Re: "Entry level pricing" as social policy v2

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Lauren Weinstein <lauren () vortex com>
Date: October 2, 2009 10:15:34 PM EDT
To: nnsquad () nnsquad org
Subject: [ NNSquad ] [IP] Re: "Entry level pricing" as social policy v2



----- Forwarded message from Joshua Tinnin <krinklyfig () gmail com> -----

Date: Fri, 2 Oct 2009 20:13:51 -0600
From: Joshua Tinnin <krinklyfig () gmail com>
Subject: Re: [IP] Re: "Entry level pricing" as social policy v2
To: bob2-39 () bobf frankston com
Cc: dave () farber net, lauren () vortex com, declan () well com

> Sure the consumer ToS might say you can’t share it among – among  
> whom? How

> do they define the boundaries other than by intrusive social policy?
Ultimately they
> can’t enforce these policies.

I disagree. Currently, in most places, sharing your connection in  
violation
of the TOS could be considered theft of services. There's nothing  
stopping
that person from going to another ISP, but the ISP can indeed enforce
policies through the old fashioned method of cutting off service.  
Speaking
as an ISP tech (rural, WISP and DSL), we have a small enough network to
enforce such policies, though we've never gone so far as to treat it  
as a
criminal matter - mostly we just lock down the network, and most of  
the time
the people have no idea that they're wide open. It's not that open  
networks
are inherently bad; it's that most people are not prepared to manage  
their
own WLANs and don't understand that saturation of their connection by  
their
neighbors could cause problems for them, which causes some
massive-headache-inducing support issues. The other major issue is
liability, because any ISP is going to have to deal with RIAA/MPAA  
takedown
notices and the potential for someone's connection being identified with
other potentially criminal behavior. IOW, if you share your connection  
you
get through any ISP, you're still potentially fully liable for  
everything
that goes through that connection if you are named on the account.

For us, and possibly for other ISPs, it comes down to managing support  
and
dealing with liability/legal issues. However, if you can demonstrate  
you can
manage your connection and/or if it's for a commercial purpose, we  
will not
only allow it but can consult, install and support it; we just want to  
know
about it so we can help manage potential issues, but in most cases  
people
who just want to share their connection with their neighbors are not  
allowed
to do so with our service. I don't think it's all that different from
phone/cable/cellular services which are not really intended to be shared
among a neighborhood, and the provider must put some restrictions on the
service or suffer performance and support issues. I won't argue that  
the way
it's set up with gatekeepers and the "scarce" bandwidth model is not  
really
ideal, but we can't be too idealistic when trying to stay in business  
in the
market as it exists (with a big telco as the largest local competitor,  
who
keeps talking about bringing in fiber), and manage support for our  
network
well. I would rather access to the network be handled differently than  
it
is, and that a company such as ours be providing purely support and  
not so
much be the gatekeeper, but for the moment we have to deal with the  
reality
of the business.

- jt

On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 9:44 AM, David Farber <dave () farber net> wrote:

> Begin forwarded message:
>
> *From: *"Bob Frankston" <bob2-39 () bobf frankston com>
> *Date: *October 2, 2009 10:51:37 AM EDT
> *To: *<dave () farber net>, "'ip'" <ip () v2 listbox com>
> *Cc: *"Lauren Weinstein" <lauren () vortex com>
> *Subject: **RE: [IP] "Entry level pricing" as social policy v2*
>
> *Resending – had to drop a pointer as NNSquad seems to have gotten
> renumbered.*
>
> The market will likely do more than neutrality legislation to force  
> the
> carriers’ hand.
>
> If you want to reduce your costs by 50% simply share the connection  
> with
> your neighbor using 802.11. If you want to reduce it further then  
> share with
> everyone in your apartment building. Whether or not we get neutrality
> legislation this kind of aggregation and homogenization of bits is  
> beyond
> the carriers’ control. The attempts to ban webcams and block ports are
> examples of failed attempts to prevent the inevitable. I notice my  
> port 80
> is no longer blocked.
>
> Sure the consumer ToS might say you can’t share it among – among  
> whom? How
> do they define the boundaries other than by intrusive social policy?
> Ultimately they can’t enforce these policies. The only thing slowing  
> this
> casual aggregation is a lack of understanding and self-imposed  
> limitations.
> If a lack of knowledge is the carriers’ only protection then the trend
> should accelerate.
>
> In the loft example the building owners act as aggregators who then  
> share
> the capacity. When will it become the norm for MDUs (apartment  
> houses) to
> provide connectivity the same way the lofts do, and then housing  
> projects
> and communities and then …
>
> The end game is what I’m now calling Ambient Connectivity<http://rmf.vc/?n=IAC 
> >
> .
>
> As to “subsidizing running fiber to…” well that’s an unnecessarily
> mean-spirited argument and self-defeating. We already have a  
> principle of
> inclusion with postal delivery and roads  -- running a shared fiber  
> is far
> less expensive than other infrastructures so why work to deny people  
> the
> right to be included in society? They already have phone service –  
> how much
> more does it cost to light it up as DSL with repeaters along the  
> way? If
> they have fiber links as part of it then all-the-better. If they  
> have party
> lines then fine – it’s a network now with separate VoIP paths. And  
> fill in
> gaps with radios. Certainly tractors need to be online.
>
> So can we stop pretending that it’s 1900 when we’d run a separate wire
> miles and miles and miles to each subscriber. We’re simply talking  
> about
> communicating among ourselves using bits.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Farber [mailto:dave () farber net]
> Sent: Friday, October 02, 2009 09:45
> To: ip
> Subject: [IP] "Entry level pricing"
>
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>
> Date: October 1, 2009 10:29:40 PM EDT
> To: shannonm () gmail com
> Cc: dave () farber net
> Subject: Re: [IP] "Entry level pricing"
>
> Shannon McElyea <shannonm () gmail com> wrote:
> > I have hughesnet -- the only carrier to serve where I live. It's
> > expensive horrible and a threshold of 300 mb per day and if you go
> > over it throttles to almost nothing for 48 hours!! Try getting any
> > work done with that.
>
> My wife works in Mountain View and takes highway 101 to work -- the
> only highway to serve where we live. The gas prices are expensive; the
> commute is horrible and the traffic throttles to almost nothing for 48
> minutes!! Try getting any work done with that.
>
> Nevertheless, we still live in a non-rural part of the SF bay area
> because the benefits outweigh the costs. It's true that we have much
> faster Internet connections than you do, but I suspect that you have
> cleaner air and cheaper acreage.
>
> If all you care about is speedy Internet access, there are plenty of
> new lofts in San Francisco that will be happy to give you 100 MB/sec+
> rates with no caps for a dollar a day.
>
> I know I'm being a little cute, but there are some important issues
> here: If you live in a low-population-density rural area where your
> only choice is HughesNet satellite service, should IPers living in
> high-density Manhattan condos be taxed to subsidize running fiber to
> the hinterboonies? And maintaining it after storm damage? If it's not
> economically feasible to wire your house at a profit, who will (or
> should) subsidize faster service for you? I know you didn't call for
> such measures, but other IPers have.
>
> BTW, it looks like you might be able to upgrade from the "Pro" to the
> "Elite" plan and boost your cap from 300 MB to 500 MB:
> http://consumer.hughesnet.com/faq/fair-access-policy.cfm
>
> -Declan
>
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------
> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
> RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
>
>  Archives <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now>
> <https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/> <http://www.listbox.com 
> >

----- End forwarded message -----




-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com