[1st-mile-nm] 1st-Mile Messages

[Richard Lowenberg]

Here are three messages sent this afternoon, that may not have gotten posted.
rl
-----------

Date: Mon, 15 Dec 2008 16:59:30 -0700
Subject: Re: [1st-mile-nm] Google Policy Blog: response to WSJ articleerrors.
From: "John Brown" <jmbrown at citylinkfiber.com>
To: <ggomes at soundviewnet.com>, <josmon at rigozsaurus.com>,
<1st-mile-nm at crank.dcn.davis.ca.us>


If the cust has l2 choice then they can get to both L2 and public / open L3
services

If the cust only has L3 then they are locked to the networks available via that
L3 provider

I'd extend the model and say that L1 and L2 should be open.

--------------------------
Sent using BlackBerry


----- Original Message -----
From: 1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org <1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org>
To: 'John Osmon' <josmon at rigozsaurus.com>; 1st-mile-nm at crank.dcn.davis.ca.us
<1st-mile-nm at crank.dcn.davis.ca.us>
Sent: Mon Dec 15 16:49:24 2008
Subject: Re: [1st-mile-nm] Google Policy Blog: response to WSJ articleerrors.

You raise an interesting issue - is Layer 2 or Layer 3 the right end-user
interface?

If the Layer 3 1st/last mile network is truly open, there is the prospect of
a wide range of innovative services (telemedicine, security, etc.)of which
the customer is free to select any that they choose.  If it is layer 2,
there may be a selection of ISPs, but the customer must select one or the
other.

This is very roughly analogous to the Cable "Package" versus "Ala Carte"
debate.

I would like to more thoroughly understand the issues and ramifications, but
right now I believe I favor a publically owned open Layer 3 network.

Gary

-----Original Message-----
From: 1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org
[mailto:1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org] On Behalf Of John Osmon
Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 11:31 AM
To: 1st-mile-nm at crank.dcn.davis.ca.us
Subject: Re: [1st-mile-nm] Google Policy Blog: response to WSJ
articleerrors.

We need to make sure people aren't fighting the wrong battle.  As long
as people fight for/against net neutrality, it distracts from the real
issue.

We need neutral first/last mile networks.  They should be layer-2
only, and consumers should be able to choose which ISP that layer-2
connections hits.  Qwest's original DSL model works this way, and
it was a boon to ISPs and consumers.

Once we have a plethora of ISPs to choose from, we can let each
ISP do whatever prioritization/caching they want.  Since we're free to
switch between them, we can find one that matches our preferences.

*IF* you assume that the last mile connection also defines your choice
in ISP, *THEN* network neutrality is an important argument.

Turn the argument around.  Fight for a framework where network
neutrality isn't a requirement.



On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 10:17:25AM -0800, Richard Lowenberg wrote:

> Net neutrality and the benefits of caching
>
> http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/


-- 
Richard Lowenberg
1st-Mile Institute
P.O. Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504
505-989-9110;   505-603-5200 cell
rl at 1st-mile.com  www.1st-mile.com

----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.