Net Neutrality and RE: FCC's McDowell

[Yournet@hotmail.com]

Right.

Network neutrality does not mean that network providers can't set up 'fair 
and non-discriminatory' use policies.  I haven't studied this issue in much 
detail but have heard the carriers side of the issue: they have paid for 
spectrum or to build out cable and other broadband  networks and now see 
their business models shifting increasingly to services over flat rate 
access plans.

For example, IPTV, music download services, file sharing can be offered on 
the Internet which eats up bandwidth
but for which they get no direct revenue.  All service is built out based on 
expected prime hour traffic patterns.  The IPTV and file sharing services 
are using 10X+ the bandwidth of typical Internet website traffic.  YouTube, 
which has about 40% of the IPTV open server hosting traffic, is growing at 
the rate of doubling traffic every 3-4 months, now at a rate of adding 25 
Gbps of capacity.  That is huge capacity and is about to be repeated across 
services from Microsoft, eBay, Yahoo! and others.

This marks just the tip of the iceberg for new services including 'webized' 
collaborative office suites, localized video advertising and location 
mapping services.



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tyler van Houwelingen" <tyler at azulstar.com>
To: "'SeattleWireless Talk List'" <talk at seattlewireless.net>
Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 6:01 AM
Subject: Net Neutrality and RE: FCC's McDowell


> 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
>