And adding a priority to certain traffic would still be acceptable since it would only be in force if that traffic is being used, such as VOIP and video and is there only to enhance and ensure the quality of that particular traffic that the customer themselves chose to use. Yes?
-----Original Message----- From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On Behalf Of Clint Ricker Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 11:15 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality Exactly. And, it works better all around since you deliver an ideal experience (including access to ALL internet applications) to your ideal customers. On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Robert West <robert.w...@just-micro.com>wrote: > So what I think you're saying, we should restrict the user based on a > predetermined usage limit then kick the throttling in for the entire > connection, not per app. This is okay. Then the users who hit it once in > awhile will never reach the "bandwidth abuse" level and would sail right on > through as happy customers. And all of that sounds perfectly doable and as > reasonable and fair as it can get. > > Bob- > > > -----Original Message----- > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > Behalf Of Clint Ricker > Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 10:55 AM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality > > The key words in the FCC quote is "users", not applications. > > They aren't restricting your ability to block or degrade IP address > "162.21.25.200" because that IP address is generating spam or running up > terabytes of traffic a month when you only have a DSL backhaul. > > They are trying to restrict your ability to say "my heaviest users all use > bit torrent, so I'm going to block bit torrent". > > In other words, shape on users, not on user actions....block/restrict the > heaviest users, not the heaviest applications. > > This doesn't really change anything for WISPs, since it has the same effect > and is really a better approach in any case. It lets you give the ideal > experience for ALL applications to your ideal customers. And you can > directly target your heaviest users. This is a lot better than potentially > losing good customers (ie low bandwidht customers) because they can't get > bit torrent to work when they try to use it twice a month. > > -Clint Ricker > > > > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 9:47 AM, Robert West > <robert.w...@just-micro.com>wrote: > > > Okay. Isn't this what most of us already do in our Terms Of Service > > notice? > > So if it's just a matter of notification then the issue would be void on > > day > > one as far as traffic shaping is concerned. Am I right on my > understanding > > of this? > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: wireless-boun...@wispa.org [mailto:wireless-boun...@wispa.org] On > > Behalf Of Curtis Maurand > > Sent: Tuesday, September 22, 2009 8:58 AM > > To: WISPA General List > > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality > > > > I just read the fifth rule in the speech and I quote it below and the > > remarks made by Mr. Genachowski: > > > > > > "Fifth Principle of Non-Discrimination > > > > The fifth principle is one of non-discrimination -- stating that > > broadband providers cannot discriminate against particular Internet > > content or applications. > > > > This means they cannot block or degrade lawful traffic over their > > networks, or pick winners by favoring some content or applications over > > others in the connection to subscribers' homes. Nor can they disfavor an > > Internet service just because it competes with a similar service offered > > by that broadband provider. The Internet must continue to allow users to > > decide what content and applications succeed. > > > > This principle will not prevent broadband providers from reasonably > > managing their networks. During periods of network congestion, for > > example, it may be appropriate for providers to ensure that very heavy > > users do not crowd out everyone else. And this principle will not > > constrain efforts to ensure a safe, secure, and spam-free Internet > > experience, or to enforce the law. It is vital that illegal conduct be > > curtailed on the Internet. As I said in my Senate confirmation hearing, > > open Internet principles apply only to lawful content, services and > > applications -- not to activities like unlawful distribution of > > copyrighted works, which has serious economic consequences. The > > enforcement of copyright and other laws and the obligations of network > > openness can and must co-exist. > > > > I also recognize that there may be benefits to innovation and investment > > of broadband providers offering managed services in limited > > circumstances. These services are different than traditional broadband > > Internet access, and some have argued they should be analyzed under a > > different framework. I believe such services can supplement -- but must > > not supplant -- free and open Internet access, and that we must ensure > > that ample bandwidth exists for all Internet users and innovators. In > > the rulemaking process I will discuss in a moment, we will carefully > > consider how to approach the question of managed services in a way that > > maximizes the innovation and investment necessary for a robust and > > thriving Internet." > > > > The sixth rule just says that if you're going to throttle things like > > peer to peer, you're going to have to notify your users before you do it. > > > > Reads just I thought it would. It doesn't prevent you from throttling > > bittorrent uploaders, etc. Everyone should read the speech. Its not as > > bad as the media makes it out to be. > > > > --Curtis > > > > > > > > > > Mike Hammett wrote: > > > Worldwide, the US ISPs don't have that much power. See Comcast tell > DT, > > > PCCW, NTT, etc. to fly a kite and Comcast will be the odd man out. > > > > > > > > > ----- > > > Mike Hammett > > > Intelligent Computing Solutions > > > http://www.ics-il.com > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > From: "Tom DeReggi" <wirelessn...@rapiddsl.net> > > > Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 4:04 PM > > > To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> > > > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality > > > > > > > > >> For those that have not yet read it, the relevent site to read is.... > > >> > > >> http://www.openinternet.gov/read-speech.html > > >> > > >> We need to realize and seperate two things... > > >> > > >> 1) that the intent of NetNeutrality expressed at this site, is an > > >> idealalistic view, to keep the Internet open and free, which is hard > to > > >> combat based on the "ideals", and we should recognize that the goal of > > an > > >> open Internet is not specifically what we are fighting. > > >> 2) The reality that idealistic views dont translate to how the > Internet > > >> Industry really works. And the site's proposed methodology to attempt > > >> preservation of an open network, infact may be harmful to consumers > and > > >> delivery of most common Internet services from competitive Access > > >> providers. > > >> What we need to fight are mechanisms and ideas that harm access > > providers, > > >> or that prioritize content provider's needs over that of access > > providers. > > >> > > >> There is an important thing to realize. One of NetNeutrality's biggest > > >> advocates is now I think Chief of Staff. (Bruce somebody). > NetNeutrality > > >> will be directly addressed in the new FCC, we can count on that. More > so > > >> than in past commissions. > > >> > > >> Over the next 3 months I believe WISPA will need to get actively > engaged > > >> in > > >> Netneutrality lobbying. It will need to be a combined effort between > > >> legislative and FCC committees. > > >> The Legislative committee will need to fight bills being plannedd to > be > > >> introducted to congress, and FCC committee will need to fight for WISP > > >> rights in soon to come FCC rulemaking. > > >> It is my belief that government policy makers are timming their > efforts > > so > > >> legislation and FCC rules will come to effect togeather, as > legislation > > is > > >> pointing to the FCC to make rules. > > >> We can start to lobby legislators now, while bills are government > > working > > >> groups. And possibly there could be public hearings, where we might > be > > >> able > > >> to request participation in them? > > >> For FCC, we most likely would need to wait for the Notice of PRoposed > > Rule > > >> making. Allthough ideally, its technically possible to lobby for > > proposed > > >> rules to never get to rule making stage. > > >> (although I dont think its likely for that to occur). > > >> > > >> We are going to need to decide whether we want to fight the core > concept > > >> all > > >> togeather, or fight for details and wording that make the idealisitic > > >> views > > >> realistic in a way not to harm ISP. > > >> I believe we will likely have a better chance of winning our view, if > we > > >> all > > >> togeather fight netneutrality in its entirely, jsut because we'd ahve > > >> cable > > >> TV and RBOCs endorsement in addition to our WISP view. But the risk > > there > > >> is that we do not protect ourselve from predator practices of monopoly > > >> like > > >> providers, and we risk loosing altogeather, if consumers gain more > > support > > >> than providers do. The risk is that protecting the majority of > consumers > > >> (cable and RBOC subscribers with 80%+ market share) has greater > benefit > > >> than > > >> protecting the few vulnerable providers (less than 20% market share by > > >> small > > >> ISPs and WISPs). > > >> > > >> We need to remind the government that the "open Internet" originally > was > > a > > >> network paid for by the government. In Today's Internet, providers are > > >> required to pay for building access for consumers Internet access. > Its > > a > > >> beautiful thing to have a consolidated Internet deliverd by teh > > >> combination > > >> efforts of all providers. What we want to prevent is segregation of > the > > >> Internet, where providers are forced to make two networks, their > > "Internet > > >> network", and then their "private network", where they would invest > more > > >> heavily in their own private networks for ROI reasons, and because > > policy > > >> took away the viabilty of fair ROI for them. > > >> > > >> Let me pose a hypothetical situation... What would occur if Comcast, > > >> Timewarner, and RBOCs announced tommorrow, that they would no longer > > offer > > >> Internet Access as of Dec 2010, and planned to cancel all peers to the > > >> Internet, but would create a peer between each other, and announced > > their > > >> hosting solutions (for a price) which allowed some content provider > the > > >> option to access their private networks. Would they legally be allowed > > not > > >> to offer Internet access, and go 100% private? And if it were legal, > > would > > >> they keep their market share, considering togeather they owned 90% of > > the > > >> eyeballs and last mile connections to consumer's homes, many of which > > were > > >> the single only source of connection? I'd argue they'd keep 99% of > > their > > >> customer base, and instead users that had choice of provider would > > >> subscribe > > >> to two services, the Public Internet provider, and the Private network > > >> provider, because there would be benefit to buying access to both. > > Either > > >> that, or private network providers would create a "gateway to teh > > Internet > > >> service" that was an add-on to their existing privat network service. > > >> Those > > >> that wanted access to the Internet would pay additional for the > gateway > > >> service, and eventually the gateway Internet service would perform so > > much > > >> worse than to hosts on the private direct network, so most Hosts would > > >> start > > >> to migrate to hosting platforms on the private network. I believe it > is > > >> very > > >> possible that "unbundling" could occur at some point to "increase" > > >> consumer's costs. Bundling was a technique to win market share, > > unbundling > > >> become a way to increase profits, once they own the market. My point > > here > > >> is that small providers will all be better off with all on one > Internet, > > >> with terms that are acceptable to all parties, so they keep it that > way. > > >> > > >> NetNeutrality is not only about Network Management. Its also about > > freedom > > >> to be the type of provider we want to be. Policy makers should not > favor > > >> content providers to control what the Internet evolves to. And > providers > > >> should not be forced to do something beyond the core concepts of the > > >> Internet. Policy to force Providers to become TV providers is just > plain > > >> wrong. And forcing strict Netnetrality laws will force providers to > only > > >> build networks that can handle consumer demand whcih will eventually > > >> become > > >> TV services, if we are forced to allow it. > > >> > > >> We need to seperate "Internet Access" from "Advanced Broadband", which > > in > > > > >> my > > >> mind are two totally different topics. > > >> Rules that might be acceptable for "advanced wired broadband" may be > > >> totally > > >> wrong for core "Internet Access", and vice versa. Focing the two to be > > one > > >> and the same, is wrong, because all providers and networks are not the > > >> same. > > >> > > >> And by all means any NetNetrality rule passed should be a > bi-directional > > >> rule. If all access provider are forced to deliver all content, all > > >> content > > >> providers should be forced to interconnect with all access providers, > if > > >> requested. > > >> > > >> We could simply take the approach of.... "stop regulation, stay our of > > our > > >> business", but if we can come up with good ideas, it may be more > > favorable > > >> to state what rules we think could work. > > >> But most importantly state what rules will not, and why. > > >> > > >> > > >> Tom DeReggi > > >> RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc > > >> IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband > > >> > > >> > > >> ----- Original Message ----- > > >> From: "David E. Smith" <d...@mvn.net> > > >> To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> > > >> Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 3:30 PM > > >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >>> Curtis Maurand wrote: > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> 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. > > >>>> > > >>> That may be what they mean, but that sure isn't what they're saying > (or > > >>> at least that's not what it sounds like from way up here in the > peanut > > >>> gallery). > > >>> > > >>> Can anyone comment on whether WISPA plans to adopt any official > > position > > >>> on this? I'm not saying "net neutrality is bad," because I adore the > > >>> principles. I just want to be sure the FCC doesn't pass some > > >>> overly-broad rulemaking, slanted towards bigger operators, that makes > > it > > >>> difficult or impossible for smaller outfits (like mine!) to keep > things > > >>> running smoothly. > > >>> > > >>> David Smith > > >>> MVN.net > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > ---- > > >>> 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/ > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---- > > 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/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/
