Would we REALLY want the gov micromanaging our networks THAT close?
At 02:26 PM 9/21/2009, you 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/
