how-to block ads
|
Uniqs:
2008 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
| | Looking at the old "policy" "protecting the consumer's right to access the lawful Internet content, applications, and services of their choice."
Consumer's RIGHT? I don't recall unrestricted connection to the internet as a Constitutional right.
No problem...I can set up a $200 per month tier for anyone that wants that kind of connectivity, or have in my contract/TOS what MY rules are. If you don't like MY rules, don't use MY service.
"It also suggests that consumers should have the right to attach any non-harmful devices to the network they see fit."
As the consumer sees fit? Non-harmful?
Since when does the clueless consumer have the right to determine what is and isn't fit to connect to my wireless network?
If I have a 802.11n network, a consumer can connect to it with a 802.11b device. Will it cause harm? No, not for the consumer. Will it cause harm to the rest of my 802.11n network and all my other users? Yes. so I suppose I can prohibit that kind of radio as it would be a harmful device.
Let suppose I require a firewall or router behind each CPE (may it be a stand alone router or the CPE's built in router), should I allow a consumer to connected any CPE they want? No, because it would be considered a harmful device. | |
|   w0go.O
join:2001-08-30
Springfield, OR | Re: Looking at the old "policy" Do what you want with your network, but if you're selling access to the Internet, you don't own it or have any right to govern it. "Your" network means nothing because you're selling a public service/utility. Feel free to disconnect your network from the Internet and sell it as your own private service and no one would give a crap, restrict it as much as you want, no one would want it anyway. | |
| | | | Re: Looking at the old "policy" An ISP is not a recognized "public service/utility" as far as a state franchise or regulatory body is concerned. Its WISP is a private enterprise, not a regulated TV cable or telco service. | |
| | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | Re: Looking at the old "policy" 1. The target isn't you. It's Comcast, TWC, Verizon and AT&T.
2. Careful, you'll get yourself regulated just like a utility. | |
|
| | Heh, sounds like a 65-year-old telecom executive. It's the same sort of crap we heard when the FCC gave consumers the right to attach their own telephone devices. Telephone companies acted like it would be the death of the telephone network, but in the end it's been the antiquated policies of the phone companies (that still think they can nickle-and-dime customers to death for "custom calling features") that have caused the decline in landlines, not equipment that consumers have purchased and attached.
What you can't do is sell a bicycle to someone after you've advertised it as an automobile. No one will stop you from selling your restricted-access, customer-unfriendly private network, but if you advertise it as "Internet access" you'll get slapped down hard. Just as you can't call any old mechanical transportation device an automobile, there can and should be certain standards about what can be called "Internet access." If you don't meet those standards, then you get no federal and state subsidies, you don't get carte blanche permission to string your wires or cables across public rights-of-way, and you don't get any other benefit or assistance that might be afforded to a real Internet provider. That's why it's important that we set the bar high for what's considered "Internet Access."
Also, when we say consumer right to such access, of course it's not a constitutional right, but it is a right that can be given by government. Think of it in terms of buying a car - you now have a right to buy a car that gets a certain level of fuel economy that was unheard of in your parents' generation, because government policies have given you that right. Technically it might be an ability rather than a right, but either way, you can obtain something your parents couldn't because government policies forced automakers to offer more fuel-efficient cars. If that was legal, then I see no reason why government can't pass laws and policies that enforce more consumer-friendly Internet access. Yes, you can still build a car in your home auto shop that gets three miles a gallon if you really want to, you just can't use it on the public roads or offer to sell it to anyone else. And you'll still be able to use a slow, locked down network in your home or office if you really want to, but you won't be able to sell it to others as Internet access. | |
| | | | Re: Looking at the old "policy" Obviously you guys don't run an ISP. If it costs me $600 for a T1 and if a single user wants full access to that T1, then I can't support any other customers.
Ahhh...but you say I should buy more T1 lines...sorry, that would not leave me with any profit and then NO ONE would have service.
Sure I can give a customer full access to a T1, but it will cost them $800 per month for the T1 and dedicated circuit for him off my network.
You guys just don't get it. Back haul bandwidth costs money.
The argument about customers attaching their own phone is not a comparison. A phone is a phone. If I have a proprietary Motorola Canopy system, am I supposed to support a common 802.11g secondary network for those that want to use their own radio?
Its MY network...If you want to use MY network to access the internet, you play by MY rules for find another provider.
Our wireless network is designed for a 2,000 Kbps internet speed. This is 100 times faster than a rural dial-up connection. In other words, checking your Yahoo email or reading a CNN web page should take less than a few seconds to load, compared to three minutes using a dial-up line.
Our network is optimized for essential internet use such as:
Educational research
News, weather, and sports
Banking and paying bills
Health and medical care
Public and government services
On-line price comparing and purchasing
Consumer information
Email and instant messaging
We are an essential services provider, not an entertainment or telephone company. Therefore our network may not be suitable and perhaps speed limited or even blocked for bandwidth consuming use such as:
Television programs - Hulu, Slingbox, UpstreamTV, XBox
On-line movies - DirectTV on Demand, Netflix
Peer-to-peer file sharing - BitTorrent, µTorrent, Limewire, Kazaa
Internet telephone calls - Vonage, Skype
Streaming video - webcams, YouTube
Virtual storage and backup - Mozy
Online games
If you have need for these services, we strongly recommend you look for another internet provider.
We have a Fair Access Policy (FAP) in place. If a user's bandwidth consuming use severely impacts other users, we may limit that user's service until use is moderated.
| |
| | | | | Re: Looking at the old "policy" said by nevtxjustin:Our network is optimized for essential internet use such as: ... We are an essential services provider, not an entertainment or telephone company. Therefore our network may not be suitable and perhaps speed limited or even blocked for bandwidth consuming use such as: ... I think this is wrong because it makes you the arbitrator of good, bad, needed, not needed.
Think about what you are trying to accomplish and work back from there. We have X mb to share in a fair way. An easy way to do this is by setting a low cir with a much higher burst and small burst bucket. You could even set bucket size based on average usage so that someone who didn't download all day would have a larger bucket then someone who did. There are hundreds of ways to slice it but as soon as you start playing god of the internet, even when its your internet, your bound to start making bad decisions. Think of yourself as the government and then provide systems for the people to regulate themselves with as little regulation as possible. | |
| | | | | | Re: Looking at the old "policy" said by petecarlson:I think this is wrong because it makes you the arbitrator of good, bad, needed, not needed. If you sign up for my service, then you acknowledge that I have the final say. Don't like, don't sign the contract. Simple as that. | |
| | | | | | | Re: Looking at the old "policy" said by nevtxjustin:said by petecarlson:I think this is wrong because it makes you the arbitrator of good, bad, needed, not needed. If you sign up for my service, then you acknowledge that I have the final say. Don't like, don't sign the contract. Simple as that. Hmm, well I guess I don't sign the contract. Simple as that... I understand where you're coming from, but that's not how most of us see the internet working. | |
|
| | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
 ·Comcast
| Hmm, online backup isn't an essential service? Tell that to someone who has lost data.
Additionally, let me ask a question that I will continue to repeat: what if your bandwidth at the headend was $30 per Mbit? How about $15? How about $5? Would you then offer unrestricted packages? | |
| | | | | | Re: Looking at the old "policy" said by iansltx:Hmm, online backup isn't an essential service? Tell that to someone who has lost data. Additionally, let me ask a question that I will continue to repeat: what if your bandwidth at the headend was $30 per Mbit? How about $15? How about $5? Would you then offer unrestricted packages? DVD burners are a lot faster for backups.
Did you mean to say $5 per one *GB* per month. A user can easily burn through 1 GB per day, and that's not counting software downloads and updates. So for 30 GB per month, I'd be paying $150 per month and charging him only $35 per month (or there about). EVEN if I paid only $1 per GB per month all the wile charging him for $35 per month connection, I'd be loosing money.
So no...even if my backhaul cost was $5 per GB per month.
True, P2P can look like anything you or they want, that's why I would put a blanket cap at 30 or 50 GB per month and not care what the traffic really was. | |
| | | | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: Looking at the old "policy" Apparently you misunderstood me.
hat if you could get a 100 Mbit connection for $3k? How about $1500? How about $500? How would that change your business model?
As for DVD burnes being faster for backups, how far do you think DVDs are from the computer being backed up? Offsite anyone? | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Looking at the old "policy" said by iansltx:Apparently you misunderstood me. hat if you could get a 100 Mbit connection for $3k? How about $1500? How about $500? How would that change your business model? OK, that makes more sense.
No, it wouldn't because the cheaper the bandwidth, the more customer's I can load out. | |
| | | | | | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | Re: Looking at the old "policy" Aaaaaaaand there's the problem. You're complaining about expensive bandwidth yet you wouldn't change a thing except add to profits if you had cheap b\w. Thanks a lot. | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: Looking at the old "policy" said by iansltx:you wouldn't change a thing except add to profits if you had cheap b\w. BINGO! I'm operating a "for profit" business, not a tax supported library free hotspot.
You are certainly free to invest thousands of dollars to get your own backbone connection. | |
| | | | | | | | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | Re: Looking at the old "policy" Just realize that if you're the only one in your area providing decent service, you might get government-financed, open-network competition. At which point you'll come crying to the WISP boards saying 'It's not fair."
Hmph. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: Looking at the old "policy" said by iansltx:government-financed, open-network competition. = only required to meet minimum requirement for 756 Kbps proposed definition of broadband
= government dictating how you run your business
= requiring additional "family friendly" filtering
= dealing with any customer demanding they use their own CPE that may not be compatible with your AP
= can be only funded for underserved (translation: non-profitable) areas. I don't deploy in non-profitable areas, so its a moot point | |
| | | | | | | | | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | Re: Looking at the old "policy" If you don't give your customers the option for 3 Mbps access, your deployment areas are underserved. | |
| | | | | | | | | |
1 edit | Re: Looking at the old "policy" said by iansltx:If you don't give your customers the option for 3 Mbps access, your deployment areas are underserved. Assuming you mean I would be under serving my customers with less than a 3 Mbps connection...
The typical user (read that as 99%) would hardly notice in the time it took for a CNN web page to load between 3 and 1.5 Mbps.
We spend several hours a day for a week comparing connection speeds using a 10 Mbps internet connection and testing different wireless AP to CPE speeds.
For an identical sized file:
20 Kbps - 4:20 minutes
786 Kbps - 12 seconds
1.5 Mbps - 1 sec
3.0 Mbps - 1 sec
For typical web use, the tripping point was around 1.3 Mbps. Past that speed, there was little, if any, discernible difference ins web page loading time on the CPE side.
At one time, we considered three speed/price points.
We had a 90% uptake for the $19/1.5 Mbps plan. That meant users were driven by price, not speed.
We had a few for the $29/3 Mbps plan.
And a few for the $59/6 Mbps plan that was targeted for users that were will ing to pay extra for a faster speed.
We concluded people were taking advantage of us (to crudely and realistically phrase that), when the infrastructure cost was the same for a higher speed, i.e. CPE cost was the same regardless of what speed they wanted.
We also concluded that the $19 plan that was meant to be an incentive to sign up with us was unwarranted as we were deploying in areas where there was no competition or where the competition was so terrible...the mere presence of our service was an incentive in itself, without having to resort to a lower price offering.
Edited for crucial typographic error in spelling... | |
| | | | | | | | | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: Looking at the old "policy" Sorry for not clarifying. The gov't says that an area is underserved if there's no 3 Mbps terrestrial service available. I'd agree with you that for static content (i.e. not video or downloads) 1.5 Mbps is about the tipping point. However when you get into video stuff you're looking at 3 Mbps-plus. | |
|
| | said by nevtxjustin:"protecting the consumer's right to access the lawful Internet content, applications, and services of their choice." Consumer's RIGHT? I don't recall unrestricted connection to the internet as a Constitutional right. Your attempting to argue that the only rights one has are the rights granted in the Constitution and amendments. A tall order that that falls on it's face. This is the crux of network neutrality and I would love to debate it but how is one supposed to debate such a childish rebuttal?
said by nevtxjustin:No problem...I can set up a $200 per month tier for anyone that wants that kind of connectivity, or have in my contract/TOS what MY rules are. If you don't like MY rules, don't use MY service. If it costs $200 to provide said service then so be it but as a fellow WISP operator I know you are full of it. Limit bandwidth and cap traffic till you get to a profitable price point but do it in a network neutral manner. We can't pretend that we are the gods of the internet.
said by nevtxjustin:"It also suggests that consumers should have the right to attach any non-harmful devices to the network they see fit." As the consumer sees fit? Non-harmful? Since when does the clueless consumer have the right to determine what is and isn't fit to connect to my wireless network? If I have a 802.11n network, a consumer can connect to it with a 802.11b device. Will it cause harm? No, not for the consumer. Will it cause harm to the rest of my 802.11n network and all my other users? Yes. so I suppose I can prohibit that kind of radio as it would be a harmful device. Absofrickenlutly. Easy to do to. No one says you can't run N, even if you want to throw airmax in the mix. You could even refuse associations below/above X dbi or modulation rate as these things could cause real harm.
said by nevtxjustin:Let suppose I require a firewall or router behind each CPE (may it be a stand alone router or the CPE's built in router), should I allow a consumer to connected any CPE they want? No, because it would be considered a harmful device. Your going to have to explain this one to me. Now I understand why you do this, I do the same thing for the most part, but it is the harmful actions that you need to ban and not the act of hooking my Ubuntu box directly to my cpe. | |
| | | | Re: Looking at the old "policy" To me, network neutrality means I don't block a competitive service, i.e. if I had my own VoIP servcie, then I should not block Vonage or Skype. This is a not network neutrality issue, its an unfair commerce issue that is addressed by other existing laws already in place.
I block ALL PtP traffic, therefore I am practicing network neutrality. In other words, I give no preference to any particular PtP service. *THAT* is the crux of network neutrality.
said by petecarlson:Your going to have to explain this one to me. Now I understand why you do this, I do the same thing for the most part, but it is the harmful actions that you need to ban and not the act of hooking my Ubuntu box directly to my cpe. For me, it would not be your CPE, its still mine. I don't care what you connect to the LAN side of my routed CPE. | |
| | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 Reviews:
·Comcast
| Re: Looking at the old "policy" Actually, some folks think that network neutrality is a bit different. I'm pretty sure I can make P2P look like encrypted video traffic to a packet shaper.
You aren't really talking about network neutrality when saying "I'm not blocking competitors' service." That was lumped in with net neutrality at first but that's more plain anticompetitive practices. You're right in saying that net neutrality isn't about unlimited data access. It's just about a level playing field, the ability to pass ones and zeros from point A to point B without getting cut off based on what those ones and zeros actually are. You can do 'dumb" shaping based on flows, no problem. You can cap traffic. Comcast does both. Cox does the first in practice and the second nominally. no big deal.
But when you don't offer an alternative (either at your own company or someone else's) and/or you kill certain traffic outright, that stifles the progression of internet services. | |
| | | | | | Re: Looking at the old "policy" Lets take it a step further...isn't QOS for VoIP a form of violating neutrality by giving priority to VoIP and by de facto taking priority from HTTP. | |
| | | | | iansltx
join:2007-02-19
Golden, CO
kudos:2 | Re: Looking at the old "policy" That falls under reasonable network management. It's not really VoIP that gets priority in that case, so much as flow-based priority to realtime applications. That's net-neutral and that works. | |
|
mdrift
join:2003-08-15
Spokane, WA | said by nevtxjustin:"protecting the consumer's right to access the lawful Internet content, applications, and services of their choice." Consumer's RIGHT? I don't recall unrestricted connection to the internet as a Constitutional right. No problem...I can set up a $200 per month tier for anyone that wants that kind of connectivity, or have in my contract/TOS what MY rules are. If you don't like MY rules, don't use MY service. "It also suggests that consumers should have the right to attach any non-harmful devices to the network they see fit." As the consumer sees fit? Non-harmful? Since when does the clueless consumer have the right to determine what is and isn't fit to connect to my wireless network? If I have a 802.11n network, a consumer can connect to it with a 802.11b device. Will it cause harm? No, not for the consumer. Will it cause harm to the rest of my 802.11n network and all my other users? Yes. so I suppose I can prohibit that kind of radio as it would be a harmful device. Let suppose I require a firewall or router behind each CPE (may it be a stand alone router or the CPE's built in router), should I allow a consumer to connected any CPE they want? No, because it would be considered a harmful device. The US Constitution didn't outlaw slavery, so by not addressing it it somehow condoned it?
The mutable US Constitution beyond the Bill of Rights is designed to expand or contract with the times. | |
|
| |
|
