Here is the struggle I face with this type of argument. If 20% of your
customers are using 90% of your bandwidth, aren't you really
overcharging the other 80% if you are going to gripe about the 20%?
Another thing to consider, at least for me, is that almost all of my
successful advertising is word of mouth. Now, how much of that good
word of mouth advertising comes from the 20% I would have just axed vs
the 80% that are apparently overpaying for their bandwidth?
As far as the 'ban hammer' I don't think banning torrent traffic is the
way to go (or any application for that matter). If torrent traffic is
causing problems on your network it is not because it is a torrent, it
is because it presents certain type of traffic characteristics, such as
high packet rate, excessive bandwidth usage, excessive upstream usage.
What needs to be addressed is the characteristic that is causing the
problem. First it gives you a leg to stand on when the customer
complains to you or the authorities, if we ever get saddled with net
neutrality rules with teeth. And secondly it fixes the actual problem
as oppose to just removing a symptom. All that has to happen is
encrypting the torrent traffic and you won't be able to track it and the
problem is back; or another application comes along which exhibits the
same characteristics.
Sam Tetherow
Sandhills Wireless
Josh Luthman wrote:
The way I see it is if 20% of your customers use 90% of your cost,
removing 20% of your revenue is worth dropping costs to 10%.
On 2/14/10, Butch Evans <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 2010-02-13 at 23:30 -0500, Josh Luthman wrote:
It doesn't make sense to simply disallow it - offer a bandwidth plan
that makes you both happy. If you can't resolve it then he has
another ISP. Let them deal with the problem.
If he pays for 1 meg and does it all the time we both know that's the
kind of customer that kills your profit and therefor your business.
You and I are WISPs to make money and serve the area - this can't be
done when someone is paying 25/mo and ruining it for everyone.
There are ways to accomplish the "best of both worlds" here. My new QOS
approach allows you to permit the traffic, even if you limit it's impact
by setting a speed limit, and still allow good speeds for other users.
One thing that you cannot fix with QOS is the reality that torrents are
very high packet rates (usually) and (also usually) not very high
bandwidth per connection. My approach, still, is to allow it, but set
limits on it's impact on the network. Give it a small amount of
bandwidth that is shared by other users with the same type of network
utilization and let them have at it. All in all, though, I agree with
Josh. The 5-10% of abusers (most cases, it's not even that many) are
not worth what they pay. However, it will get to a point where that
number goes to 20-30% when certain services (like the streaming video)
become more popular. When that happens, it's not a good business
decision to simply drop the traffic and lose 20% of your business.
Thinking of these things makes me happy I'm no longer an ISP. I really
do think that you'll find that the QOS system I've developed will be
very helpful, though.
--
********************************************************************
* Butch Evans * Professional Network Consultation*
* http://www.butchevans.com/ * Network Engineering *
* http://store.wispgear.net/ * Wired or Wireless Networks *
* http://blog.butchevans.com/ * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE! *
********************************************************************
_______________________________________________
Mikrotik mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.butchevans.com/mailman/listinfo/mikrotik
Visit http://blog.butchevans.com/ for tutorials related to Mikrotik RouterOS
_______________________________________________
Mikrotik mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.butchevans.com/mailman/listinfo/mikrotik
Visit http://blog.butchevans.com/ for tutorials related to Mikrotik RouterOS
