have the opposite view, the government I like best is
the one I never hear from.
The free market is much better suited to providing for the needs of the
consumer than any government agency could be.
That's just like the taxi demanding the restaurants and theaters and so on,
pay them for allowing the taxi's customers to get to them, and if they
won't, the taxi won't stop there.
Or QWest charging $40 / mo for a phone line, $.25 a minute to call out and
then demanding an additional $10 a month from everyone who wants quest's
customers to be able to reach them. In this regard, there may be
legitmate consumer protections which probably should be publicly considered.
Hmm, sounds like USF...
And, we as network operators need to educate those people doing the debate
as to the difference between network operations and blackmail.
North East Oregon Fastnet, LLC 509-593-4061
personal correspondence to: mark at neofast dot net
sales inquiries to: purchasing at neofast dot net
Fast Internet, NO WIRES!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
--
Sam Tetherow
Sandhills Wireless
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
