Net Neutrality and RE: FCC's McDowell

[Stephen Ronan]

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: talk-bounces at seattlewireless.net
>[mailto:talk-bounces at seattlewireless.net] On Behalf Of Gary
>Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2006 9:44 PM
>To: talk at seattlewireless.net
>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
>Talk at seattlewireless.net
>http://seattlewireless.net/mailman/listinfo/talk
>
>_______________________________________________
>Talk mailing list
>Talk at seattlewireless.net
>http://seattlewireless.net/mailman/listinfo/talk
>
>  
>