I think the way to go is to be able to identify the various types of
traffic and rate limit them.
And once we can do this, then it's time to pull out the menu of various
offerings we can provide.
Want a 3 meg x 3 meg burstable connection with a sustained traffic rate
of 1meg x 256k and bandwidth cap of x gigs, it's price "a", want a
higher something in your package, it's price "b". Want something
different, then it's price "c".
The sub can choose. Once they choose they know what they bought.
Mark Nash wrote:
This is a good debate.
What you mention here, George, is something that's been on my mind for the
last year or so. As Lingo/Slingbox/Netflix/Vonage/etc/etc/etc make $$$ off
of our connections, where's our cut? The customer is paying for a
connection, yes, but at what point do we start charging more as this content
proliferates through our networks? Bandwidth is getting cheaper per meg,
you can get a bigger pipe for less per meg, you can do things to lower the
cost of bandwidth.
However, that should give US a better cash flow model, so we're not so
squeezed out that we feel like not providing service anymore to folks who
desperately want it. With more and more apps providing high-throughput
content, it could easily offset the savings that can be realized by going
with a bigger/cheaper pipe. IF IT IS UNCHECKED.
My whole part in this discussion has been focused on not letting our
customers cost us more than they are paying us, and I still say that
deploying a system that allows us to be compensated for heavy usage is a
valuable consideration in any business plan for an ISP. Bandwidth shaping,
bandwidth caps, bill for overages, dedicated bandwidth option. If you have
this in place, you really need not worry about anything else with respect to
high bandwidth usage.
IMHO.
Thanks everyone for listening to my half-rant. I'm going to get something
done now. ;)
Mark Nash
UnwiredOnline.Net
350 Holly Street
Junction City, OR 97448
http://www.uwol.net
541-998-5555
541-998-5599 fax
----- Original Message -----
From: "George Rogato" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 8:51 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
Another thought is
Why wouldn't Vuze have to pay Comcast for using the Comcast network to
support it's business plan.
If they are relying on Comcasts network to store and send files to it's
customer base, why should they be treated for a free ride instead of
using a hosting provider like Akamia.
Guess that is just as a significant point as any other, the fair
compensation for services?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
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/
--
George Rogato
Welcome to WISPA
www.wispa.org
http://signup.wispa.org/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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/
