Have you looked at the real cost involved in providing all of the
reporting you are going to have to do?
Fundamental difference of opinion on, "Also this is fundamentally good
for rural Americans." Regulation seldom makes it better for the consumer
in the long run. Just higher cost; as you state, the consumer will foot
the bill. I see things like USF as a form of double taxation. I pay my
taxes so someone in the government decides I should pay another fee.
On 11/19/2014 10:50 AM, Tim Way wrote:
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
<mailto: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> <mailto:d...@drewlentz.com>
*To: *"WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org>
<mailto: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 <mailto:Wireless@wispa.org>
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
_______________________________________________
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org <mailto:Wireless@wispa.org>
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
_______________________________________________
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org <mailto:Wireless@wispa.org>
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
_______________________________________________
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2015.0.5577 / Virus Database: 4213/8595 - Release Date: 11/19/14
--
Scott Reed
Owner
NewWays Networking, LLC
Wireless Networking
Network Design, Installation and Administration
Mikrotik Advanced Certified
www.nwwnet.net
(765) 855-1060 (765) 439-4253 Toll-free (855) 231-6239
_______________________________________________
Wireless mailing list
Wireless@wispa.org
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
