I was charging high usage customers by the meg back in 1997 at the ISP I was GM of. The clients didnt mind as long as I capped it so there was not a huge surprise bill. I've always said it will end up that way just like most utilites. Anything that is "unlimited" is abused. Currently, with the ISP I own/operate, I am not charging for over usage but I'm close to implementing it. I could care less if the abusers go to the competition and beat them up. Really though, I think we are missing a piece due to the lack of organization. The telcos get fees for terminating calls. We should get something like that from Netflix, etc. - oops, wake me back up! -RickG
On Tue, Nov 25, 2008 at 9:54 AM, Marlon K. Schafer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > We have always had a per bit plan in place. > > Our speeds are as high as 10 meg on wireless and 100 on fiber. > > Yet our average user is down at 3 megs. Well, really below that as my > tracking mechanism counts the servers and high end business users and it > really shouldn't do that. > > We're still growing nicely and have lost very few customers due to usage > issues over the years. Usually they are the ones that I really didn't want > anyway. Sell one account and they build their own system that covers the > entire neighborhood, watch TV online etc. > > I really feel for my competitors. We've certainly run off more than a few > potential new customers because of our 6 gig limit. I'd love to see the bw > and gig numbers for some of the other wisps in my area. I'll bet it's > amazingly different. > > laters, > marlon > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Drew Lentz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> > Sent: Monday, November 24, 2008 11:26 PM > Subject: Re: [WISPA] NetFlix Streaming Bandwidth Information > > >> The point that I was getting at when this thread started about 24 hours >> ago >> was about having an all you can eat type service. As it stands right now, >> how many ISPs are offering plans of 768k or 1Mbps or 3 Mbps? This is not >> going to cut it in the future. This is not going to cut it next year. >> >> I wasn't trying to say "well hell just buy more radios in the same >> frequency >> space and put them up on the towers" .. What I am getting at is that >> opening >> these subs up and supplying the bandwidth they need is going to have to >> become a reality at some point. If the networks that are in place today >> cannot satisfy that need, there will be other networks in the future that >> WILL be there. >> >> For what they have done with the physics side of it (i.e. Modulation >> schemes, channel reuse, beam forming, etc.) technologies exist or are >> being >> worked on to milk everything out of that valuable spectrum that we all try >> and operate in. >> >> The cars on the bike trail is a perfect example .. Luckily whether its >> 3.65 >> or TVWS or the 700 MHz auctions, that spectrum is becoming available. The >> hope is that the operators that are around today see this and position or >> align themselves (because yes Charles, the cold reality does hit you >> pretty >> quiickly!) to take advantage of this as soon as they can. And that doesn't >> mean just for the distribution side of their network. The backhaul, the >> routing, the switching, all have to be in place for this to operate >> properly. All too often have a seen pieced together WISPS fail due to bad >> switching equipment .. "well heck, this Netgear switch is only $59!!" >> >> Jack, I truly appreciate your perspective on this and I completely >> understand the side of it you are coming from. True, the amount of >> unlicensed space that is out there currently will not hold a network that >> supports as you said "high-throughput, high-reliability, moderate-cost, >> non-interfering networks" .. But that is today. With innovation in >> communications, as it has been proven time and again, where there's a will >> there's a way. Maybe the 5GHz spectrum can't hold what it needs to on its >> own, maybe there isnt a modulation scheme for stuffing more bits per hertz >> available today .. But that does not mean that multi-frequency equipment >> or >> innovation will not exist in the future. >> >> -drew >> >> >> >> >> On 11/25/08 1:01 AM, "Jack Unger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> Drew, >>> >>> As I've mentioned before - wireless "physics" does not allow you to >>> simply and affordably "build your network" for tomorrow but you do not >>> yet understand this point. No matter what the customer wants (or >>> demands) and no matter how much the WISP wants to build a >>> high-throughput network at a reasonable price, wireless "physics" >>> (specifically the lack of available spectrum) prevents this. With >>> limited spectrum (which is what we have today in spite of the arguments >>> that we have "WiMAX" in 3650 and future "White Space" and "opportunities >>> to partner with licensed carriers) WISPs can not build high-throughput, >>> high-reliability, moderate-cost, non-interfering networks that serve a >>> lot of customers without having access to more spectrum. As you point >>> out, watching bandwidth needs so you can "know what's coming" and plan >>> accordingly is important but you can not make physics (that's what >>> happens in the REAL world) bend to your business and marketing models. >>> The exact opposite happens - marketing plans fail because the technology >>> (the real-world PHYSICAL behavior) does not obey the marketing plan. >>> >>> There's nothing personal here - the PHYSICAL reality calls the shots and >>> it always wins. For example, it doesn't matter that I want (and General >>> Motors marketing plan may call for) a safe, five-passenger car that goes >>> 200 MPH all day and gets 100 MPG up and down an unpaved bicycle trail >>> through the Colorado Rockies along with 100 other cars simultaneously >>> and costs only $3000 to buy. You and I both recognize that in spite of >>> the marketing plan, it just is not going to physically work. No company >>> could build such a car for $3000 and if someone did, it would run off >>> the trail within 30 seconds as it accelerated, especially if there were >>> 100 other similar 200 MPH cars on the same bicycle trail. The bike trail >>> just can't support that kind of traffic even if the car could be built >>> for $3000. Wireless channel needs are the same. To support a lot of >>> traffic simultaneously needs a very wide road - a very wide, unshared >>> channel. >>> >>> Now I'm going to explain why I keep emphasizing this point - because it >>> needs to be understood so that the focus is placed in the proper area to >>> solve the problem - more spectrum. Yes - some wireless vendors aren't >>> delivering innovative products and some WISP owners aren't planning and >>> deploying properly but even when vendors do innovate and WISP owners >>> plan properly, SPECTRUM IS STILL NEEDED or the wireless physics won't >>> work and the wireless throughput still won't be delivered. >>> >>> Again, this isn't personal. I just refuse to allow this discussion to be >>> thrown off-track because the wireless physical foundation is not >>> understood. If we go off-track then the problem won't be properly >>> addressed and it can't be properly solved. I appreciate your good >>> business analysis but I will keep trying to the best of my ability to >>> address the underlying issue so WISPs stand a chance of being successful >>> now and into the future as end-user throughput needs continue to >>> increase. >>> >>> Respectfully, >>> >>> jack >>> >>> >>> Drew Lentz wrote: >>>> This is the statement that got me: >>>> >>>>> One argument that I have had people tell me, is that the ISP should >>>>> know >>>>> this is coming and should have planned for it. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Whether it is through watching the amount of bandwidth used over periods >>>> of >>>> time as a trend or doing market research to find out what is coming down >>>> the >>>> line in technology, this statement holds pretty strong. Best practices >>>> tell >>>> you to build your network for your needs tomorrow, not for today, not >>>> for >>>> yesterday. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> --- >>>> 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/ > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/
