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/