Here is my confusion on this issue. Everyone is acting like it is the great harbinger for Internet companies. One of the biggest problems I have is lack of clear information. I'm not saying I have any of those answers for certainty but I will point a few things I have picked up meanwhile donning my flame proof cap.
- Requires us to be able to provide per service reporting of traffic (I think of it as a port span or flow-analysis of a particular service user, which is fairly easy to do and you should already be able to do this) - Talks about potentially a 16% fee on service. This will not make you shut your doors big or small because every provider will have to do this and I can assure you in the long run no one is eating that cost but the consumer. Also this is fundamentally good for rural Americans. Rural areas have phone service because of that fund when used properly. Now it would include proper broadband access. This is the only risk I see to the WISP model. There is nothing that says you can't play both sides and become a participant in utilizing the USF to build out infrastructure even if that means doing scary things like diving into ground models like fiber. - The biggest one I have is fair treatment of traffic. To me this is the default way to run an ISP. I don't want an ISP that slows down certain traffic and I definitely don't want to be the service provider that does that. I'd rather see more guaranteed bandwidth numbers and a flatter pricing scheme even if that means a higher cost to the consumer. What I mean by that is if you deploy 100mbps of service to an area and you start signing up users and all the sudden you are promising everyone 20% over what you can provide them at the head-end don't use the words "up to" in your service agreement. Either adjust the service speeds to control the talking on a head-end radio or make adjustments to your architecture to accommodate the bursts in traffic. What that might mean is more smaller cells to service an area and yes that costs money. Nothing is free in this world so if it costs X dollars to provide Y services to consumers that want Y then such is life. No on complains when they need to upgrade their electrical service at home because they want to run more equipment or devices. If that means I as the consumer that wants to stream HD Netflix in 4 rooms has to upgrade my service then so be it. The provider (You/Me) can then build out our infrastructure to accommodate that need at the cost you and your customer agree on or he/she just decides that their bandwidth needs doesn't match the price point to achieve what they are trying to do and goes back to buying DVDs through Amazon. This also works on the upstream, as a small WISP do you really want to be on the receiving end of a big provider possibly your only option for decent upstream connectivity to suddenly start slowing down certain types of traffic? Then you are faced with trying to provide a service that your customers might demand without any ability other than potentially an extremely expensive one to fill that need. I think it is always better to not shape traffic for customers. Let them manage their connection to the Internet. Instead for high throughput applications we should push for the option to deploy CDN like edge devices from these larger service providers if the actual throughput is not available or more costly. Alright I've got my flame retardant cap on let the replies flood in :) Tim On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 9:24 AM, Sam Tetherow <tethe...@shwisp.net> wrote: > I'm guessing that while the phone companies may not like the idea it > seems a little less onerous to them since they are already dealing with > Title II. If nothing else it will weed out the smaller competition in > their eyes. > > While the cable companies or more strongly in the hate it camp I doubt > they will be getting out of the business if it comes about. > > Depending on what requirements actually come out of Title II for ISPs will > probably have several WISPs close their doors. If there isn't some sort of > small business exemption I doubt I will stay in the business. > > > On 11/19/2014 07:51 AM, Mike Hammett wrote: > > I can't imagine why anyone other than a blind consumer would love it. > > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > <https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL> > <https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb> > <https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions> > <https://twitter.com/ICSIL> > > ------------------------------ > *From: *"Drew Lentz" <d...@drewlentz.com> <d...@drewlentz.com> > *To: *"WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> <wireless@wispa.org> > *Sent: *Wednesday, November 19, 2014 7:49:20 AM > *Subject: *[WISPA] Quick Question: Title II, for or against? > > I put up a quick poll, results will be shared and are anonymous. > > https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/3R6YTH9 > > I'm curious to see what the percentages are between those that support > and those that don't support the Title II argument. I've been trying to get > a good feel for who would and wouldn't like it (mostly it seems carriers > love it, web services hate it.) I have a feeling WISPs might be on the > "hate it" side, but I'm interested to find out. Thanks for your answer and > have a fantastic day! > > -d > > _______________________________________________ > Wireless mailing list > Wireless@wispa.org > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > > > _______________________________________________ > Wireless mailing > listWireless@wispa.orghttp://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > > > _______________________________________________ > Wireless mailing list > Wireless@wispa.org > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >
_______________________________________________ Wireless mailing list Wireless@wispa.org http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
