Mark your calendars folks, me and Mark K are in agreement for once.
Those who support Net Neutrality without exception have never had to
track, isolate and repair infected PCs spewing out spam or replicative
exploits to the masses. We "should" have a right to decide what we allow
on our networks and to implement controls ourselves if needed in order
to make sure our networks function optimally. Regulators forcing us to
offer an open road to all data traffic is not a good thing for a
provider of broadband networking services who is also trying to offer a
good value for the money and manage network resources for optimal
performance. But hey, if the world wants blind NN then so be it, give us
all $300 per month per connection in Universal Service fees and we can
offer a "no limits" connection to every person who connects. Let all the
bits roll huh?
I have previously tried to push for a re-definition of the issue.
Forcing "Net Neutrality" is something almost nobody can benefit from in
all instances. I believe a better approach is for the broadband industry
to agree to a "First do no harm" mission statement. What this would mean
is that we all agree on our honor that we will not do things to data
traffic which limit competition, reduce legitimate services to
customers, remove open access to thoughts, ideas, political voices,
etc., or otherwise force people to pay more for anything that should be
easily accessible with minimal network loading in an open access network
connection.
In its most basic application the "First do no harm" mission could be
illustrated in this example involving VOIP:
If I offer VOIP to my customers as a service that I manage and sell
through my company and I want optimum quality of service for this then I
can prioritize my VOIP service packets to a higher level than average
traffic but I cannot set a competitor's VOIP packets to run at a lower
QoS level than average traffic nor can I block competitors VOIP traffic.
In short I should be able to optimize my network to allow my services to
run optimally or to sell the rights for others to optimize their traffic
to run at a higher priority but I cannot set traffic patterns to harm
another provider's packets to run at a lower than average priority or to
be blocked from passing at all.
Here is another example of "First do no harm"
If a customer PC is infected with a virus and is generating spam and
sending viruses to other PCs then we should be able to remove this
computer from network service or filter this traffic at our discretion.
This goes against Net Neutrality but fits easily into the "First do no
harm" mission.
I would be glad to debate why a "First do no harm" mission would be a
better direction than Net Neutrality for broadband policy directives.
This might be a good way to head off the Net Neutrality issue from being
used against us in regulatory issues. If broadband providers as a whole
would adopt a directive which would eliminate any Net Neutrality
concerns then it would be more difficult for those pushing for Net
Neutrality to argue their stance.
Scriv
wispa wrote:
On Sun, 04 Mar 2007 10:52:54 -0500, Tim Wolfe wrote
After reading this, it becomes very obvious this person does not
have a clue? (Or should I say, he is owned by the telcos?)
Now, let's not fall into this trap, of saying that everyone who doesn't
advocate NN in any and every form is "owned by the telcos". That's a
complete disservice to the debate and to yourself.
He's right in this regard... IT IS NOT PRESENTLY A PROBLEM. Nobody that I
know of right now is pre-censoring sites (unless the customer wants it done),
or content.
Some providers don't offer VOIP support. I don't particularly, either, as my
network isn't optimized by any QOS implementation.
However, what he's warning us about, is that in the political world of DC, he
thinks that the people in charge will use NN laws as a way to manage
political speech. Free speech advocates are already quite upset about the
FEC's demands that sites censor forums and articles during election season to
avoid compaign reform law entanglements.
In today's political climate, and the naked untruths that flow routinely out
of swamp on the Potomac, I, too, don't have any trust in regulators to not
encroach on our most fundamental freedoms.
If, tomorrow, Qwest or Charter decided to definitely become non-neutral in
regards to who and what people did... I don't think the sky would fall. On
the contrary, I could raise my rates and get a whole new market.
As to whether the users of Qwest or Charter, or Neofast, Inc, have a
REAL "right" to every site, service, or use possible, that should depend on
the agreement I make with my customers, should it not?
I've been tempted to offer a "web only" service, appropriately priced, that
blocks EVERYTHING but http and dns.
Would that be legal under NN laws? If the answer is "No", then perhaps we
should rethink what we really want. I say that a lack of neutrality by other
providers is opportunity for me, not a negative. And that as much as a
subscription to your local newspaper doesn't give you the right have every
news story, columnist, and cartoon delivered to your door, nor does
subscribing to a tiered internet service.
What do you think?
--------------------------------------------
Mark Koskenmaki <> Neofast, Inc
Broadband for the Walla Walla Valley and Blue Mountains
541-969-8200
--
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/