Reasonable network management in Alaska could have a different measure than Chicago, given costs.
----- Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com Midwest Internet Exchange http://www.midwest-ix.com ----- Original Message ----- From: Josh Reynolds <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Wed, 10 Jun 2015 17:36:53 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not block lawful content, applications, services, or nonharmful devices, /subject to reasonable network management//./ A person engaged in the provision of broadband Internet access service, insofar as such person is so engaged, shall not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of Internet content, application, or service, or use of a non-harmful device, /subject to reasonable network management.// / source: https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-15-24A1.pdf "Your honor/<insert title>, in our Acceptable Use Policy that each customer signs, in accordance with the rules laid down by the FCC, we very clearly detail any and all network management practices that we use while stating the reason for such practices. As we run a fixed-wireless network, P2P transmissions have a very detrimental effect on wireless networking equipment - it affects all users on that node (and often other nodes) and impacts our ability to provide consistent service that individuals and businesses pay for. We have very little recourse in the matter. We can either block this singular type of traffic - not the content, but the delivery method - in accordance with the /reasonable network management/ clauses laid down in the FCC's rulings, or we can allow a singular user to impact the ability of several dozen or several hundred people. It is our belief that the FCC would not be so heavy handed and shortsighted as to force providers to allow a very specific type at the detriment of so many. We encourage the manufacturers of fixed wireless equipment to "harden" and redesign their equipment when and where necessary to allow us to unblock this singular type of traffic, so that we may open this back up. In addition, we have had no complaints over _X_ years due to this traffic limitation [obviously until this time]. Had an individual or business questioned our AUP or called to complain, we could have suggested they tunnel their P2P traffic over any one of a number of proxy or VPN services available for free or for a small fee on the internet. This would allow them access to the content they requested, still via P2P clients, without having a negative impact on other subscribers." ... just a brief snippet :P Josh Reynolds CIO, SPITwSPOTS www.spitwspots.com On 06/10/2015 02:05 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote: > It actually looks like I was totally wrong, you haven’t been able to > do it since this FCC Declaratory Ruling in 2008: > https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/DOC-284286A1.pdf > *From:* Hass, Douglas A. <mailto:[email protected]> > *Sent:* Wednesday, June 10, 2015 4:54 PM > *To:* [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz > > > I disagree that you could split hairs that way. Blocking a method has > the effect of blocking content, which is all that someone needs to show. > > El jun. 10, 2015 4:52 PM, Josh Reynolds <[email protected]> escribió: > You're a lawyer now? :) > > For the record, blocking a delivery method != blocking content. > > Josh Reynolds > CIO, SPITwSPOTS > www.spitwspots.com <http://www.spitwspots.com><http://www.spitwspots.com> > > On 06/10/2015 12:02 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote: > You are not allowed to block legal content. Period. > > If you rate limit it, you could perhaps claim it is reasonable network > management, but “no throttling” is another of the 3 bright line rules. > > Remember one of the 2 or 3 actual cases of “bad behavior” cited for > justifying all this was Comcast interfering with Bit Torrent back in > something like 2007, and they weren’t even outright blocking it. > > As far as being sued, a customer could file a complaint with the FCC, > rather than pursuing civil damages, likely that is the way they would > go since all they have to do is fill in a form on the FCC website. > > My guess is the FCC will be much more interested in pursuing > complaints from the likes of Netflix, Cogent and Level3 against the > likes of Comcast, Verizon and Time Warner. Unless you piss off John > Oliver. So it might just be like the BBB, they just send you the > complaint and let you figure out what to do with it. That reminds me, > I need to check if we are supposed to be registering a contact to > receive Open Internet Order complaints, that kind of rings a bell, but > maybe I’m confusing it with having a DC registered agent for CPNI > complaints if you file Form 499. > > The other factor on your side is the customer might not want to > complain to the FCC if their reasons for using Bit Torrent are not > exactly legal or moral. And customers wanting to torrent legitimate > content, like maybe Linux ISOs, will probably just use another method > and not have a cow over it. > > > From: Josh Reynolds<mailto:[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 2:46 PM > To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz > > I'll say this again: After consulting with no less than 3 legal firms > who specialize in communications/fcc law, we are in the clear. I'm not > going to get into a debate about the legality of this because (A) I'm > not a lawyer and (B) neither are you. We have been told that > subscribers agree to the restrictions on our network when they sign a > contract. The language is the same used for commercial services. > > Yes, the restriction applies to all torrent traffic. > > Josh Reynolds > CIO, SPITwSPOTS > www.spitwspots.com <http://www.spitwspots.com><http://www.spitwspots.com> > > On 06/10/2015 11:37 AM, Josh Luthman wrote: > IMO your only concern should be getting sued. Anyone that's torrenting > stuff probably doesn't have the money for a lawyer to do that. > > Do you do any CIR connections for businesses? Do you block them? > > > Josh Luthman > Office: 937-552-2340 > Direct: 937-552-2343 > 1100 Wayne St > Suite 1337 3 > Troy, OH 45373 > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Josh Reynolds > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > And after that based on the legal advice we have received from no less > than 3 Communications Lawyers > > Josh Reynolds > CIO, SPITwSPOTS > www.spitwspots.com <http://www.spitwspots.com><http://www.spitwspots.com> > > On 06/10/2015 09:41 AM, Ken Hohhof wrote: > And you can legally do it until this Friday. > > From: Josh Reynolds<mailto:[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2015 12:10 PM > To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz > > > We have been blocking torrents as a network protection measure for > over 6 years using various DPI and behavioral detection systems, and > its in our AUP. We have never lost a customer or even had a complaint > because of it. > > On Jun 10, 2015 4:56 AM, Mathew Howard mailto:[email protected] wrote: > Agreed. I don't even want to think about how many calls we would have > to deal with if blocked VPNs... and torrents for that matter. > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 7:10 AM, Mike Hammett > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > Yes and blindly killing things is a terrible practice. > > > > ----- > Mike Hammett > Intelligent Computing Solutions > http://www.ics-il.com > > [http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]<https://www.facebook.com/ICSIL>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/googleicon.png]<https://plus.google.com/+IntelligentComputingSolutionsDeKalb>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/intelligent-computing-solutions>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]<https://twitter.com/ICSIL> > > Midwest Internet Exchange > http://www.midwest-ix.com > > [http://www.ics-il.com/images/fbicon.png]<https://www.facebook.com/mdwestix>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/linkedinicon.png]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/midwest-internet-exchange>[http://www.ics-il.com/images/twittericon.png]<https://twitter.com/mdwestix> > ________________________________ > From: "Paul McCall" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, June 9, 2015 11:12:43 PM > > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz > > > Rory, how do you “kill torrents”? technically, > > > > And, aren’t there a lot o legitimate programs that use torrents as the > distribution method? > > > > From: Af [mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] On > Behalf Of Rory Conaway > Sent: Monday, June 08, 2015 3:54 PM > To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz > > > > If you have file sharers on there for example, I’ve seen XM radios > drop to 10Mbps or less (another reason we kill torrents). If you watch > the modulation levels when that happens, you will also see them drop > as the CPU load goes up. > > > > Rory > > > > From: Af [mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] On > Behalf Of Josh Luthman > Sent: Monday, June 08, 2015 12:46 PM > To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz > > > > PS in the run queue? That certainly isn't load, there's no way an XM > radio can do 20+. > > > > > > Josh Luthman > Office: 937-552-2340 > Direct: 937-552-2343 > 1100 Wayne St > Suite 1337 > Troy, OH 45373 > > > > On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 3:41 PM, Bill Prince > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > I'm with Rory. It depends a lot on the traffic, and and what role it > may be playing (backhaul, AP, or SM). This is just a 1 day snapshot of > one in SM role. > > [X] > > > bp > > <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com> > > > > On 6/8/2015 12:34 PM, Josh Luthman wrote: > > SSH into every single AP and it says 0.00 or 0.01. I used to graph it > way back (maybe 5.3 days?) and I never saw it deviate. This is > definitely all XM gear. > > > > > > Josh Luthman > Office: 937-552-2340 > Direct: 937-552-2343 > 1100 Wayne St > Suite 1337 > Troy, OH 45373 > > > > On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 3:27 PM, Rory Conaway > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > I would have to se your data, mine does not support that. > > > > > > > > Sent from fromm phone where I type with a single digit so please > excuse shortcuts or typos. > > > > Rory Conaway > > Triad Wireless > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Josh Luthman > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > Date: 06/08/2015 3:26 PM (GMT-05:00) > To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz > > If that was the case why are the loads of every radio 0.01 or less? > > > > > > Josh Luthman > Office: 937-552-2340 > Direct: 937-552-2343 > 1100 Wayne St > Suite 1337 > Troy, OH 45373 > > > > On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Rory Conaway > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > To prove my point further, if you do throughput testing with Ubiquity > in ptmp mode, you will find with xm radios, cpu load affects > modulation levels. I haven't tested xw radios yet but I believe the > threshold is just higher and probably justifies 30mhz but it's going > to be close. > > > > > > > > Sent from fromm phone where I type with a single digit so please > excuse shortcuts or typos. > > > > Rory Conaway > > Triad Wireless > > > -------- Original message -------- > > From: Rory Conaway <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > Date: 06/08/2015 3:16 PM (GMT-05:00) > To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz > > The pps and cpu load absolutely is another variable you need to take > into acount, especially with 400 and 526mhz atheros processors that > are also running polling. Ignore it as part of your overall strategy > and you could be wasting spectrum. If your ap never exceeds 80mbps, > why do you want 30mhz channels. Sarcasm aside, does that help you > understand my point. > > > > > > > > Sent from fromm phone where I type with a single digit so please > excuse shortcuts or typos. > > > > Rory Conaway > > Triad Wireless > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Josh Reynolds <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > Date: 06/08/2015 2:17 PM (GMT-05:00) > To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz > > I think we are having two different conversations, and I have no idea > what you are talking about right now. > > What we were discussing has to do with channel sizes, epmp, and > ubiquiti. In particular, why UBNT 40mhz isn't any better than 30mhz in > terms of efficiency. > > This part of the discussion has nothing at all to do with any theories > on PPS you may have, other than those you have tried to inject into > this discussion. > > On Jun 8, 2015 10:07 AM, Rory Conaway > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Excopt that as was mentioned before, the s/n ratio goes down and if > you aren't hitting the limits of the physical layer in 20MHz, why do it? > > > > > > > > Sent from fromm phone where I type with a single digit so please > excuse shortcuts or typos. > > > > Rory Conaway > > Triad Wireless > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Josh Reynolds <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > Date: 06/08/2015 12:43 PM (GMT-05:00) > To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz > > I can assure you that on radios connected in a ptp config or small > ptmp, that you will see more throughput on the 30mhz channel given a > noise floor of -97 and signals in the mid -50s, even with nothing > connected on the other side of the radios. > > Its an efficiency issue. > > On Jun 8, 2015 8:13 AM, Mathew Howard > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > I kind of does, the way I understood it, that bottleneck limited you > from really being able to do anything beyond what a 30mhz channel > could support. > > Now that I think about it, I have seen 40mhz perform better than > 30mhz... but yes, that was because of RF problems, and neither one was > doing anything close to what it would with a good link. > > > > On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 11:09 AM, Josh Reynolds > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > That is a bottleneck in the system, but not relevant as far as this > discussion goes. That has nothing to do with the 30/40MHz channel > efficiency per say. > > On Jun 8, 2015 8:03 AM, Rory Conaway > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > The limitation on the older xm radios was pps. When you added a lot of > small packets and airmax, you could drop down to as low as 40Mbps. In > the real world in ptmp mode. We planned for 50mhz per AP with > eveything g taken into account. > > > > > > > > Sent from fromm phone where I type with a single digit so please > excuse shortcuts or typos. > > > > Rory Conaway > > Triad Wireless > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Josh Reynolds <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> > Date: 06/08/2015 11:59 AM (GMT-05:00) > To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz > > This. Thought it was pretty obvious but I guess I assumed too much out > of some on this list ;) > > On Jun 8, 2015 7:33 AM, Jeremy > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > I think he is talking about using 40MHz channels on the older M > series, that didn't have gig ports. It was my understanding that the > processor would get taxed as well on a 40MHz channel, making 30MHz > actually work better. > > > > On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Josh Luthman > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > Ubnt and epmp have gig ports. > > Josh Luthman > Office: 937-552-2340 > Direct: 937-552-2343 > 1100 Wayne St > Suite 1337 > Troy, OH 45373 > > On Jun 8, 2015 11:20 AM, "Josh Reynolds" > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > I don't know how epmp does it. > > For UBNT, a 30mhz channel is just a "fat" 20mhz channel in the atheros > chip. Single operation. For a 40mhz channel, it's really two 20s, > meaning radio operations are ran twice. Loss in efficiency, also > marred by the lack of gigabit port. > > On Jun 8, 2015 7:13 AM, Mathew Howard > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > I've never seeing much difference in performance on the ubnt M series > between 30mhz and 40mhz channels, so yes, I would say that is true... > but I'm not sure how much applies to ePMP - they do have a much a > faster processor and on a software level they are very different. > > So far, I have been running all of our ePMP APs on 20mhz channels and > PTP links on 40mhz or 20mhz, depending on how much capacity they need. > I haven't really seen much need to go down to 10mhz channels with ePMP. > > > > On Mon, Jun 8, 2015 at 8:43 AM, Shayne Lebrun > <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > I seem to recall that with the M series, at least, a 30 mhz channel > works 'better' than a 40 because the 40 is really two 20 mhz channels > bonded together, where a 30 mhz channel is a 30 mhz channel. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Af [mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] On > Behalf Of Rory Conaway > Sent: Saturday, June 6, 2015 8:32 PM > To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz > > I'm not that familiar with the ePMP's yet but I can tell you some > things that we saw with Ubiquiti. One is that channel width does not > scale with bandwidth that that Atheros chipset. For example, 40MHz > channels rarely hit their theoretical maximum due to a variety of > factors, noise, lower s/n, processor limitations, etc... Second, 20MHz > channels seem to be the sweet spot but even with GPS sync, you have to > deal with reflections. Third, 10MHz channels have more overhead as a > percentage of total capacity and don't handle a lot of users well > (above 40 for example with the older 400MHz chipsets. I'm starting to > deploy XW radios with the 520MHz processors but everything is 20MHz > now so I don't have a comparison). We did see peaks of 32Mbps with > some customers on 10MHz channels but that's non-peak times. In peak > times, we were seeing 8Mbps when more users were online. > > Rory > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Af [mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] On > Behalf Of Craig House > Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2015 5:20 PM > To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> > > Subject: [AFMUG] EPMP 10 mhz vs 20mhz > > We have deployed 6 towers to begin our new EPMP network and 4 of those > towers have a full cluster of 2.4 90 degree EPMP sectors. They are > configured with ACS turned off now because in several cases they all > ended up on the same or very close to the same channel. I have Front > back designations and non overlapping channels set up on all towers. I > have tried 40 mhz 20 mhz and now 10mhz channels and while the customer > stability has gotten better the more I play with settings I have kind > of hit a point I dont know what else to try. I have some that the > uplink quality will vary wildly from 100% to 0%. Most have gotten > better since I went to a 10mhz channel. Most of the customers get 12MB > -30mb down in the wireless link test but the uplinks are as bad as > .17. What is the cause of this poor uplink quality? Is it > interfernece? My one 5ghz AP does not have this problem but even with > noise many of these customers have -50 signals and oddly enough the > ones with the great signals seem to be the ones that have the poorest > link tests on the up link side. I also have customes with -65 or -72 > signals that get 5MB up on the same sectors? Im scratching my head a > bit on what the fix is for this? Should I leave ACS on and change > everything to 10mhz channels? Will a full cluster with ACS on work all > on the same channel? > I'm used to FSK where you pick your channel and any channels that are > adjacent will cause problems with connected SM's. So am I just > applying old knowledge to a technology that it doesn't apply to? > > Craig > > > *Douglas A. Hass* > Associate > 312.786.6502 > [email protected] > > *Franczek Radelet P.C.* > > 300 South Wacker Drive > Suite 3400 > Chicago, IL 60606 > 312.986.0300 - Main > 312.986.9192 - Fax > www.franczek.com > www.wagehourinsights.com > Connect with me: > linkedin <http://linkedin.com/in/douglashass> > > twitter <https://twitter.com/WageHourInsight> > > > /Circular 230 Disclosure: Under requirements imposed by the Internal > Revenue Service, we inform you that, unless specifically stated > otherwise, any federal tax advice contained in this communication > (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and > cannot be used, for the purposes of (i) avoiding penalties under the > Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to > another party any transaction or tax-related matter herein. / > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > For more information about Franczek Radelet P.C., please visit > franczek.com. The information contained in this e-mail message or any > attachment may be confidential and/or privileged, and is intended only > for the use of the named recipient. If you are not the named recipient > of this message, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, > distribution, or copying of this message or any attachment thereto, is > strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, > please contact the sender and delete all copies. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > /Franczek Radelet is committed to sustainability - please consider the > environment before printing this email/
