[GRLUG] NOT LINUX - net neutrality

[Michael Mol]

On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 1:45 PM, Kyle <dontwantspam1 at earthlink.net> wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Kline
> Sent: Sep 23, 2011 1:36 PM
> To: "Mailing List for LUG in greater Grand Rapids, MI area."
> Subject: Re: [GRLUG] NOT LINUX - net neutrality
>
> And of course few ISPs are
> truly independent of the big
> players, who own the backbones.
> Those have to be paid for too.
> Odd however that Google puts a
> 1Gbps system in Kansas, and doesn't
> seem to worry about the cost.  In fact
> does so as a test case should Internet
> neutrality, which it depends on, totally
> breaks down.
> And there are towns like Lafayette, LA,
> which have their own fiber Internet, and
> charge $58 a month for 50 Mbps - full
> duplex!
> Yes, they too use the same backbones
> as everyone else.  But there's room to
> believe there's something wrong with the
> current price picture.  And remember that
> ISPs are often monopolies - at least the
> wire and fiber parts.
>    -- Bob
>
> On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 1:08 PM, Chase Bolen <chase.bolen at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> That only works for the minority of people who:
>> 1) have a choice of ISPs
>> 2) can afford it
>> 3) understand what an SLA is
>>
>> Are the vast majority of Americans essentially doomed to a mickey mouse
>> internet?
>>
>> On Sep 23, 2011 12:56 PM, "Michael Mol" <mikemol at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 12:36 PM, Bob Kline <bob.kline at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> http://news.yahoo.com/u-net-neutrality-rules-effect-november-160334496.html
>> >> The game is pretty simple.  The little
>> >> people want the Internet to be content
>> >> neutral.
>> >
>> > So do network operators, oddly enough.
>> >
>> >> Internet providers don't.
>> >
>> > AT&T and Comcast, no; they have divisions whose profit motives are add
>> > odds with each other; it doesn't do Comcast's ISP side any good to
>> > block Netflix for their customers, and it doesn't do Comcast's video
>> > services side any good to allow a competing service down pipes the
>> > company already owns.
>> >
>> >> Does anyone see anything more to the issue
>> >> than that?  i.e., anything that doesn't simply
>> >> mean the providers want to throw more ads
>> >> at you, and decide just what you look at?
>> >> That I can tell, the providers still have the
>> >> last word on all this.  The little people can
>> >> switch providers, but their control ends there.
>> >
>> > Don't like it? Pay to get an internet connection from an ISP whose
>> > only interest is moving data around. Or pay for an internet connection
>> > with an SLA. Don't get a cheap, subsidized* internet connection and
>> > then complain about limitations placed on that connections because
>> > they conflict with the source of the subsidy.
>> >
>> > * VOIP, VOD, television, ads, etc.
>> >
>> > There's no such thing as a free lunch; there's only paid lunch or stolen
>> > lunch.
>
> If your belief in this is that strong, the solution is clear: start your own
> ISP.  Provide the competition you desire.  Those who are vehement about it
> enough to switch for the same reason can, and rather than trying to force
> the hand of those who are giving you something different than you want, you
> can lead by example.  If you get it large enough to be a threat, maybe the
> other providers will change to compete with you.  If not, you can still
> provide a niche service.  As I see it, it's the same reason some companies
> sell machines preloaded with Linux.
> Although that sort of thing does require more than just talking about it.

I'll note that I'd be an early customer, if the price and service
level were right. If you can pull off the price and service level
you're describing, you could probably get a good volume spread by
working with my apartment complex.

Setting up a new IPv4 ISP is a bit difficult right now, though. You
might need to go with RFC1918 space and a front-end proxy/NAT on the
IPv4 space. IPV6 is a heck of a lot easier to get your own
global-scope subnets for. I'd be happy to do some consulting.

-- 
:wq

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.