funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
 ·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Skype
| The irony is amazing.
Brett Glass, SuperWISP  , wants to force ESPN360 not to interfere with the relationship between user and ISP.
However, he is totally against any Net Neutrality regulation that would prevent ISPs from interfering with the relationships between users and their own chosen destinations on the net.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon -- KJ7RL
... Do something! ... |
|
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
|  said by funchords :Brett Glass, SuperWISP , wants to force ESPN360 not to interfere with the relationship between user and ISP. However, he is totally against any Net Neutrality regulation that would prevent ISPs from interfering with the relationships between users and their own chosen destinations on the net. Ha ha, now that *IS* funny Robb. |
|
superdog
I Need A Drink
Premium,MVM
join:2001-07-13
Lebanon, PA
| reply to funchords
said by funchords :Brett Glass, SuperWISP , wants to force ESPN360 not to interfere with the relationship between user and ISP. However, he is totally against any Net Neutrality regulation that would prevent ISPs from interfering with the relationships between users and their own chosen destinations on the net. I think you may be reading into his statement a little to far?. Your chosen destination is not the issue. The type of traffic your usage generates and the ability of the ISP to use shaping techniques is his main concern. Every ISP will always do some type of network management, as we have seen in the past by the tactics employed by Comcast.
I think his main concern is that the FCC will stop them from using any type of shaping/throttling at all. If this happens, a lot of smaller carriers will be forced out of business, especially WISP's. If that happens?, a lot of users will loose their broadband connection, as most WISP's, (myself included) serve mostly rural areas that would have no other option if we were to close our doors.
I personally shape traffic, but do not discern what type of traffic it is. In other words, I could care less whether or not it is P2P, gaming etc. If you are a network hog or heavy user, your packets will go through, albeit at a slower rate.
--
»www.wavecrazy.net
|
|
OSUGoose
join:2007-12-27
Columbus, OH
clubs:
·AT&T Midwest
 ·Cingular Wireless
·Verizon BroadbandA..
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to Matt
Whats realy funny is this:
I get that message, but according to ESPN360.com my ISP Insight Communications, permits me to have access, but the ISP portion is realy just TWC RR, rebranded as insight's (insight.rr.com) so im assuming RR, or TWC doesnt have a deal with them? |
|
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
·T-Mobile US
| reply to funchords
said by funchords :Brett Glass, SuperWISP , wants to force ESPN360 not to interfere with the relationship between user and ISP. However, he is totally against any Net Neutrality regulation that would prevent ISPs from interfering with the relationships between users and their own chosen destinations on the net. Let me say it so you don't have to: it's called a greeedy PoS character with no integrity whatsoever. 
--
[BQUOTE=[user=bicker]]Waaaa waaaa waaaa. You just want what you want and don't care to factor in what is right or true. Your perspectives are un-American, and deserve far more ridicule than I'm prepared to pile on them.
[/BQUOTE] |
|
DannyZ
Gentoo Fanboy
Premium
join:2003-01-29
Erie, PA | reply to OSUGoose
I'm on TWC RR and I don't get the message |
|
OSUGoose
join:2007-12-27
Columbus, OH
clubs: | lol, yet again insight users are a second class citizen |
|
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
·Time Warner Cable
·buckeye cable
| Not all customers that can get the service gets any message.
I have access to it but i don't get any messages.
Also you are free to use RoadRunner via Time Warner as well  |
|
OSUGoose
join:2007-12-27
Columbus, OH
clubs: | um no seeing how on this side of columbus its insight or wow. Next time before you spout off, know the area. It be very fulish for twc to let insight sell rr, in the same neighborhood they do. |
|
hottboiinnc
ME
join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH
·Time Warner Cable
·buckeye cable
| No it wouldn't. TWC would make money either way. Insight pays RoadRunner for that access. The customer could also pay TWC direct for the RR service. It works the same way with CLECS. IF you don't pay the ILEC direct you still pay them some how because they have to lease the lines.
If you wanted to be treated the same was as RoadRunner customers on the TWC side why not move to the area that has TWC and as you claim won't be treated as a 2nd class citizen even though TWC and RR are separate companies. RR is just the ISP part. |
|
james
join:2001-02-26
antarctica
| reply to OSUGoose
said by OSUGoose :It be very fulish for twc to let insight sell rr, in the same neighborhood they do. ful me once, shame on you,
ful me twice...shame...shame on...cant get fuled again. |
|
superdog
I Need A Drink
Premium,MVM
join:2001-07-13
Lebanon, PA
| reply to kamm
said by kamm :Let me say it so you don't have to: it's called a greeedy PoS character with no integrity whatsoever. Hmmmmm...... You know the man personally, or is this something you deduced by reading a few paragraphs? 
--
»www.wavecrazy.net
|
|
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
·T-Mobile US
| If you don't understand funchords' post then just come out and ask for help.
--
[BQUOTE=[user=bicker]]Waaaa waaaa waaaa. You just want what you want and don't care to factor in what is right or true. Your perspectives are un-American, and deserve far more ridicule than I'm prepared to pile on them.
[/BQUOTE] |
|
superdog
I Need A Drink
Premium,MVM
join:2001-07-13
Lebanon, PA
| said by kamm :If you don't understand funchords' post then just come out and ask for help. I am thinking that perhaps you don't understand my question?. Funchords has a right to his opinion (as do you), and he voiced his based upon what he read (obviously?). At least he backed up his response with some facts. How are you basing yours?. If all you are doing is making a deduction based upon reading someone else's paragraph?, perhaps you need the help in understanding a simple question?, have you done any research to base your insults, or are you simply hitting auto quote adding your .02 to simply take up server space.
--
»www.wavecrazy.net
|
|
espaeth
Digital Plumber
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
·voip.ms
·Vitelity VOIP
·Callcentric
·VoiceStick
·ViaTalk
·Comcast
·Embarq
| reply to kamm
said by kamm :Let me say it so you don't have to: it's called a greeedy PoS character with no integrity whatsoever. Making $2.50/mo per subscriber is the definition of greed?
This is the quintessential comment that highlights the absurdity of posts in these forums. |
|
SuperWISP
join:2007-04-17
Laramie, WY
| reply to funchords
ESPN360: Boycott and possible class action lawsuit
While ESPN360's tactics are not a violation of anyone's definition of "network neutrality" (though this may change, because the "net neutrality" zealots seem to be expanding their definitions daily), they do have the same goal as "network neutrality" regulation: to shift costs from content providers to ISPs.
"Network neutrality" regulation -- which is not "neutral" at all because it favors content providers over ISPs -- does this by forcing ISPs to allow bandwidth costs to be shifted from content providers to ISPs. (See my testimony at »www.brettglass.com/FCC/remarks.html for an explanation of this, complete with graphics.)
ESPN360, on the other hand, is trying to shift costs to ISPs by forcing them to actually pay it money.
So, ESPN360's tactics and "network neutrality" have these things in common. They are both being foisted on ISPs by large corporations in an attempt to shake them down for money, and if successful will both cause broadband to become more expensive.
Robb, you're a "consultant" to the lobbying group Free Press, which is well known to be lobbying on behalf of the agenda of content provider Google. So, in essence, you're a shill for the content providers here. |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
3 edits | said by SuperWISP :While ESPN360's tactics are not a violation of anyone's definition of "network neutrality" (though this may change, because the "net neutrality" zealots seem to be expanding their definitions daily), they do have the same goal as "network neutrality" regulation: to shift costs from content providers to ISPs. Brett, get off of of the "shift costs from content providers to ISPs" motive. It's not only inaccurate, it makes you shrill. The NN team doesn't care about shifting costs. It cares about special deals and treatment. Feel free to bring it up as a consequence when appropriate, but you sound like a net.kook when you just throw around mud.
Since ESPN360 isn't "the network," then it cannot -- by definition -- have any bearing on its neutrality (small 'n' in this case). But, yeah, this NN stuff morphs because just as there can be non-neutral network behaviors there certainly can be non-neutral economic ones. That's where Net Neutrality leaves the technical realm. This is the part that seems to morph.
But, technical or economic, these are all framed in the context of carriage.
Would what a content provider does affect anything in the NN space? Actually, Yes, I worry that it could -- but you have to look at it from the other side of the contract: who's on the other end of the horn?
Think about it: whose the content provider making the deal with -- the ISP! So now there's an economic reason to prioritize (or protect) certain "premium" traffic. That stinks!
said by SuperWISP :Robb, you're a "consultant" to the lobbying group Free Press, which is well known to be lobbying on behalf of the agenda of content provider Google. So, in essence, you're a shill for the content providers here. I shill for no one. Hell, on this topic, I'm closer to your position than the other side! (And there you go again with your kooky accusations -- Google's support for NN doesn't make the NN-groups advocates for Google's entire agenda.)
I've been pretty outspoken about Viacom's New Year's Eve attempt to shake down Cable ISPs for their customers' access to its sites -- ESPN360's model is only slightly different, and regardless of any position of my clients (they've not taken one AFAIK), I'm not a fan of an ISP-based subscription model. That puts my views rather aligned with your interests (and that's not the first time).
And even though I share your disapproval of this kind of business model, I still think it's amazingly ironic that you, in particular, think ESPN360 ought to be forced to do anything with their private site. Now that's entertainment!
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon -- KJ7RL
... Do something! ... |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
1 edit | reply to superdog
Re: The irony is amazing.
said by superdog :Every ISP will always do some type of network management, as we have seen in the past by the tactics employed by Comcast. What we learned was that most ISPs did not use such tactics.
said by superdog :I think his main concern is that the FCC will stop them from using any type of shaping/throttling at all. If this happens, a lot of smaller carriers will be forced out of business, especially WISP's. If that happens?, a lot of users will loose their broadband connection, as most WISP's, (myself included) serve mostly rural areas that would have no other option if we were to close our doors. There is a lot of sensitivity to this particular concern -- and it's not only mine, but the people in DC who are interested in NN are not at all interested in affecting small ISPs that actually create competition.
That said, we continue to have no data about the impacts of traffic requiring discrimination. But even if we did, isn't it better to let the market sort it out when it is possible? It's generally agreed that if we had great competition, we wouldn't even be talking about NN regulation.
My particular view is that any regulation ought to have either an exemption or a study period for alternative ISPs (providing rural or competing services to the advantaged monopolistic incumbent providers). That's my view -- not a position shared by anyone in particular, but the folks that I work with seem to also be both very pro-competition and pro-rural and are not interested in making your lives any more difficult than they already are.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon -- KJ7RL
... Do something! ... |
|
wentlanc
You Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH
| reply to espaeth
said by espaeth :said by kamm :Let me say it so you don't have to: it's called a greeedy PoS character with no integrity whatsoever. Making $2.50/mo per subscriber is the definition of greed? No, an ISP making money is not greed. A content provider forcing an ISP to collect from ALL users merely for the "right" to have access for a website IS greed. They know that they could get more money if they partner with the ISP, and the ISP will collect on their money for them.
You start billing me for a service that I will NEVER use, and I will cancel your service.
cw |
|
