Net Neutrality and RE: FCC's McDowell

Yournet@hotmail.com yournet at hotmail.com
Tue Jan 2 10:29:03 PST 2007 

The 802.16j MMR, mobile multi-hop relay, is still under development so some 
of how it will gell out is uncertain.  There is advocacy for sructuring 
control so that local sub-nets can have autonomy.  The interest is actually 
coming from at least two directions: military-defense groups want a system 
that can be rapidly deployed for field command & surveilance while those 
hoping to see development of tiered network topologies under the umbrella of 
a managed wide/metro area wireless system are also aligneed towards ability 
to set up localized networks that use 'out of band' sub-channels of spectrum 
and are independent for localized control.  This is a complex issue as it 
has to consider how the spectrum is allocated so not to cause intereference 
within and outside of the broader cell/sector structure.  And QoS has to be 
managed both with concern for the localized and broad network.

I tink it's very important how this is coming about: the 'rules of the road' 
are being worked out within the standard prior to multiple comapnies 
fielding proprietary 'intelligent networks'.  This area should not be viewed 
as MESH networks because it can be everything from simple cell extension and 
blind-spot enhancement & in-building/structure signal enhancement/repeaters 
to high bandwidth localized networks tied to the broader network but largely 
independent of it.  802.16e-2005 and future versions of the standard have a 
great deal of flexibility.  It has been critized for trying ot do too much 
or be too broad so as not to have enough focus.  Others argue that this is 
exactly what the future needs: a broad framework that can be built into 
highly adaptive applications while still fueling a common market for SoCs, 
RFICs, software defined architectures and other developments that will lead 
to low cost and a firestorm of development.

Not all involved groups would like to see WiMAX used so adaptively.. there 
is concern for losing the tight reigns on licensed networks and conflict 
with mainstream cellular efforts within some companies.  But there is little 
denial about where the most active segments of the wireless markets are 
developing - in services and applications rather than the network as a pipe. 
And there is no denial abouut the growing importance of packaged services 
that include both high bandwidth and highly mobile offerings. That 
inevitably pushes the need to become oriented towards increased flexibility 
and diversity of capabilities that a 'framework' approach establishes.

Robert Syputa

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tyler van Houwelingen" <tyler at azulstar.com>
To: "SeattleWireless Talk List" <talk at seattlewireless.net>
Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 7:52 AM
Subject: Re: Net Neutrality and RE: FCC's McDowell


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

More information about the Talk mailing list