Net Neutrality is the magician waving his hands so we all look at that
while the real magic is the mergers that make it all moot...
Everybody, watch the hand... Don't watch the other one that is
reaching into your back pocket... Mergers are good for
politicians... Bigger companies write way bigger checks to politicians...
On 11/19/2014 09:26 AM, Sean Heskett wrote:
Title II is designed to breakup monopolies (i.e. Railroads, MaBell,
Electric, Gas etc.) everyone acts like it is the "Holy Grail" of free
market capitalism to have the government step in and regulate
everything your company wants to do. </scarcasm>
I'm not a monopoly...I have done nothing to deserve heavy handed
government regulation oversight of everything i do.
This "Net Neutrality" BS is just that BS...They are trying to "fix" a
problem that doesn't exist yet.
The real problem is that consumers have only the CableCo and TelCo as
options for purchasing internet. The government instead of regulating
should encourage competition in the free market. WISPs are one such
competitor.
The government should also stop turning a blind eye to mergers like
the Comcast & Time Warner merger that only exacerbates the problem and
will lead us to the MaBell situation where you can get internet from
one source only.
2 Cents
-sean
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 8:50 AM, Tim Way <t...@way.vg
<mailto:t...@way.vg>> 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 <mailto:Wireless@wispa.org>
http://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
