In my opinion, a monthly bandwidth cap and throttling during peak hours
should do fine for the download on these apps. As for the upload, TOS can
prohibit your customer connections from being a server, thereby prohibiting
the upload, at least in policy.
This comes up all the time, and we know that we should not, but often do,
lose money on a small number of subscribers. I say that this is
unacceptable (losing $$ for any subscriber whose connection is working
properly).
A mixture of throttling, bandwidth caps & extra charges, and TOS should be
deployed in every single provider's business strategy, ESPECIALLY the small
provider. If you have not addressed this within your business, it should be
done.
In my opinion.
Mark Nash
UnwiredOnline
350 Holly Street
Junction City, OR 97448
http://www.uwol.net
541-998-5555
541-998-5599 fax
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Hammett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org>
Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 10:12 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
I would think that any application should be allowed to run, with the
expectation of reasonable throughput. IE: real time communications or
streams should be permitted unregulated within that user's plan, but that
general file sharing be allowed to be restricted, yet still having a
reasonable capacity. It's up to someone smarter than myself to figure out
better wording.
-----
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eje Gustafsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'WISPA General List'" <wireless@wispa.org>
Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 11:21 AM
Subject: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
I looked in the mailing list but there seem at least not to been any
discussion about this. If there been my apologies.
As some of you might know there is a petition turned over to the FCC that
relates to net neutrality. Vuze, Inc is a video content provider whom
utilizes bittorrent protocol to deliver their content to the end user.
Due
to the recent articles and discoveries where Comcast seems to either be
blocking peer to peer traffic or as they claim bandwidth manage it (but
according to end users and some tests) to a point where it's impossible
to
get any data through Vuze, Inc have filed a petition asking FCC to rule
about the bandwidth management handling.
If they get their way and FCC rules in their favor as I see it this could
be
a major problem for anyone in the ISP market especially the small
players.
If you throttle or block peer to peer traffic in any way then this could
potentially have a huge impact on you and your network.
The reason most ISP's are throttle this traffic is to prevent abuse of
your
network and control the impact these fileshare applications can have on
the
network which can/will cause problems for other customers that try to use
the internet interactively while the fileshare (ab)user more then likely
is
not even at their computer.
For many ISPs internet bandwidth can cost them anywhere from $100 to
$1000
per megabit and many times access is sold for $30-$60 for 512k-1.5Mbit.
So
what could the result be of this petition if you ask me. Considerable
increase of service fees to the customers which might mean that they
leave
for a larger ISP (cable co, phone co) because their cost for access is
generally far less and they can be more competitive. In markets where you
compete with these carriers I feel that one of the way you can compete is
by selling similar service level at similar prices but manage the
bandwidth
better to avoid abuse of your network and this way level the market more.
So
read the petition. I urge all WISP's to comment on this petition. Explain
why you feel not being allowed to manage this traffic would be a bad
thing
and what the economical impact could be. I would love to see the big guys
be
prohibited from bandwidth manage peer to peer traffic but still allow the
smaller players to continue to manage this traffic.
Personally I think it's wrong to blatantly block it unless your in an
extreme rural area and bandwidth is an extreme problem. Ie some providers
in
for example Alaska are limited to satellite feeds that are not very fast
and
costs an incredible amount or where the highest feed they can get is a T1
or
two at outrageous price and the infrastructure behind the T1 can not
handle
large amount of traffic.
Below is a link to the Petition filed by Vuze, Inc to FCC.
<http://www.vistaprint.com/vp/gateway.aspx?S=5176697856>
http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf
<http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_docume
nt=6519811711> &id_document=6519811711
/ Eje
WISP-Router, Inc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
