-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 12/14/2010 11:29 PM, Tom DeReggi wrote: > Oldest trick in the book, attach a position to an ideological word that > people cant disagree with. Who can disagree with "freedom". > > Little does the public know they are supporting a position that could reduce > freedom and possibly even destroy their freedom of choice, as they signon to > positition that will reduce speeds, increase costs, reduce investment, and > destroy small competitive providers. > > Freedom really means no regulation, so providers can have the freedom to > build networks without unnecessary beurocracy and burdens. > Freedom to allow people to build businesses based without strings attached.
Um.... no regulation? Really? So if I build out a large cable plant I can charge whatever I want, deny access to people, sue anyone who tries to compete into the ground, not upgrade my infrastructure and provide best effort 911 service? I know that many in the operations community oppose regulation, but it's a two edged sword. > > Ironically, Google is one of the largest advocates of NEtNEutrality but yet > one of the largeset threats to freedom. NetNEutrality is best purposed to > stop abuse of power by those with market power. I'd argue Google has majority > market power beyond that of any single access provider. Google has more > eyeballs and and steers Internet traffic more than any other entity. > > What would happen if we made a "Save the Small Provider, the real Open > Internet" or "Vote Content Neutrality not NetNeutrality for an Open Internet" > would it get a top indexing on search engines? Or would the "Save the > INternet" Pro NetNEutrality get the top Indexing? > > Google has the power allow consumers to see the point of view of content > providers, but to prevent their access to view Access provider's point of > view. > On a critical vote week like this week, Google has power to censor what > consumers can find and have access to. What preventing Google from doing > that right now, and compromising our Free country? Google is an advertising company. A very successful one. Having done extensive work in the advertising industry, I can tell you that censorship is the least of your worries. The threats to freedom come from the amount of information that is collected and collated on individuals and used to target advertising. Yes they possess extensive capabilities to support their distribution channel. Yes that channel is getting more and more extensive on a regular basis (search/maps/mail/mobile/tv). They have an open peering policy. They actively encourage people to peer with them and work out the best traffic engineering policies. How many folks here have peered with google and built TE policies? I know of at least one WISP that has. I have worked for organizations that exchanged massive amounts of traffic with google/microsoft and other large brands. There is a massive amount of things that happen behind the scenes, when you move from the access to distribution layer. Most people that speak publicly in the operations community are at the access layer (running eyeball networks). Very few people from the content provider/distribution space speak publicly. I am limited in what I can say, as I'm bound by various NDA. However I can say that the content providers and eye ball networks are interested in working out a good deal for everyone because of all the interdependencies in the digital asset supply chain. (Comcast being the obvious exception). Now I am of the impression that we need to have some regulation. It needs to let us run our networks in the best way possible. That means everything from traffic shaping on our customer facing links, to whatever traffic engineering policies we deem necessary to improve the bottom line. Also WISPS do need to be recognized (at a national level) as wireline replacement. We should not be lumped in with the JOKE that is "mobile broadband ^H^H^H toy broadband". > > What makes content providers a better steward of Freedom than Access > providers? Take a look at the supply chain sometime. The market will dictate self regulation. It's only when people like Comcast get greedy and have a monopoly, that things get nasty. At that point it is my opinion that the market rapidly steps in and shuts out that player. AT&T/Verizion/WISPS should be aggressively targeting Comcast subscribers with much better rates, and peering with L3/Netflix everywhere. This is what an ASN and your own IP space buys you. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJNCRuDAAoJEMvvG/TyLEAt9LEP/3bsR6dcyXUVBTGIF6kM++pA 5pg+vEqL0G5d6i+XR1DvDs+SlfILOfdSWsv3oRFSN/AHmopznq/2lB4AR/9SMqZs fdntkaB2wiuQBbAFeZUhXxJkKo8i/3hFzFLfzKApfTA0I6NoD3uUpO4kbzLFjMsq 17SJAN2RX9RxhmNTayyPnpb4Fj+otX4/NukWMB2da04k6f04jP1ok5uuAQOFErMm O6yi+KOVycp432LecNrVsHXwYHLdR0flpqfy8++SZ1M04aluUhCU8d8MUrU4Y96d af8aVkptymdb8oBNo8MLBGpQuBcn6tLym6UIDVjqUEsuTAvZh7JAu9TQ1mXSAyqN gTIO8jF7L2alBcbSDYpzjsRV/mvlwm/lj/EnrJq1wo8+uT+LC0ZIyZU+1oPwhuLR ffoZ9wh1QogCq+8UF2Zw7XCW9T1ID4zaUgy5m7PJaLOBlKVWl9Fa/7JOOxB5HPmX Uqx71CDjh/7DKYKErPjHz+/fDBLqS81PtfWln3Viy0Egr1X/LN3/NOJA+TP6lu8g qjrD1YzG8boGbzDEKS7Ov8svMA3koZK6R9w2Er8Omnvd5P64zImFKvDavnRwn0Oe 9as0/AhsjzghPBUtUqYUs9ur7U32bq3UvnpaKeATbQamgTrEwDBlp0EDo4qDGArX 0B/AMypZz/MCxQb2rlNx =Gg3m -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/
