There are arguments for flat rate and for metered for most utilities and services. "All you can eat" attracts people who don't want to worry about overages, where tiered usage plans cater to the penny-pincher who knows exactly how much (or little) he needs. For a service provider it is much simpler to offer flat-rate pricing than metered because you don't have to track usage.
But it boils down to *your* needs and your customer base as an ISP. Ultimately customers need to understand that not all networks are created equal, and never will be 100% the same. Just as each physical medium has its own limitations, management styles, network design, and target customer each introduce variables that change the behavior of the network. You have to look at your target customer base and design a system for them, not let a few power-users dictate how you will run your business. The (generally illegal) actions of <10% of your users should not affect and hinder the (value added) service(s) you provide to the other 90+%. The real Net Neutrality concern should be about network owners purposefully hindering access to legitimate but "less preferred" content providers. Proponents cannot consider end-users as content providers, and that's what they're trying to do with the whole P2P mess. I pity the pro-P2P advocates; if the overwhelming percentage of P2P traffic that is illegitimate was taken out of the picture, their miniscule amount of valid traffic would fly under the radar and P2P would no longer be a problem. Scottie Arnett wrote: > Jason, > > My TOS do the same thing, but just do a search about Comcast blocking > Vuze(bittorrent) and see what has been happening over the last few months. > First the FCC said it was a matter of them not having a statement of shaping > traffic in their TOS, now it has come to that any provider offering internet > service should have an "open" network! > > Scott > > ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- > From: Jason Wallace <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: WISPA General List <wireless@wispa.org> > Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 20:31:29 -0700 > >> Question: >> If you are privately owned and have received no federal (or otherwise) >> money for your network AND it is spelled out in your contract, could the >> FCC actually tell you you have to run wide open / allow any app? If so, >> where would the line get drawn (Universities, Libraries, etc...)? My >> contract prohibits running "servers" or "peer to peer applications" on >> the connection. >> >> Jason >> >> Scottie Arnett wrote: >>> I am not sure what the costs should or will be? But...I will say that is >>> where I think broadband will be headed, for sure, if the FCC keeps going >>> the way they are headed(since the Comcast deal) with the completely "open" >>> concept, such as no bandwidth shaping of any sort. >>> >>> Even the BIG players such as the major cable companies and the major telcos >>> cannot operate their networks very long with the new bandwidth intensive >>> apps coming along(unless its on their own network) with no bandwidth >>> shaping. >>> >>> IMHO, I think this is how it should be, a cost per data transfer or a limit >>> and then overage charges, just as electric, long distance, water usage, >>> etc... have been for a long time. >>> >>> My 2 pence worth. >>> >>> Scott -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/
