Excactly.

--C

Josh Luthman wrote:
> Just needed to be worded based on service or type of traffic not
> destination.
>
> All TOS byte 184 traffic priority 1
>
> All DNS priority 2
>
> All HTTP priority 4
>
> etc...
>
> WE DO NOT want
>
> cnn.com, twcbc.com, abc.com priority 1
>
> google.com yahoo.com priority 2
>
> whitehouse.com superhotstuffhere.com priority 8
>
> Josh Luthman
> Office: 937-552-2340
> Direct: 937-552-2343
> 1100 Wayne St
> Suite 1337
> Troy, OH 45373
>
> "When you have eliminated the impossible, that which remains, however
> improbable, must be the truth."
> --- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Curtis Maurand <cmaur...@xyonet.com> wrote:
>
>   
>> I think you're all jumping to conclusions.  There will be
>> modifications.  You will probably find that you'll be able to limit
>> outgoing bittorrent and block spam from botnetted machines, block
>> illegal activity, etc.  How do you determine illegal bittorrent
>> (uploading of copyrighted content, etc.) from legal  (uploading of GNU
>> licensed open source)?   There lies the big question.
>>
>> I think they're saying things like Time-Warner can't prioritize CNN
>> (which is owned by Time, Inc.) over MSNBC or Youtube over hulu, etc.  I
>> still say they should allow you to prioritize VOIP over everything else.
>> IMHO
>>
>> --Curtis
>>
>>
>> Jerry Richardson wrote:
>>     
>>> I can't agree more.
>>>
>>> "Blocking" (0 bits passed) is constitutionally wrong IMO.  Since I can no
>>>       
>> longer distinguish legal traffic from illegal traffic I have to allow it
>> all.
>>     
>>> Shaping/Throttling/Caps is not only 100% within my rights, but as an ISP
>>>       
>> is prudent and a critical part of my business model and I would win that
>> fight in court every time.
>>     
>>> We stopped selling residential service two years ago - they use more, pay
>>>       
>> less, and need the most support - however it's clear that this has hampered
>> growth.
>>     
>>> I am planning to implement metered billing on our network. The plan is to
>>>       
>> determine the traffic utilization of 95% of our customers in each service
>> tier and set that as the baseline. Moving forward light users will pay less
>> and heavy users will pay more. It's the only way I can think of to survive
>> and be fair.
>>     
>>> Jerry Richardson
>>> airCloud Communications.
>>>
>>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>>>       
>> Behalf Of Jack Unger
>>     
>>> Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 9:08 AM
>>> To: WISPA General List
>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality
>>>
>>> Hi John,
>>>
>>> I appreciate hearing your thoughts and I believe that I understand the
>>>       
>> ISP concerns that new regulations may force ISPs to pass large or unlimited
>> amounts of traffic to the detriment of 1) other ISP customers and 2) the
>> financial well-being of the ISP.
>>     
>>> Again the two main Network Neutrality (NN) issues are 1) Bandwidth and 2)
>>>       
>> Content.
>>     
>>> Bandwidth should already be managed by all ISPs and no one (not the
>>>       
>> Government and not a competitor) should be able to force an ISP to deliver
>> more bandwidth to a customer than the amount that the customer contracted
>> for. If I want to stream an HDTV presentation but I only contracted for 256
>> k of bandwidth then I have no right to complain if the HDTV movie doesn't
>> stream smoothly.
>>     
>>> Content is where I believe that the free speech issue is relevant. There
>>>       
>> area two (or perhaps more) sides of "free speech".
>>     
>>> 1. THE POLITICAL SIDE - There is the political side and this is the side
>>>       
>> that I am concerned with when I say that protecting free speech is vital.
>> When Democrats are in power, I don't want them to have the right to keep
>> Republicans from using the Internet to discuss ideas that oppose the
>> Democrats. When Republicans are in power, I don't want them to have the
>> right to keep Democrats from using the Internet to discuss ideas that oppose
>> the Republicans. When either Democrats or Republicans are in power, I don't
>> want either of them to have the right to keep independent voices from
>> organizing or using the Internet to discuss independent ideas. This is what
>> I mean by protecting and preserving the right to "free speech".
>>     
>>> 2. THE COMMERCIAL SIDE - Currently, we live in a commercialized (possibly
>>>       
>> an over-commercialized) world. When many journalists write about Network
>> Neutrality they could care less about protecting the political side of "free
>> speech". All they focus on is the commercial side of Content - for example
>> <"Service and Content Provider A" is blocking the services of "Content
>> Provider B">.  To me, this is a "Restraint of Trade" issue rather than a
>> political "Free Speech" issue but it still falls under the heading of
>> "Content" and is therefore addressed by NN.
>>     
>>> Should NN address the commercial side of "Content"?? Yes, I think it's
>>>       
>> appropriate that it does. Should one Content and Service provider be allowed
>> to prohibit or unfairly delay the services of another Content provider who
>> is using their network?? No, I don't think so. Every service provider should
>> be required to carry the content of every other content or service provider
>> equally, without restriction AS LONG AS THE CONTRACTED BANDWIDTH LIMITS ARE
>> NOT EXCEEDED. If I contract for 256k of bandwidth do I have a right to ask
>> my ISP to stream HDTV movies to me without delay? No, I do NOT because I am
>> asking to consume more bandwidth then I have contracted to pay for and the
>> ISP must slow my stream down to be able to manage their total bandwidth so
>> they can deliver the contracted amount of bandwidth to all their customers.
>> This is "reasonable network management" and it's perfectly proper.
>>     
>>> Sorry for the long-winded explanation but I felt that it was necessary to
>>>       
>> distinguish between the political "Free Speech" Content issue and the
>> "Commercial" Content issue.
>>     
>>> Because I don't claim to be an expert on Net Neutrality, I'm open to
>>>       
>> hearing constructive and thoughtful comments from others who can help me
>> further refine my current opinions.
>>     
>>> Again, thanks for your post.
>>>
>>> jack
>>>
>>>
>>> John Vogel wrote:
>>>
>>> Jack,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I do agree that you have been fairly clear, and I wasn't so much
>>>
>>> addressing you as being the one conflating the two issues.
>>>
>>> I think you have a good understanding of the two issues, and are
>>>
>>> reasonable in how you are addressing them. I am somewhat concerned that
>>>
>>> free speech was at the forefront of your endorsement of the FCC's
>>>
>>> upcoming proposal re Net Neutrality. As I said before, I don't think
>>>
>>> free speech is really the issue, either from the standpoint of the ISPs,
>>>
>>> nor of those who have been arguing for Net Neutrality, although some
>>>
>>> argue for NN primarily on the basis of free speech, which is where I
>>>
>>> think the issues have been conflated.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The most visible cases I can recall that caught the attention of the
>>>
>>> News Media as well as the FCC were trade issues, rather than free speech
>>>
>>> issues. A phone company disallowing VoIP on their data networks, Cable
>>>
>>> companies disallowing IPTV on from possibly competing TV companies, etc.
>>>
>>> are trade issues. P2P is harder to portray as a trade issue. (Are there
>>>
>>> any ISPs who would block P2P to protect their own music business?) But..
>>>
>>> P2P is still not really a free speech issue, although it is sometimes
>>>
>>> presented as such.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The FCC proposes to regulate ISPs to ensure that they do not
>>>
>>> inhibit/impair the "*free flow of information AND CERTAIN APPLICATIONS"
>>>
>>> (quoted from the AP story, emphasis mine). We do have constitutional
>>>
>>> guarantees regarding free speech, and the Federal government is charged
>>>
>>> with regulating Interstate commerce, but there is no constitutional
>>>
>>> right to pass IP packets in any amount, frequency, volume, or direction
>>>
>>> you may choose, over anybody's IP network which you may choose.
>>>
>>> Advocating that you do under the free speech clause is inappropriate
>>>
>>> IMNSHO. :)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> As far as my network goes, and I suspect that most ISP's would be
>>>
>>> similar, I don't care if you use FTP, HTTP, TELNET, SSH, or Real Audio
>>>
>>> 40kps stream to receive the speech populary known as "I have a dream" by
>>>
>>> Martin Luther King. I might have an issue if you decide to download the
>>>
>>> HDTV version, and then do likewise for every political speech made since
>>>
>>> then. But... that has nothing to do with free speech. But, if the FCC
>>>
>>> decides that I must allow you to stream the HDTV video file, and that I
>>>
>>> cannot as an ISP interfere with that stream in a manner that makes it
>>>
>>> uncomfortable for you to view (constant buffering) under the guise of
>>>
>>> free speech guarantees, I have a big problem with that.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I also have a problem with a certain application that is designed to
>>>
>>> consume every available network resource in an effort to gain an
>>>
>>> advantage over other users of the network in file download times. Again,
>>>
>>> not speech related, but often portrayed as a free speech issue.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Jack, I know you know the difference, and this isn't really directed at
>>>
>>> you. But you were the one who brought the free speech issue into it
>>>       
>> AFAICT.
>>     
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>> *
>>>
>>> Jack Unger wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi John,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, there are two issues at play however I don't believe I have
>>>
>>> conflated them. I think I've been quite clear that there is an issue
>>>
>>> of bandwidth and there is an issue of content.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On bandwidth, every ISP (in my opinion) should already be managing
>>>
>>> bandwidth and limiting bandwidth so that customers get what they
>>>
>>> contract for and not any more than what they contract for.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On content, no ISP (again, in my opinion) should be able to be the
>>>
>>> "decider" and choose what content they will pass and what content they
>>>
>>> won't pass.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If ISPs practice active bandwidth management then they should not need
>>>
>>> to practice content management. ISPs should not be able to tell me (or
>>>
>>> you) what we can or can't send or who we can or can not send it to or
>>>
>>> receive it from.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I think I stated that very clearly. Do you agree?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Respectfully,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> jack
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> John Vogel wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Free speech itself is not so much the issue, as presented by most who
>>>
>>> would argue for net neutrality, but rather application/traffic type. If
>>>
>>> it were not for the change in the way network traffic has evolved,
>>>
>>> moving from a bursty/intermittent type of traffic to a constant, high
>>>
>>> bit rate streaming, there would probably not be much of an issue, as
>>>
>>> most ISPs don't really care so much what you say or view over their
>>>
>>> networks. Those ISPs who have fallen afoul of the NN advocates have done
>>>
>>> so primarily because they were attempting to address a particular type
>>>
>>> of traffic pattern, rather than whatever content may have been
>>>
>>> transmitted in that traffic pattern. (e.g. bittorrent, lots of
>>>
>>> connections, constant streaming at high bandwidth utilization)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Although I hesitate to use analogies... If I own a public restaurant, I
>>>
>>> reserve the right to refuse service to anybody who is determined to
>>>
>>> converse with other patrons in that restaurant by shouting everything
>>>
>>> they say, Likewise, if they choose to communicate using smoke signals,
>>>
>>> (cigarette or otherwise) I or the State/City have rules regarding that,
>>>
>>> and will restrict their speech in that manner. What they are
>>>
>>> communicating is immaterial. While they DO have a right to free speech,
>>>
>>> arguing that they should be allowed to communicate that speech via smoke
>>>
>>> signals, and subsequent complaints about the infringement of their free
>>>
>>> speech right by restricting the way in which they choose to communicate
>>>
>>> is somewhat disingenuous.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> There are really two different issues in play here. Conflating them
>>>
>>> under the banner of free speech does not address both issues adequately.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Jack Unger wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The government is actually protecting your freedom to access any
>>>
>>> Internet content you choose and your freedom to say whatever you want to
>>>
>>> say.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The arguement that you can just move to another ISP is false because, as
>>>
>>> most WISPs know, many rural citizens don't have ANY ISP or maybe just
>>>
>>> one wireless ISP to choose from therefore they can't just "move to
>>>
>>> another ISP if the first ISP doesn't like what they have to say and
>>>
>>> shuts them off. Further, even if you have more than one ISP, how are you
>>>
>>> going to get the news or get your opinions out if BOTH ISPs (or ALL
>>>
>>> ISPs) disagree with your opinion and shut you off.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Your arguement is like saying "I enjoy Free Speech" right now but I
>>>
>>> don't want the government to interfere in order to protect my Free
>>>
>>> Speech when AT&T doesn't like what I have to say and shuts my Internet
>>>
>>> service off. If AT&T wants to take your Free Speech away then you are
>>>
>>> saying to the Government "Hey, let them take it! I'd rather lose my
>>>
>>> freedom then have you telling AT&T what to do. STOP protecting my Free
>>>
>>> Speech right now!!!".
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Mike Hammett wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> What I don't like about it is another case of the government telling me
>>>       
>> what to do.  More regulations is less freedom.  If someone doesn't like the
>> way ISP A operates, move to ISP B.  If they don't like ISP B, find ISP C, or
>> start ISP C, or maybe you shouldn't be doing what you're wanting to in the
>> first place.
>>     
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -----
>>>
>>> Mike Hammett
>>>
>>> Intelligent Computing Solutions
>>>
>>> http://www.ics-il.com
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Jack Unger
>>>
>>> Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 4:38 PM
>>>
>>> To: WISPA General List
>>>
>>> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Congress and the FCC would define "reasonable". It's their job to write
>>>       
>> the laws and make the rules.
>>     
>>>
>>> Net neutrality (NN) is about "free speech". NN would prohibit your
>>>       
>> carrier from delaying your packets or shutting off your service because they
>> didn't like what you had to say or what web site you wanted to surf or post
>> to. NN is "anti-censorship" therefore NN is "pro-freedom".
>>     
>>>
>>> If you write a letter to your local newspaper, the editor can refuse to
>>>       
>> print it. WITHOUT Net Neutrality, your carrier can decide to block your
>> packets. Net neutrality is about remaining a free nation. What's not to like
>> about that?
>>     
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Josh Luthman wrote:
>>>
>>> Who's definition of unreasonable...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 9/19/09, Jack Unger <jun...@ask-wi.com><mailto:jun...@ask-wi.com>
>>>       
>> wrote:
>>     
>>>   The proposal doesn't say you have to provide unlimited bandwidth.
>>>
>>> Reasonable network management policies are allowed.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Robert West wrote:
>>>
>>>     Another unfunded mandate.  If I were to provide net neutral broadband
>>>       
>> the
>>     
>>> price would be $120 per meg.  Maybe my customers would understand if I
>>>
>>> explained how it's net neutral.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org<mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org>
>>>       
>> [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On
>>     
>>> Behalf Of Blair Davis
>>>
>>> Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 2:02 PM
>>>
>>> To: WISPA General List
>>>
>>> Subject: [WISPA] Net Neutrality
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It's back....
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,552503,00.html?test=latestnews
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>     
>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>>>
>>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>     
>>>
>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org<mailto:wireless@wispa.org>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>>>
>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>       --
>>>
>>> Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
>>>
>>> Author - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs"
>>>
>>> Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993
>>>
>>> www.ask-wi.com<http://www.ask-wi.com>  818-227-4220  jun...@ask-wi.com
>>>       
>> <mailto:jun...@ask-wi.com>
>>     
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>     
>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>>>
>>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>     
>>>
>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org<mailto:wireless@wispa.org>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>>>
>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>     
>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>>>
>>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>     
>>>
>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org<mailto:wireless@wispa.org>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>>>
>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
>>>
>>> Author - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs"
>>>
>>> Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993
>>>
>>> www.ask-wi.com<http://www.ask-wi.com>  818-227-4220  jun...@ask-wi.com
>>>       
>> <mailto:jun...@ask-wi.com>
>>     
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>     
>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>>>
>>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>     
>>>
>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org<mailto:wireless@wispa.org>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>>>
>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>     
>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>>>
>>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>     
>>>
>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org<mailto:wireless@wispa.org>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>>>
>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
>>>
>>> Author - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs"
>>>
>>> Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993
>>>
>>> www.ask-wi.com<http://www.ask-wi.com>  818-227-4220  jun...@ask-wi.com
>>>       
>> <mailto:jun...@ask-wi.com>
>>     
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>     
>>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>>>
>>>       
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>     
>>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>>
>>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>>
>>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>>
>>>       
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>
>>     
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>   



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Reply via email to