RE: Net Neutrality and RE: FCC's McDowell
"Tyler van Houwelingen" <[email protected]> Sat, 30 Dec 2006 10:17:32 -0500
| Newsgroups | gmane.network.wireless.seattle.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <004d01c72c25$a19950a0$e4cbf1e0$@com> |
This is very good info, thanks. If DSL, Cable and Wi-Fi (as in our muni Wi-Fi project for Silicon Valley) needs to meet net neutrality, so should Sprint and Co. The difference between Sprint and a DSL provider is now blurring yet nothing is or likely will ever be net neutral on their networks. If my firm (and Cable/DSL) got to do it, they should to. It will not work if you only regulate 1/2 the players in an industry. If there is a ton of money to be made by owning networks, more networks will be built. If you do not give ANY edge to a network owner for services, what is the point in owning a network??? Free markets work best. tyler -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Stephen Ronan Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 10:19 AM To: SeattleWireless Talk List Subject: Re: Net Neutrality and RE: FCC's McDowell I don't think that any net neutrality bills that have received serious consideration would block you from dealing effectively with situations such as you mention. You'd still be able to charge more to customers using more bandwidth, and be able to traffic shape to reduce priority for P2P traffic generally... You wouldn't however be able to do things block some particular organizations' videos while letting others through based on their willingness to pay you a fee. For example, the Markey bill contains this language: "7) if the broadband network provider prioritizes or offers enhanced quality of service to data of a particular type, [the broadband network provider has the duty to] prioritize or offer enhanced quality of service to all data of that type (regardless of the origin of such data) without imposing a surcharge or other consideration for such prioritization or quality of service [...] Exceptions --- Nothing in this section shall prohibit a broadband network provider from implementing reasonable and nondiscriminitory measures to-- (1) manage the functioning of its network, on a systemwide basis, provided that any such management function does not result in discrimination between content, applications, or services offered by the provider and unaffiliated providers; 2) offer varying levels of transmission speed or bandwidth 3) protect network security or the security of a user's computer on the network [...]" -Stephen Ronan Tyler van Houwelingen wrote: >Quite a stand up guy, that is very good to see on either side. > >The issue at its heart is really about network neutrality. I got to tell >you, from the point of view of a network owner, network neutrality is pretty >scary. Because you do not have infinite bandwidth, you really need to be >careful, especially with P2P apps. Providers moving around HD videos can >use up YOUR entire network very fast. It can cause other critical apps to >stop working. If there is not an economic incentive to segment traffic >according to economic priority, you will always have problems. > >There must be at least some money to be made by owning a network. Even if >the networks are NOT FOR PROFIT, they still need to be able to support >themselves financially. If not, muni Wi-Fi and WiMAX networks will hot be >built or are destined to fail. You need an incentive to increase capacity >or overlay networks and break the duopoly. > >Shouldn't net neutrality also apply to mobile providers such as Sprint? How >the heck to they do ANY of there premium services if it MUST be wide open? > >ty > > > >Tyler van Houwelingen >Founder and CEO >Azulstar, Inc. >1-877-AZULSTAR (main) >1-616-842-1104 (fax) >www.azulstar.com > > >-----Original Message----- >From: [email protected] >[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Gary >Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2006 9:44 PM >To: [email protected] >Subject: FCC's McDowell Stands By Recusal on Merger Vote > >This is from a few days ago but it's nice to see an FCC chairman with a >conscience. See here; not all Republicans are bad. ;) >http://www.wi-fiplanet.com/news/print.php/3649831 > >Has anyone heard if this deadlock's been broken? Also, what do folks >here tend to read for wireless news? Wi-Fi Net News and W-Fi Planet seem >pretty well rounded but at times sporadic. A mobile phone provider I >worked for a few years ago used to sub to a pile of industry news >services that I wish I still had access to. Perhaps I'm just not finding >the right RSS feed. Any suggestions? > >-Gary >_______________________________________________ >Talk mailing list >[email protected] >http://seattlewireless.net/mailman/listinfo/talk > >_______________________________________________ >Talk mailing list >[email protected] >http://seattlewireless.net/mailman/listinfo/talk > > > _______________________________________________ Talk mailing list [email protected] http://seattlewireless.net/mailman/listinfo/talk _______________________________________________ Talk mailing list [email protected] http://seattlewireless.net/mailman/listinfo/talk