> 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. >
Well thats part of the problem. Do we really have that option? L3 and Netflix often deny peering requests from smaller operators. They dont let us play, and dont always allow us the option to share in the savings. So what do you think NetFlix's mentality is.... If we were to want to interconnect.... Would they ask us to eat the cost to build out to them, or would they eat the csot to build out to us, or would we share the csot and meet in the middle? Everyone thinks they are more valluable than the small local provider, and the small local provider usually gets leveraged into paying the cost to interconnect. Why shouldn't WISPs have peering relationships direct with NetFlix, where either party pays the other for having higher push traffic? Why are we not worthy to be the recipient of compinsation in peering? Dont misunderstand me, I do not mean to stereo type and I am not saying for sure that NetFlix or any content provider aren't willing to peer or talk about fair terms. I'm just saying, who's in control of whether it will occur? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband ----- Original Message ----- From: "Charles N Wyble" <char...@knownelement.com> To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 2010 2:48 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Free Press Floods the FCC With Net Neutrality Petitions > -----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/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/
