Joe Greco wrote:
As long as you fairly disclose to your end-users what limitations and
restrictions exist on your network, I don't see the problem.
You've set out a qualification that generally doesn't exist. For example,
this discussion included someone from a WISP, Amplex, I believe, that
listed certain conditions of use on their web site, and yet it seems like
they're un{willing,able} (not assigning blame/fault/etc here) to deliver
that level of service, and using their inability as a way to justify
possibly rate shaping P2P traffic above and beyond what they indicate on
their own documents.
Actually you misrepresent what I said versus what you said. It's
getting a little old.
I responded to the original question by Deepak Jain over why anyone
cared about P2P traffic rather then just using a hard limit with the
reasons why a Wireless ISP would want to shape P2P traffic.
You then took it upon yourself to post sections of our website to Nanog
and claim that your service was much superior because you happen to run
Metro Ethernet.
Our website pretty clearly spells out our practices and they are MUCH
more transparent than any other provider I know of. Can we do EXACTLY
what we say on our website if EVERY client wants to run P2P at the full
upload rate? No - but we can do it for the ones who care at this
point. At the moment the only people who seem to care about this are
holier than thou network engineers and content providers looking for
ways to avoid their own distribution costs. Neither one of them is
paying me a dime.
Mark