|
This whole thing makes me wounder... What about when it is spelled out to the user before they sign up? I inform all users that we reserve the right to limit traffic, especially peer to peer traffic. I also tell them that we do not support or recommend VoIP services. They are welcome to try them, but our system was not designed for them and we will not promise if or how well they will work on our residential or light commercial circuits. This is not hidden in a page of fine print. It is spelled out, in person, before the install is done. Every user on my network was informed of this. What will it mean to me? we Forrest W. Christian wrote: I have said this over and over in various forums: Throttling/shaping on a per-application basis is not a good idea. Bandwidth caps and pay-per-bit are the correct way to handle bandwidth hogs. The FCC doesn't care how you limit, as long as you apply it equally to all bandwidth types.I believe the FCC's position is simple: If you are a internet provider, you have to carry all types of traffic indiscriminately. The FCC is *not* going to prevent blockage of ports and other limiting for legitimate network management reasons. Preventing the use of "bandwidth hog" applications to fix your broken price model and resulting inadequate network is not going to be considered a valid reason for blocking or limiting one service over another. Responding to a virus attack, or preventing spam or similar are valid reasons for performing at least temporary blocking. But if your blocking gets in the way of a legitimate application, you need to be prepared to resolve any issues that come up. All the FCC cares about is that the ISP's don't get to prevent a legitimate application from operating across their network. A good example would be the widespread port 25 blocking which occurs. It doesn't prevent legitimate mail from flowing (it is easy to configure around), but it does prevent spammers from using a network to spew mail out to the world. -forrest Larry Yunker wrote:It looks like the FCC now has the votes necessary to sanction Comcast for its P2P throttling. http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080725-hammer-drops-at-last-fcc-oppos es-comcast-p2p-throttling.html It's set to be vote on officially next Friday. This is a disturbing decision if it implies that ISPs will no longer be allowed to control P2P traffic flow originating from their own customers on their own networks. Regards, Larry Yunker Network Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/
