how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
 superdogI Need A DrinkPremium,MVM
join:2001-07-13
Lebanon, PA | reply to funchords
Re: The irony is amazing. 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
| |
 funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5
1 edit | 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! ... | |
| reply to superdog
Robb seems perfectly willing to make false and in fact slanderous statements about me and my business practices to further his crusade to regulate the Internet. To see my actual point of view, read my testimony from the FCC hearing at »www.brettglass.com/FCC/remarks.html. | |
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | said by SuperWISP:Robb seems perfectly willing to make false and in fact slanderous statements about me and my business practices to further his crusade to regulate the Internet. Nice charge, now cite the false and slanderous statements I've made about you.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon -- KJ7RL
... Do something! ... | |
 kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
1 edit | said by funchords:said by SuperWISP:Robb seems perfectly willing to make false and in fact slanderous statements about me and my business practices to further his crusade to regulate the Internet. Nice charge, now cite the false and slanderous statements I've made about you. You mean completely false BS like this?
quote:
Several people who have spoken before this Commission and before Congress have claimed that Internet service is the province of a cable/telco "duopoly" which must be reined in by regulations to keep it from exploiting its market power. Fortunately, as of the moment, this is not true. Estimates vary, but most agree that there are between 4,000 and 8,000 small, independent, competitive ISPs such as ourselves. These small operators need to be nurtured, protected from anticompetitive behavior, and given an opportunity to grow.
The "hot button" issue in the recent hearings has been ISPs' throttling or blocking of so-called "P2P" activities, including those carried on via software such as GNUtella, BitTorrent, eDonkey, and KaZaA. Because my time here is brief, I've summarized the situation in two slides. Here, in the first slide, you see the way that content and services are normally delivered on the Internet. The provider of the content or service sets up a server -- usually in a building called a "server farm" -- where Internet bandwidth is cheap and plentiful. The information travels across the Internet backbone and reaches the ISP, which pays much higher prices for bandwidth -- often as much as $300 per megabit per second per month. (By the way, these prices have lately been increasing -- not decreasing -- due to mergers and consolidation in the backbone market.) The ISP also maintains the expensive infrastructure that connects users to the backbone. The user pays the ISP to do this. This situation fulfills the implicit contract of the Internet which has been in place ever since it stopped being the government funded ARPAnet: everyone buys his or her connection to the backbone.
In the second slide, you see what happens when you have P2P. In this case, the content or service provider doesn't pay its full freight for connectivity to the backbone. Instead, it turns the users' computers into servers, which in turn distribute its content or services. And users often don't even know that this is occurring. All they know is that they installed the "downloading software" or other software that let them access the product.
This situation is great for the content provider; its bandwidth costs are reduced to nearly zero. And the customer -- who in the United States virtually always has flat rate service -- doesn't pay any more, because the service is flat rate. So, where do the bandwidth costs go? The answer: they are dumped on the ISP. What's more, because the ISP -- especially a rural ISP, but it applies to all of them -- pays much more per megabit to buy bandwidth and deliver it to customers, the costs are not only shifted but multiplied several hundredfold in the process. It's obvious to anyone that this isn't fair and it isn't in any way "neutral." The content provider is, in essence, setting up a server on the ISP's network without permission and without compensation. This is why ISPs virtually always prohibit P2P and also the operation of servers on residential connections by contract. Our contract with our users says this, and we fully disclose it; we do not hide it. If someone does want to operate servers on our network, we can offer him or her "business grade" bandwidth, for which we charge a fair price that takes these extra costs into account. But P2P makes the bottom lines of such companies as Vuze look better, so of course they want to mandate that it be allowed on all connections -- no matter how non-neutral this is or what harm it does to ISPs.
Pal, let's face it: you were arguing AGAINST network neutrality, using BS points, only to try to grab another load of money at the end, for the same thing you're already getting paid - delivering X amount of bits per second, that is.
Then you turn around and claiming the same thing cannot be applied for people who might can use this leverage against you the same way you want to use it against your own customers.
This topic here alone PERFECTLY CONFIRMS funchords' sarcastic reference to your nonexistent morals.
--
said by 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. | |
| Thank you for both quoting me out of context and making false statements about my views and intentions. | |
funchordsHelloPremium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5 | said by SuperWISP:Oh, I see. I'm obviously greedy and e-vile because my life's mission is to extend access to the Internet to people who would otherwise never get it -- and reap a very paltry reward for doing so (far less than if I'd invested my money and time in, say, real estate). And I must obviously be regulated out of business, because no ISP can ever possibly be good or even decent. NOT. Agreed, some of the attacks on you here assume too much and are not fair, like the accusation that you're greedy.
You certainly are a mean old prick who cannot be civil with anyone you disagree with. But I don't think you're greedy. In fact, I admire some things about you in spite of yourself. But you are, in fact, a very unkindly fellow.
And you're, in fact, the only guy throwing around the false accusations that all of us liars and perjurors and lobbyists somehow want to regulate WISPs out of business. Fortunately, you've immortalized yourself on every article on the subject -- most people read you very clearly -- they read you like a comic book.
said by SuperWISP:Thank you for both quoting me out of context and making false statements about my views and intentions. Ah, there you go again.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon -- KJ7RL
... Do something! ... | |
|
