Net Neutrality and RE: FCC's McDowell

Sat Dec 30 10:23:51 PST 2006

This debate is interesting: the shift to IP/SIP communications changes the 
relationship of network providers to services.

One example of this is that some alternative service providers such as 
PCCW/UK Broadband are open to letting third parties build out parts of their 
WiMAX networks. Say a college or business campus wishes to provide a campus 
and in-building network with assured QoS and high bandwidth that is tied to 
their fiber optic and Ethernet network.  PCCW would let them do this within 
their service agreement as long as they shared access with the general 
public.  The campus traffic would be prescribed high QoS/bandwidth priority 
on a VPN.  From PCCW's perspective, this helps build out the network and 
extends the back haul capability.  A reason they are willing to do this is 
because close ownership of the network (spectrum) is becoming a facilitator 
for services, not the be-all of the offering.  Leveraging relationships 
which take a capital commitment for deployment helps the overall business 
objectives.

A major advantage of WiFi is that it is user deployable using unlicensed 
spectrum.  By selectively opening up licensed spectrum to user adoption, 
some operators hope to capture a similar dynamic.

Robert Syputa

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tyler van Houwelingen" <tyler at azulstar.com>
To: "'SeattleWireless Talk List'" <talk at seattlewireless.net>
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2006 7:17 AM
Subject: RE: Net Neutrality and RE: FCC's McDowell

> This is very good info, thanks.
>
> If DSL, Cable and Wi-Fi (as in our muni Wi-Fi project for Silicon Valley)
> needs to meet net neutrality, so should Sprint and Co.   The difference
> between Sprint and a DSL provider is now blurring yet nothing is or likely
> will ever be net neutral on their networks.  If my firm (and Cable/DSL) 
> got
> to do it, they should to.  It will not work if you only regulate 1/2 the
> players in an industry.
>
> If there is a ton of money to be made by owning networks, more networks 
> will
> be built.  If you do not give ANY edge to a network owner for services, 
> what
> is the point in owning a network???
>
> Free markets work best.
> tyler
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: talk-bounces at seattlewireless.net
> [mailto:talk-bounces at seattlewireless.net] On Behalf Of Stephen Ronan
> Sent: Friday, December 29, 2006 10:19 AM
> To: SeattleWireless Talk List
> Subject: Re: Net Neutrality and RE: FCC's McDowell
>
> 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
>>
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> 