-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The common carrier protection is still in flux. One year we are, the next we are not. Doesn't matter to RIAA if you are delivering willingly or not. And the legal fees are payable to your attorneys as soon as you receive your first supoena that needs to be handled _even if it is just a pass through_ BTDT on another issue. At $400/hr it doesn't take more than a few customers getting tracked to cost you a pretty penny. You may be protected from legal responsiblity, but still have to deal with legal response. May not cost you a million, but still can cost you 10K.
On 02/14/2010 07:24 PM, Sam Tetherow wrote: > Robert Andrews wrote: > Filesharing is an example of an application type that is different than > most other usage. What I mean is that most applications that use the > Net are direct usage. Somebody requests something and it gets > delivered, be it a web page or a HD movie. BitTorrent is a server > application. And it should be billed as such. Most of the bad usage > of BitTorrent is from it delivering traffic to other users. Most people > are going to distort the normal usage by becoming application servers. > So we say no bittorrent or other PtP because they aren't paying to be a > Server. we charge people 5x what they normally pay to be a server. > It's the only fair way to be to those that aren't abusing the bandwidth > available. The other argument against PtP is that the vast majority of > content delivered over it is illegal and that represents a huge > liability to our business. A recent study at a major university looked > at the content on most bittorrent servers and 90% was copyrighted and > should not be distributed that way. We explain that to most customers > and the agree that being charged a price to deal with that liability > would not be worth it. > > >> ISPs fall under common carrior protection when it comes to passing >> copyrighted material across their network. This has been held up in >> court several times. > >> If 90% of the traffic is illegal that means that 10% is legit and you >> have just blocked those paying customers who have done nothing wrong and >> are trying to use a service that they paid you good moeny for. Again, >> if the issue is your network can't handle the PPS find a way to limit >> PPS, if you can't handle the bandwidth implement bandwidth caps. > >> Sam Tetherow >> Sandhills Wireless > > > > On 02/14/2010 02:02 PM, Josh Luthman wrote: >>>>> Here is the struggle I face with this type of argument. If 20% of your >>>> customers are using 90% of your bandwidth, aren't you really >>>> overcharging >>>> the other 80% if you are going to gripe about the 20%? >>>> >>>> I think you mean undercharging the 80%? Maybe, but my smallest >>>> advertised >>>> price is 45/mo. This has done a great job of keeping those bottom >>>> dollar >>>> customers away (those great Friday night calls saying my Internet is >>>> slow I >>>> can't get my Netflix shows in high def in less then a second so I want a >>>> refund kind of thing). >>>> >>>> I keep seeing PPS being a limiting factor - what equipment is >>>> everyone using >>>> hitting this barrier? >>>> >>>> As far as word of mouth, I agree that you don't simply want to axe >>>> them and >>>> be done with it. This is why I suggest talking and communicating. My >>>> dial-up provider called me complaining I was on nearly 24/7 on my >>>> unlimited >>>> service so they simply asked me to not be connected when I wasn't >>>> using it. >>>> I simply checked dial on demand and made both of us happy. >>>> >>>>> First it gives you a leg to stand on when the customer complains to >>>>> you or >>>> the authorities, if we ever get saddled with net neutrality rules with >>>> teeth. >>>> >>>> I believe we're all private companies. Right to refuse service to >>>> anyone >>>> for any reason. At this point there is no law against blocking certain >>>> traffic, is there? >>>> >>>> Josh Luthman >>>> Office: 937-552-2340 >>>> Direct: 937-552-2343 >>>> 1100 Wayne St >>>> Suite 1337 >>>> Troy, OH 45373 >>>> >>>> Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to >>>> continue >>>> that counts. >>>> --- Winston Churchill >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 4:47 PM, Sam Tetherow <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Here is the struggle I face with this type of argument. If 20% of your >>>>> customers are using 90% of your bandwidth, aren't you really >>>>> overcharging >>>>> the other 80% if you are going to gripe about the 20%? >>>>> >>>>> Another thing to consider, at least for me, is that almost all of my >>>>> successful advertising is word of mouth. Now, how much of that good >>>>> word of >>>>> mouth advertising comes from the 20% I would have just axed vs the >>>>> 80% that >>>>> are apparently overpaying for their bandwidth? >>>>> >>>>> As far as the 'ban hammer' I don't think banning torrent traffic is >>>>> the way >>>>> to go (or any application for that matter). If torrent traffic is >>>>> causing >>>>> problems on your network it is not because it is a torrent, it is >>>>> because it >>>>> presents certain type of traffic characteristics, such as high >>>>> packet rate, >>>>> excessive bandwidth usage, excessive upstream usage. >>>>> >>>>> What needs to be addressed is the characteristic that is causing the >>>>> problem. First it gives you a leg to stand on when the customer >>>>> complains >>>>> to you or the authorities, if we ever get saddled with net >>>>> neutrality rules >>>>> with teeth. And secondly it fixes the actual problem as oppose to just >>>>> removing a symptom. All that has to happen is encrypting the torrent >>>>> traffic and you won't be able to track it and the problem is back; or >>>>> another application comes along which exhibits the same >>>>> characteristics. >>>>> >>>>> Sam Tetherow >>>>> Sandhills Wireless >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Josh Luthman wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> The way I see it is if 20% of your customers use 90% of your cost, >>>>>> removing 20% of your revenue is worth dropping costs to 10%. >>>>>> >>>>>> On 2/14/10, Butch Evans <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sat, 2010-02-13 at 23:30 -0500, Josh Luthman wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It doesn't make sense to simply disallow it - offer a bandwidth plan >>>>>>>> that makes you both happy. If you can't resolve it then he has >>>>>>>> another ISP. Let them deal with the problem. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> If he pays for 1 meg and does it all the time we both know that's >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> kind of customer that kills your profit and therefor your business. >>>>>>>> You and I are WISPs to make money and serve the area - this can't be >>>>>>>> done when someone is paying 25/mo and ruining it for everyone. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> There are ways to accomplish the "best of both worlds" here. My >>>>>>> new QOS >>>>>>> approach allows you to permit the traffic, even if you limit it's >>>>>>> impact >>>>>>> by setting a speed limit, and still allow good speeds for other >>>>>>> users. >>>>>>> One thing that you cannot fix with QOS is the reality that >>>>>>> torrents are >>>>>>> very high packet rates (usually) and (also usually) not very high >>>>>>> bandwidth per connection. My approach, still, is to allow it, but >>>>>>> set >>>>>>> limits on it's impact on the network. Give it a small amount of >>>>>>> bandwidth that is shared by other users with the same type of network >>>>>>> utilization and let them have at it. All in all, though, I agree >>>>>>> with >>>>>>> Josh. The 5-10% of abusers (most cases, it's not even that many) are >>>>>>> not worth what they pay. However, it will get to a point where that >>>>>>> number goes to 20-30% when certain services (like the streaming >>>>>>> video) >>>>>>> become more popular. When that happens, it's not a good business >>>>>>> decision to simply drop the traffic and lose 20% of your business. >>>>>>> Thinking of these things makes me happy I'm no longer an ISP. I >>>>>>> really >>>>>>> do think that you'll find that the QOS system I've developed will be >>>>>>> very helpful, though. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> ******************************************************************** >>>>>>> * Butch Evans * Professional Network Consultation* >>>>>>> * http://www.butchevans.com/ * Network Engineering * >>>>>>> * http://store.wispgear.net/ * Wired or Wireless Networks * >>>>>>> * http://blog.butchevans.com/ * ImageStream, Mikrotik and MORE! * >>>>>>> ******************************************************************** >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> Mikrotik mailing list >>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>> http://www.butchevans.com/mailman/listinfo/mikrotik >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Visit http://blog.butchevans.com/ for tutorials related to Mikrotik >>>>>>> RouterOS >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Mikrotik mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> http://www.butchevans.com/mailman/listinfo/mikrotik >>>>> >>>>> Visit http://blog.butchevans.com/ for tutorials related to Mikrotik >>>>> RouterOS >>>>> >>>> -------------- next part -------------- >>>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >>>> URL: >>>> <http://www.butchevans.com/pipermail/mikrotik/attachments/20100214/f7a5e6aa/attachment.html> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Mikrotik mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://www.butchevans.com/mailman/listinfo/mikrotik >>>> >>>> Visit http://blog.butchevans.com/ for tutorials related to Mikrotik >>>> RouterOS >>>> _______________________________________________ Mikrotik mailing list [email protected] http://www.butchevans.com/mailman/listinfo/mikrotik >> Visit http://blog.butchevans.com/ for tutorials related to Mikrotik RouterOS > _______________________________________________ > Mikrotik mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.butchevans.com/mailman/listinfo/mikrotik > Visit http://blog.butchevans.com/ for tutorials related to Mikrotik > RouterOS -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJLeNK5AAoJEO0qoUuK0uZgVg0H/1hDtrIzTs0GBnLxWbMEhrM+ 0eeMmRLo2jiN5KZLXjTKVIiucdtj8D7axyVehBSJBdWFHtD03bvikZhBEbTR2x2d DFBskrHTTFONw/Ag7ahN8kzPAM3NIp1WoF1g8fRgYLtSFbINVAb6eDd3vlboag1G z8oyKrrFBkW/dU+rhzyWGJ7OASxdV+te7UmZD2utrYrB0xgO5ktGq7WHnhVPpmtU fnJNnz9qspfIvrHqf5pFF8LDmk59SJj6at6ZwzfqX71zhed9UoVsY6RbjTW4ZCha 7V8VAT96WXkWKkWnSNIluASa6nwWH4rn47Wa95wnaoMsDWRiMVsqWXvGhyv/PPQ= =na4O -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Mikrotik mailing list [email protected] http://www.butchevans.com/mailman/listinfo/mikrotik Visit http://blog.butchevans.com/ for tutorials related to Mikrotik RouterOS
