Net Neutrality and RE: FCC's McDowell

Tue Jan 2 07:52:07 PST 2007

very interesting, this is like Seattle wireless nodes on steroids.

Customer repeaters have always caused us issues.   I wonder how they are 
ensuring reliability and coordinating frequencies as wimax mesh is not out 
yet.  (although Belair claims they have it)   Mobility is the only other 
issues I see.

Tyler van Houwelingen
Founder and Chairman
Azulstar, Inc.
1051 Jackson, Grand Haven, MI 49417
Main:  1-877-AZULSTAR
Fax:  616-842-1104
www.azulstar.com
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Yournet at hotmail.com" <yournet at hotmail.com>
To: "SeattleWireless Talk List" <talk at seattlewireless.net>
Sent: Saturday, December 30, 2006 1:23 PM
Subject: Re: Net Neutrality and RE: FCC's McDowell

> 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk mailing list
> Talk at seattlewireless.net
> http://seattlewireless.net/mailman/listinfo/talk
> 