Re: [WISPA] EarthLink Says No More Money for Existing Muni Networks
Your right but I would be willing to bet almost every wisp on here wouldn't turn down the opportunity to leverage the Earthlink brand and could likely offload some servers such as email and web hosting, offer the package virus scanner / firewall junk software etc. There are many ways a partnership like this could work to everyones benefit. I would get in bed with them just for the opportunity to get at there customer database. Anthony Will Broadband Corp. www.broadband-mn.com Travis Johnson wrote: Can you imagine trying to partner with 500 WISP's around the country? What a nightmare. Different equipment, different troubleshooting, different everything. It would never work. Travis Microserv Tom DeReggi wrote: Like we didn't see it comming :-) The key statement I saw was... no more investment, unless a change in model, or something like that. What Earthlinks should be doing is staying focused on help desk support, content, and value add, partnering with existing providers that have models that work. Meaning partner with successful WISPs, not try and become one. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2007 6:01 PM Subject: [WISPA] EarthLink Says No More Money for Existing Muni Networks http://wifinetnews.com/archives/008052.html -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. FCC License # PG-12-25133 Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True Vendor-Neutral Wireless Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting FCC Part 15 Certification for Manufacturers and Service Providers Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com 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Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.15.5/1085 - Release Date: 10/22/2007 10:35 AM 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/ -- Anthony Will Broadband Corp. http://broadband-mn.com 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/
Re: [WISPA] PacWireless Sector
They do have mounts for the top and bottom, but no middle. My MTI's mount at the top and bottom as well. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2007 9:44 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] PacWireless Sector Sorry, I forgot when I was looking I needed a 120 degree h-pol sector. And I don't really like their antenna config (bottom stand-off style mounting) for a sector. It works great for an omni, but sectors should mount in the middle directly behind the antenna if possible. Travis Microserv Mike Hammett wrote: http://www.pacwireless.com/products/sector.shtml - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson To: WISPA General List Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2007 5:46 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] PacWireless Sector No, PacWireless doesn't sell a h-pol 2.4ghz sector. I checked before I bought the Tranzeo. Travis Microserv Ryan Langseth wrote: I think Tranzeo H. Sectors are Pac Wireless Antennas? We have also had good luck with Tranzeo Sectors, although the towers where we have them deployed are 100% Tranzeo (AP radio, antenna, and CPE). Ryan On Sat, 2007-11-17 at 16:34 -0700, Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, We have used a LOT of PacWireless 2.4ghz horizontal omni's and they work great. I have never used any PacWireless 2.4ghz sectors, but we do have some Tranzeo 2.4ghz sectors (horizontal) that work good and are affordable. Travis Microserv Mike Hammett wrote: I'm looking (again) at putting up another tower. The tower I have now is 5 GHz with two sectors of PacWireless and MTI. The MTI ones are outperforming the PacWireless ones, but I have never really looked into it. It could be because I bought a 5.4 GHz band antenna so I could do 5.3 or 5.7 with little loss. Anyway Looking at 2.4 GHz sectors for the new tower. The PacWireless ones are less than a third of the MTI. That's a big difference. Should I really expect that kind of performance difference? I would love to use all high-end equipment, but I'm still on a shoe-string budget. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com 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/ 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/
RE: [WISPA] PacWireless Sector
This sector is available with what they call a scissor bracket. You can see the scissor bracket in their spec sheet http://www.pacwireless.com/products/pawsa24.pdf Gives you attachment point at the top and bottom with a hinged bracket on the top for easy downtilt and it comes with degree markings on it. If you look at the antenna plots http://www.pacwireless.com/products/sector_plots.shtml You can see that at the 120 degree mark your down about 4.5dB from max gain. There are a lot of people out there that use this antenna as a 120deg antenna or even in some cases I know WISP's that use it as a 180deg antenna where you're down about 8dB from max gain. / Eje -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2007 9:44 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] PacWireless Sector Sorry, I forgot when I was looking I needed a 120 degree h-pol sector. And I don't really like their antenna config (bottom stand-off style mounting) for a sector. It works great for an omni, but sectors should mount in the middle directly behind the antenna if possible. Travis Microserv Mike Hammett wrote: http://www.pacwireless.com/products/sector.shtml - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson To: WISPA General List Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2007 5:46 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] PacWireless Sector No, PacWireless doesn't sell a h-pol 2.4ghz sector. I checked before I bought the Tranzeo. Travis Microserv Ryan Langseth wrote: I think Tranzeo H. Sectors are Pac Wireless Antennas? We have also had good luck with Tranzeo Sectors, although the towers where we have them deployed are 100% Tranzeo (AP radio, antenna, and CPE). Ryan On Sat, 2007-11-17 at 16:34 -0700, Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, We have used a LOT of PacWireless 2.4ghz horizontal omni's and they work great. I have never used any PacWireless 2.4ghz sectors, but we do have some Tranzeo 2.4ghz sectors (horizontal) that work good and are affordable. Travis Microserv Mike Hammett wrote: I'm looking (again) at putting up another tower. The tower I have now is 5 GHz with two sectors of PacWireless and MTI. The MTI ones are outperforming the PacWireless ones, but I have never really looked into it. It could be because I bought a 5.4 GHz band antenna so I could do 5.3 or 5.7 with little loss. Anyway Looking at 2.4 GHz sectors for the new tower. The PacWireless ones are less than a third of the MTI. That's a big difference. Should I really expect that kind of performance difference? I would love to use all high-end equipment, but I'm still on a shoe-string budget. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com 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/ 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/
RE: [WISPA] PowerStation2 Problem
Some of these issues become resolved using an 18V power supply from our own experience. It seems that some units have issues on 12V not sure if it's due to long cable runs, badly crimped cable or just unit issue or possible problem with the provided power supply. But we seen units like this and putting an 18V power supply seem to resolve the problem. / Eje -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Blair Davis Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2007 3:51 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] PowerStation2 Problem Replace the unit. I've seen 2 like that. Sam Tetherow wrote: If it is the ethernet side I would check the ethernet cabling to make sure you didn't kink it when stringing the wire or got a bad end on it. Also depending on what you are plugging the ethernet into you may want to turn off auto negotiate or set the rate manually if you have the capability on one end or the other. I have had RB532 ethernet connections that are crappy unless autonegotiate is off. Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless Andrew Niemantsverdriet wrote: I have a Ubiquiti PowerStaion2 that is having some weird issues. It has a -68 signal and good LOS to the AP however there is packet loss on the link but only from the Ethernet side of it. From the radio side (pinging from the gateway) I see no such loss. The Ethernet drops from 10-30 seconds and then continues on like normal, when this happens I can still ping from the gateway to the radio IP. This is running as a bridge and has ver. 2.9 firmware on it, I upgraded from 2.8 to try to fix the problem in a last ditch effort. Any ideas as to what is going on? The AP is custom linux box and no other problems like this exist on any of the other clients. Thanks, _ /-\ ndrew 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/
[WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
I looked in the mailing list but there seem at least not to been any discussion about this. If there been my apologies. As some of you might know there is a petition turned over to the FCC that relates to net neutrality. Vuze, Inc is a video content provider whom utilizes bittorrent protocol to deliver their content to the end user. Due to the recent articles and discoveries where Comcast seems to either be blocking peer to peer traffic or as they claim bandwidth manage it (but according to end users and some tests) to a point where it's impossible to get any data through Vuze, Inc have filed a petition asking FCC to rule about the bandwidth management handling. If they get their way and FCC rules in their favor as I see it this could be a major problem for anyone in the ISP market especially the small players. If you throttle or block peer to peer traffic in any way then this could potentially have a huge impact on you and your network. The reason most ISP's are throttle this traffic is to prevent abuse of your network and control the impact these fileshare applications can have on the network which can/will cause problems for other customers that try to use the internet interactively while the fileshare (ab)user more then likely is not even at their computer. For many ISPs internet bandwidth can cost them anywhere from $100 to $1000 per megabit and many times access is sold for $30-$60 for 512k-1.5Mbit. So what could the result be of this petition if you ask me. Considerable increase of service fees to the customers which might mean that they leave for a larger ISP (cable co, phone co) because their cost for access is generally far less and they can be more competitive. In markets where you compete with these carriers I feel that one of the way you can compete is by selling similar service level at similar prices but manage the bandwidth better to avoid abuse of your network and this way level the market more. So read the petition. I urge all WISP's to comment on this petition. Explain why you feel not being allowed to manage this traffic would be a bad thing and what the economical impact could be. I would love to see the big guys be prohibited from bandwidth manage peer to peer traffic but still allow the smaller players to continue to manage this traffic. Personally I think it's wrong to blatantly block it unless your in an extreme rural area and bandwidth is an extreme problem. Ie some providers in for example Alaska are limited to satellite feeds that are not very fast and costs an incredible amount or where the highest feed they can get is a T1 or two at outrageous price and the infrastructure behind the T1 can not handle large amount of traffic. Below is a link to the Petition filed by Vuze, Inc to FCC. http://www.vistaprint.com/vp/gateway.aspx?S=5176697856 http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdfid_docume nt=6519811711 id_document=6519811711 / Eje WISP-Router, Inc. 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/
Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
I would think that any application should be allowed to run, with the expectation of reasonable throughput. IE: real time communications or streams should be permitted unregulated within that user's plan, but that general file sharing be allowed to be restricted, yet still having a reasonable capacity. It's up to someone smarter than myself to figure out better wording. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Eje Gustafsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 11:21 AM Subject: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC I looked in the mailing list but there seem at least not to been any discussion about this. If there been my apologies. As some of you might know there is a petition turned over to the FCC that relates to net neutrality. Vuze, Inc is a video content provider whom utilizes bittorrent protocol to deliver their content to the end user. Due to the recent articles and discoveries where Comcast seems to either be blocking peer to peer traffic or as they claim bandwidth manage it (but according to end users and some tests) to a point where it's impossible to get any data through Vuze, Inc have filed a petition asking FCC to rule about the bandwidth management handling. If they get their way and FCC rules in their favor as I see it this could be a major problem for anyone in the ISP market especially the small players. If you throttle or block peer to peer traffic in any way then this could potentially have a huge impact on you and your network. The reason most ISP's are throttle this traffic is to prevent abuse of your network and control the impact these fileshare applications can have on the network which can/will cause problems for other customers that try to use the internet interactively while the fileshare (ab)user more then likely is not even at their computer. For many ISPs internet bandwidth can cost them anywhere from $100 to $1000 per megabit and many times access is sold for $30-$60 for 512k-1.5Mbit. So what could the result be of this petition if you ask me. Considerable increase of service fees to the customers which might mean that they leave for a larger ISP (cable co, phone co) because their cost for access is generally far less and they can be more competitive. In markets where you compete with these carriers I feel that one of the way you can compete is by selling similar service level at similar prices but manage the bandwidth better to avoid abuse of your network and this way level the market more. So read the petition. I urge all WISP's to comment on this petition. Explain why you feel not being allowed to manage this traffic would be a bad thing and what the economical impact could be. I would love to see the big guys be prohibited from bandwidth manage peer to peer traffic but still allow the smaller players to continue to manage this traffic. Personally I think it's wrong to blatantly block it unless your in an extreme rural area and bandwidth is an extreme problem. Ie some providers in for example Alaska are limited to satellite feeds that are not very fast and costs an incredible amount or where the highest feed they can get is a T1 or two at outrageous price and the infrastructure behind the T1 can not handle large amount of traffic. Below is a link to the Petition filed by Vuze, Inc to FCC. http://www.vistaprint.com/vp/gateway.aspx?S=5176697856 http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdfid_docume nt=6519811711 id_document=6519811711 / Eje WISP-Router, Inc. 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/
RE: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
The dominant service plan outside the US is, indeed, a byte-cap contract. Such a contract, or tiers of contracts, permit the product to be delivered with appropriate cost with those who want more paying more by quantity not speed. The concept is alien to the US and would be subject to derision by large broadband providers in competitive situations yet, it appears, they will all be forced into this sort of relationship with their customers at some time in the near future. . . . J o n a t h a n [EMAIL PROTECTED] 210-893-4007 San Antonio, TX -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Nash Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 12:38 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC In my opinion, a monthly bandwidth cap and throttling during peak hours should do fine for the download on these apps. As for the upload, TOS can prohibit your customer connections from being a server, thereby prohibiting the upload, at least in policy. This comes up all the time, and we know that we should not, but often do, lose money on a small number of subscribers. I say that this is unacceptable (losing $$ for any subscriber whose connection is working properly). A mixture of throttling, bandwidth caps extra charges, and TOS should be deployed in every single provider's business strategy, ESPECIALLY the small provider. If you have not addressed this within your business, it should be done. In my opinion. Mark Nash UnwiredOnline 350 Holly Street Junction City, OR 97448 http://www.uwol.net 541-998- 541-998-5599 fax - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 10:12 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC I would think that any application should be allowed to run, with the expectation of reasonable throughput. IE: real time communications or streams should be permitted unregulated within that user's plan, but that general file sharing be allowed to be restricted, yet still having a reasonable capacity. It's up to someone smarter than myself to figure out better wording. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Eje Gustafsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 11:21 AM Subject: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC I looked in the mailing list but there seem at least not to been any discussion about this. If there been my apologies. As some of you might know there is a petition turned over to the FCC that relates to net neutrality. Vuze, Inc is a video content provider whom utilizes bittorrent protocol to deliver their content to the end user. Due to the recent articles and discoveries where Comcast seems to either be blocking peer to peer traffic or as they claim bandwidth manage it (but according to end users and some tests) to a point where it's impossible to get any data through Vuze, Inc have filed a petition asking FCC to rule about the bandwidth management handling. If they get their way and FCC rules in their favor as I see it this could be a major problem for anyone in the ISP market especially the small players. If you throttle or block peer to peer traffic in any way then this could potentially have a huge impact on you and your network. The reason most ISP's are throttle this traffic is to prevent abuse of your network and control the impact these fileshare applications can have on the network which can/will cause problems for other customers that try to use the internet interactively while the fileshare (ab)user more then likely is not even at their computer. For many ISPs internet bandwidth can cost them anywhere from $100 to $1000 per megabit and many times access is sold for $30-$60 for 512k-1.5Mbit. So what could the result be of this petition if you ask me. Considerable increase of service fees to the customers which might mean that they leave for a larger ISP (cable co, phone co) because their cost for access is generally far less and they can be more competitive. In markets where you compete with these carriers I feel that one of the way you can compete is by selling similar service level at similar prices but manage the bandwidth better to avoid abuse of your network and this way level the market more. So read the petition. I urge all WISP's to comment on this petition. Explain why you feel not being allowed to manage this traffic would be a bad thing and what the economical impact could be. I would love to see the big guys be prohibited from bandwidth manage peer to peer traffic but still allow the smaller players to continue to manage this traffic. Personally I think it's wrong to blatantly block it unless your in an extreme rural area and bandwidth is an extreme
Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
In my opinion, a monthly bandwidth cap and throttling during peak hours should do fine for the download on these apps. As for the upload, TOS can prohibit your customer connections from being a server, thereby prohibiting the upload, at least in policy. This comes up all the time, and we know that we should not, but often do, lose money on a small number of subscribers. I say that this is unacceptable (losing $$ for any subscriber whose connection is working properly). A mixture of throttling, bandwidth caps extra charges, and TOS should be deployed in every single provider's business strategy, ESPECIALLY the small provider. If you have not addressed this within your business, it should be done. In my opinion. Mark Nash UnwiredOnline 350 Holly Street Junction City, OR 97448 http://www.uwol.net 541-998- 541-998-5599 fax - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 10:12 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC I would think that any application should be allowed to run, with the expectation of reasonable throughput. IE: real time communications or streams should be permitted unregulated within that user's plan, but that general file sharing be allowed to be restricted, yet still having a reasonable capacity. It's up to someone smarter than myself to figure out better wording. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Eje Gustafsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 11:21 AM Subject: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC I looked in the mailing list but there seem at least not to been any discussion about this. If there been my apologies. As some of you might know there is a petition turned over to the FCC that relates to net neutrality. Vuze, Inc is a video content provider whom utilizes bittorrent protocol to deliver their content to the end user. Due to the recent articles and discoveries where Comcast seems to either be blocking peer to peer traffic or as they claim bandwidth manage it (but according to end users and some tests) to a point where it's impossible to get any data through Vuze, Inc have filed a petition asking FCC to rule about the bandwidth management handling. If they get their way and FCC rules in their favor as I see it this could be a major problem for anyone in the ISP market especially the small players. If you throttle or block peer to peer traffic in any way then this could potentially have a huge impact on you and your network. The reason most ISP's are throttle this traffic is to prevent abuse of your network and control the impact these fileshare applications can have on the network which can/will cause problems for other customers that try to use the internet interactively while the fileshare (ab)user more then likely is not even at their computer. For many ISPs internet bandwidth can cost them anywhere from $100 to $1000 per megabit and many times access is sold for $30-$60 for 512k-1.5Mbit. So what could the result be of this petition if you ask me. Considerable increase of service fees to the customers which might mean that they leave for a larger ISP (cable co, phone co) because their cost for access is generally far less and they can be more competitive. In markets where you compete with these carriers I feel that one of the way you can compete is by selling similar service level at similar prices but manage the bandwidth better to avoid abuse of your network and this way level the market more. So read the petition. I urge all WISP's to comment on this petition. Explain why you feel not being allowed to manage this traffic would be a bad thing and what the economical impact could be. I would love to see the big guys be prohibited from bandwidth manage peer to peer traffic but still allow the smaller players to continue to manage this traffic. Personally I think it's wrong to blatantly block it unless your in an extreme rural area and bandwidth is an extreme problem. Ie some providers in for example Alaska are limited to satellite feeds that are not very fast and costs an incredible amount or where the highest feed they can get is a T1 or two at outrageous price and the infrastructure behind the T1 can not handle large amount of traffic. Below is a link to the Petition filed by Vuze, Inc to FCC. http://www.vistaprint.com/vp/gateway.aspx?S=5176697856 http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdfid_docume nt=6519811711 id_document=6519811711 / Eje WISP-Router, Inc. WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/
Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
I will go further with this. This comes up so very often. The subject line is different, but the conversation is the same. We're spinning our wheels, folks. As a provider, we can very affordably have the ability to throttle, and filter. Do this for your every-day customers. Also sell DEDICATED bandwidth. Should our customers NEED this type of capacity, then they should pay for it. This is a no-brainer. The cost will vary per provider, as our upstream provider options are different, but you CAN charge for dedicated bandwidth. Once your customers know the cost of your dedicated connections, they can decide just how much they NEED to do this type of activity. So for the people who really want to do whatever they want, they can. If they are paying for dedicated bandwidth, you can't really care what they're doing, so long as you know that it's not against your TOS. MORE AND MORE OF THESE APPS ARE COMING (IPTV, streaming video TV shows, YouTube, P2P, Wifi phones), and the small provider is less able to deal with it. Spend the time and the few dollers to get these systems, policies, and pricing structures in place. Then don't worry about what's coming down the pike as far as usage is concerned. Charge for bandwidth, charge for access (backhauls, AP, spectrum usage, tech support, billing, postage, etc). Have a TOS that deal with this. If you're going to lose money (even $.01), don't service that customer. It's ok to let those ones go. Consider it an easy choice for your business. Discuss/talk/learn all you want, but your worries won't be satiated until you do something about it for your business. Mark Nash UnwiredOnline 350 Holly Street Junction City, OR 97448 http://www.uwol.net 541-998- 541-998-5599 fax - Original Message - From: Jonathan Schmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 11:00 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC The dominant service plan outside the US is, indeed, a byte-cap contract. Such a contract, or tiers of contracts, permit the product to be delivered with appropriate cost with those who want more paying more by quantity not speed. The concept is alien to the US and would be subject to derision by large broadband providers in competitive situations yet, it appears, they will all be forced into this sort of relationship with their customers at some time in the near future. . . . J o n a t h a n [EMAIL PROTECTED] 210-893-4007 San Antonio, TX -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Nash Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 12:38 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC In my opinion, a monthly bandwidth cap and throttling during peak hours should do fine for the download on these apps. As for the upload, TOS can prohibit your customer connections from being a server, thereby prohibiting the upload, at least in policy. This comes up all the time, and we know that we should not, but often do, lose money on a small number of subscribers. I say that this is unacceptable (losing $$ for any subscriber whose connection is working properly). A mixture of throttling, bandwidth caps extra charges, and TOS should be deployed in every single provider's business strategy, ESPECIALLY the small provider. If you have not addressed this within your business, it should be done. In my opinion. Mark Nash UnwiredOnline 350 Holly Street Junction City, OR 97448 http://www.uwol.net 541-998- 541-998-5599 fax - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 10:12 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC I would think that any application should be allowed to run, with the expectation of reasonable throughput. IE: real time communications or streams should be permitted unregulated within that user's plan, but that general file sharing be allowed to be restricted, yet still having a reasonable capacity. It's up to someone smarter than myself to figure out better wording. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Eje Gustafsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 11:21 AM Subject: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC I looked in the mailing list but there seem at least not to been any discussion about this. If there been my apologies. As some of you might know there is a petition turned over to the FCC that relates to net neutrality. Vuze, Inc is a video content provider whom utilizes bittorrent protocol to deliver their content to the end user. Due to the recent articles and discoveries where Comcast seems to either be blocking peer to peer traffic or as they claim bandwidth manage it (but according to end
Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
Here is some food for thought, We may want to approach this issue with a free market approach. We may want to emphasize that the free market can and will self regulate this behavior. If Comcast is discouraging their customers from operating this type of software, that creates an opportunity for another operator to move into the area that does not. We do have to keep in the back of our mind that the main issue for us as wireless operators is that P2P solutions create an burden on our systems not so much for bandwidth but on the amount of connections that are created by this type of software. One P2P application that goes wild with 2000+ connctions can bring an AP to its knees thus effecting 50 - 200 other customers on that same AP. We may also want to empathize that his type of distributed content if allowed to continue likely will lead to bit caps or other types of metered solutions for customers. Vuze and other content providers are looking to use our infrastructure to implement their business plans without paying for that distribution, with the minor exception of a one time seeding of that contact to the Internet. This is in my opinion as close to theft as you can get without crossing the line. The only recourse that operators will have is to implement a bit cap (by the way this is common in almost every other part of the world) in order to fund the increased infrastructure needed to carry these content providers products for them. Ultimately the customer is the one that is going to have to pay for this and other organizations bypassing of the reasonable cost for the distribution of THEIR content. Of course we would also want to put in there the reality that the vast majority of the content provided by P2P is the illegal distribution of copywrited materials. Looking forward to the discussion, Mike Hammett wrote: I would think that any application should be allowed to run, with the expectation of reasonable throughput. IE: real time communications or streams should be permitted unregulated within that user's plan, but that general file sharing be allowed to be restricted, yet still having a reasonable capacity. It's up to someone smarter than myself to figure out better wording. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Eje Gustafsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 11:21 AM Subject: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC I looked in the mailing list but there seem at least not to been any discussion about this. If there been my apologies. As some of you might know there is a petition turned over to the FCC that relates to net neutrality. Vuze, Inc is a video content provider whom utilizes bittorrent protocol to deliver their content to the end user. Due to the recent articles and discoveries where Comcast seems to either be blocking peer to peer traffic or as they claim bandwidth manage it (but according to end users and some tests) to a point where it's impossible to get any data through Vuze, Inc have filed a petition asking FCC to rule about the bandwidth management handling. If they get their way and FCC rules in their favor as I see it this could be a major problem for anyone in the ISP market especially the small players. If you throttle or block peer to peer traffic in any way then this could potentially have a huge impact on you and your network. The reason most ISP's are throttle this traffic is to prevent abuse of your network and control the impact these fileshare applications can have on the network which can/will cause problems for other customers that try to use the internet interactively while the fileshare (ab)user more then likely is not even at their computer. For many ISPs internet bandwidth can cost them anywhere from $100 to $1000 per megabit and many times access is sold for $30-$60 for 512k-1.5Mbit. So what could the result be of this petition if you ask me. Considerable increase of service fees to the customers which might mean that they leave for a larger ISP (cable co, phone co) because their cost for access is generally far less and they can be more competitive. In markets where you compete with these carriers I feel that one of the way you can compete is by selling similar service level at similar prices but manage the bandwidth better to avoid abuse of your network and this way level the market more. So read the petition. I urge all WISP's to comment on this petition. Explain why you feel not being allowed to manage this traffic would be a bad thing and what the economical impact could be. I would love to see the big guys be prohibited from bandwidth manage peer to peer traffic but still allow the smaller players to continue to manage this traffic. Personally I think it's wrong to blatantly block it unless your in an extreme rural area and bandwidth
Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
I think this could be the straw that breaks the camels back. It may just be what is needed to push internet service to a usage based model by the big guys, instead of a commodity as it is now. I would almost bet my house, that the telcos would already be doing this if it were not for the competition of cable and us smaller guys. It works in long distance, cell phones, electric, water, etc... so why would it not work for ISP's? The ones that use the most pay the most. I know some on this list already charge based on usage. I wish I could, but when you compete against unlimited you almost have to be unlimited too. I know some will argue...what about viruses, hackers, etc... That is a customer's problem, not ours. They will learn to keep their PC's clean and updated. They do not know or really care that a virus is spewing traffic on our network until it interfere's with their internet experience or we call and let them know. When it starts getting into their pocket book then they will become responsible netizens(as I call them). Before anyone jumps me about not being customer focused in the respect, I attempt to block all known virus ports at our border router and send biweekly reminders by email for the customer to update their windows, virus scanners, and spyware apps. just my .02 Scott -- Original Message -- From: Mark Nash [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 10:37:41 -0800 In my opinion, a monthly bandwidth cap and throttling during peak hours should do fine for the download on these apps. As for the upload, TOS can prohibit your customer connections from being a server, thereby prohibiting the upload, at least in policy. This comes up all the time, and we know that we should not, but often do, lose money on a small number of subscribers. I say that this is unacceptable (losing $$ for any subscriber whose connection is working properly). A mixture of throttling, bandwidth caps extra charges, and TOS should be deployed in every single provider's business strategy, ESPECIALLY the small provider. If you have not addressed this within your business, it should be done. In my opinion. Mark Nash UnwiredOnline 350 Holly Street Junction City, OR 97448 http://www.uwol.net 541-998- 541-998-5599 fax - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 10:12 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC I would think that any application should be allowed to run, with the expectation of reasonable throughput. IE: real time communications or streams should be permitted unregulated within that user's plan, but that general file sharing be allowed to be restricted, yet still having a reasonable capacity. It's up to someone smarter than myself to figure out better wording. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Eje Gustafsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 11:21 AM Subject: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC I looked in the mailing list but there seem at least not to been any discussion about this. If there been my apologies. As some of you might know there is a petition turned over to the FCC that relates to net neutrality. Vuze, Inc is a video content provider whom utilizes bittorrent protocol to deliver their content to the end user. Due to the recent articles and discoveries where Comcast seems to either be blocking peer to peer traffic or as they claim bandwidth manage it (but according to end users and some tests) to a point where it's impossible to get any data through Vuze, Inc have filed a petition asking FCC to rule about the bandwidth management handling. If they get their way and FCC rules in their favor as I see it this could be a major problem for anyone in the ISP market especially the small players. If you throttle or block peer to peer traffic in any way then this could potentially have a huge impact on you and your network. The reason most ISP's are throttle this traffic is to prevent abuse of your network and control the impact these fileshare applications can have on the network which can/will cause problems for other customers that try to use the internet interactively while the fileshare (ab)user more then likely is not even at their computer. For many ISPs internet bandwidth can cost them anywhere from $100 to $1000 per megabit and many times access is sold for $30-$60 for 512k-1.5Mbit. So what could the result be of this petition if you ask me. Considerable increase of service fees to the customers which might mean that they leave for a larger ISP (cable co, phone co) because their cost for access is generally far less and they can be more
Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
More reasons I agree with my first post and what a few others are saying. The big providers can't deal with it either! Just more of the reason for Internet Access to go to a usage based model. It will make ALL of our bottom lines better...we should not be funding the transports for these high volume bandwidth applications. If it went to this, then Net Nuetrality would pretty much be gone except for the parts such as limiting anothers VOIP so your VOIP is better. -- Original Message -- From: Mark Nash [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 11:18:18 -0800 MORE AND MORE OF THESE APPS ARE COMING (IPTV, streaming video TV shows, YouTube, P2P, Wifi phones), and the small provider is less able to deal with it. Dial-Up Internet service from Info-Ed, Inc. as low as $9.99/mth. Check out www.info-ed.com for information. 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/
Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
Scottie... When you say 'I wish I could'... That's exactly my point.. YOU CAN. You will probably have an extremely small percentage of customers who will trip the limit for extra charges. You will probably have a small percentage of your customers that will actually demand that you allow them to use their P2P apps. I repeat... If those customers are COSTING you money, LET THEM GO. You can let them go by putting in place these systems for billing for overages and limiting bandwidth. If they can't take it, then they will leave. Those that don't leave will pay you more. Mark Nash UnwiredOnline 350 Holly Street Junction City, OR 97448 http://www.uwol.net 541-998- 541-998-5599 fax - Original Message - From: Scottie Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 12:24 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC I think this could be the straw that breaks the camels back. It may just be what is needed to push internet service to a usage based model by the big guys, instead of a commodity as it is now. I would almost bet my house, that the telcos would already be doing this if it were not for the competition of cable and us smaller guys. It works in long distance, cell phones, electric, water, etc... so why would it not work for ISP's? The ones that use the most pay the most. I know some on this list already charge based on usage. I wish I could, but when you compete against unlimited you almost have to be unlimited too. I know some will argue...what about viruses, hackers, etc... That is a customer's problem, not ours. They will learn to keep their PC's clean and updated. They do not know or really care that a virus is spewing traffic on our network until it interfere's with their internet experience or we call and let them know. When it starts getting into their pocket book then they will become responsible netizens(as I call them). Before anyone jumps me about not being customer focused in the respect, I attempt to block all known virus ports at our border router and send biweekly reminders by email for the customer to update their windows, virus scanners, and spyware apps. just my .02 Scott -- Original Message -- From: Mark Nash [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 10:37:41 -0800 In my opinion, a monthly bandwidth cap and throttling during peak hours should do fine for the download on these apps. As for the upload, TOS can prohibit your customer connections from being a server, thereby prohibiting the upload, at least in policy. This comes up all the time, and we know that we should not, but often do, lose money on a small number of subscribers. I say that this is unacceptable (losing $$ for any subscriber whose connection is working properly). A mixture of throttling, bandwidth caps extra charges, and TOS should be deployed in every single provider's business strategy, ESPECIALLY the small provider. If you have not addressed this within your business, it should be done. In my opinion. Mark Nash UnwiredOnline 350 Holly Street Junction City, OR 97448 http://www.uwol.net 541-998- 541-998-5599 fax - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 10:12 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC I would think that any application should be allowed to run, with the expectation of reasonable throughput. IE: real time communications or streams should be permitted unregulated within that user's plan, but that general file sharing be allowed to be restricted, yet still having a reasonable capacity. It's up to someone smarter than myself to figure out better wording. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Eje Gustafsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 11:21 AM Subject: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC I looked in the mailing list but there seem at least not to been any discussion about this. If there been my apologies. As some of you might know there is a petition turned over to the FCC that relates to net neutrality. Vuze, Inc is a video content provider whom utilizes bittorrent protocol to deliver their content to the end user. Due to the recent articles and discoveries where Comcast seems to either be blocking peer to peer traffic or as they claim bandwidth manage it (but according to end users and some tests) to a point where it's impossible to get any data through Vuze, Inc have filed a petition asking FCC to rule about the bandwidth management handling. If they get their way and FCC rules in their favor as I see it this could be a major problem for anyone in the ISP market especially the small
[WISPA] Multiple no subject no sender email messages
It appears that shell.mvn.net is trying to send a message, and it has shown up blank about 20 times so far. Does anyone else see this? Mike 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/
RE: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
Which is then the more important to file on this petition because what Vuze, Inc want is to prohibit any type of bandwidth management on the bittorrent connection. SO if they win then you might not be allowed to do this. / Eje -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Nash Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 12:38 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC In my opinion, a monthly bandwidth cap and throttling during peak hours should do fine for the download on these apps. As for the upload, TOS can prohibit your customer connections from being a server, thereby prohibiting the upload, at least in policy. This comes up all the time, and we know that we should not, but often do, lose money on a small number of subscribers. I say that this is unacceptable (losing $$ for any subscriber whose connection is working properly). A mixture of throttling, bandwidth caps extra charges, and TOS should be deployed in every single provider's business strategy, ESPECIALLY the small provider. If you have not addressed this within your business, it should be done. In my opinion. Mark Nash UnwiredOnline 350 Holly Street Junction City, OR 97448 http://www.uwol.net 541-998- 541-998-5599 fax - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 10:12 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC I would think that any application should be allowed to run, with the expectation of reasonable throughput. IE: real time communications or streams should be permitted unregulated within that user's plan, but that general file sharing be allowed to be restricted, yet still having a reasonable capacity. It's up to someone smarter than myself to figure out better wording. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Eje Gustafsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 11:21 AM Subject: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC I looked in the mailing list but there seem at least not to been any discussion about this. If there been my apologies. As some of you might know there is a petition turned over to the FCC that relates to net neutrality. Vuze, Inc is a video content provider whom utilizes bittorrent protocol to deliver their content to the end user. Due to the recent articles and discoveries where Comcast seems to either be blocking peer to peer traffic or as they claim bandwidth manage it (but according to end users and some tests) to a point where it's impossible to get any data through Vuze, Inc have filed a petition asking FCC to rule about the bandwidth management handling. If they get their way and FCC rules in their favor as I see it this could be a major problem for anyone in the ISP market especially the small players. If you throttle or block peer to peer traffic in any way then this could potentially have a huge impact on you and your network. The reason most ISP's are throttle this traffic is to prevent abuse of your network and control the impact these fileshare applications can have on the network which can/will cause problems for other customers that try to use the internet interactively while the fileshare (ab)user more then likely is not even at their computer. For many ISPs internet bandwidth can cost them anywhere from $100 to $1000 per megabit and many times access is sold for $30-$60 for 512k-1.5Mbit. So what could the result be of this petition if you ask me. Considerable increase of service fees to the customers which might mean that they leave for a larger ISP (cable co, phone co) because their cost for access is generally far less and they can be more competitive. In markets where you compete with these carriers I feel that one of the way you can compete is by selling similar service level at similar prices but manage the bandwidth better to avoid abuse of your network and this way level the market more. So read the petition. I urge all WISP's to comment on this petition. Explain why you feel not being allowed to manage this traffic would be a bad thing and what the economical impact could be. I would love to see the big guys be prohibited from bandwidth manage peer to peer traffic but still allow the smaller players to continue to manage this traffic. Personally I think it's wrong to blatantly block it unless your in an extreme rural area and bandwidth is an extreme problem. Ie some providers in for example Alaska are limited to satellite feeds that are not very fast and costs an incredible amount or where the highest feed they can get is a T1 or two at outrageous price and the infrastructure behind the T1 can not handle large amount of traffic. Below is a
RE: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
Very true. But when it comes to illegal content this might and not necessary is the case. In the case with Vuze they use bittorrent to deliver legal video content. Same thing with for example WoW they use if memory serves me right bittorrent to deliver the sometimes very big software updates they distribute to their players. Also you have Napster that uses a peer to peer filesharing protocol for their paid service. So blocking peer to peer filesharing protocols is just plainly bad due to their usage in legal applications. But yes there are also plenty of illegal uses for the said. Vuze want to prohibit any type of limitations or blocking which means if they get their way you as an WISP wouldn't be able to throttle or limit the communication from your customer. Could your business handle this today? What would you have to change to be able to track bit usage and charge bit usage. Could you be able to continue to compete against the cable companies and phone companies that might or might not institute bit caps especially if they do not institute bit caps? Comment on the petition by Vuze and let yourself be heard. / Eje -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Anthony Will Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 1:17 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC Here is some food for thought, We may want to approach this issue with a free market approach. We may want to emphasize that the free market can and will self regulate this behavior. If Comcast is discouraging their customers from operating this type of software, that creates an opportunity for another operator to move into the area that does not. We do have to keep in the back of our mind that the main issue for us as wireless operators is that P2P solutions create an burden on our systems not so much for bandwidth but on the amount of connections that are created by this type of software. One P2P application that goes wild with 2000+ connctions can bring an AP to its knees thus effecting 50 - 200 other customers on that same AP. We may also want to empathize that his type of distributed content if allowed to continue likely will lead to bit caps or other types of metered solutions for customers. Vuze and other content providers are looking to use our infrastructure to implement their business plans without paying for that distribution, with the minor exception of a one time seeding of that contact to the Internet. This is in my opinion as close to theft as you can get without crossing the line. The only recourse that operators will have is to implement a bit cap (by the way this is common in almost every other part of the world) in order to fund the increased infrastructure needed to carry these content providers products for them. Ultimately the customer is the one that is going to have to pay for this and other organizations bypassing of the reasonable cost for the distribution of THEIR content. Of course we would also want to put in there the reality that the vast majority of the content provided by P2P is the illegal distribution of copywrited materials. Looking forward to the discussion, Mike Hammett wrote: I would think that any application should be allowed to run, with the expectation of reasonable throughput. IE: real time communications or streams should be permitted unregulated within that user's plan, but that general file sharing be allowed to be restricted, yet still having a reasonable capacity. It's up to someone smarter than myself to figure out better wording. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Eje Gustafsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 11:21 AM Subject: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC I looked in the mailing list but there seem at least not to been any discussion about this. If there been my apologies. As some of you might know there is a petition turned over to the FCC that relates to net neutrality. Vuze, Inc is a video content provider whom utilizes bittorrent protocol to deliver their content to the end user. Due to the recent articles and discoveries where Comcast seems to either be blocking peer to peer traffic or as they claim bandwidth manage it (but according to end users and some tests) to a point where it's impossible to get any data through Vuze, Inc have filed a petition asking FCC to rule about the bandwidth management handling. If they get their way and FCC rules in their favor as I see it this could be a major problem for anyone in the ISP market especially the small players. If you throttle or block peer to peer traffic in any way then this could potentially have a huge impact on you and your network. The reason most ISP's are throttle this traffic is to prevent abuse of your
RE: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
Your missing the point. MAYBE if what Vuze is petitioning to FCC becomes law you will no longer be allowed to manage your bandwidth in the fashion I know many WISP's are doing by throttling down or lower the priority peer to peer applications have on their network. Vuze want to prohibit you to do this. / Eje -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Nash Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 1:18 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC I will go further with this. This comes up so very often. The subject line is different, but the conversation is the same. We're spinning our wheels, folks. As a provider, we can very affordably have the ability to throttle, and filter. Do this for your every-day customers. Also sell DEDICATED bandwidth. Should our customers NEED this type of capacity, then they should pay for it. This is a no-brainer. The cost will vary per provider, as our upstream provider options are different, but you CAN charge for dedicated bandwidth. Once your customers know the cost of your dedicated connections, they can decide just how much they NEED to do this type of activity. So for the people who really want to do whatever they want, they can. If they are paying for dedicated bandwidth, you can't really care what they're doing, so long as you know that it's not against your TOS. MORE AND MORE OF THESE APPS ARE COMING (IPTV, streaming video TV shows, YouTube, P2P, Wifi phones), and the small provider is less able to deal with it. Spend the time and the few dollers to get these systems, policies, and pricing structures in place. Then don't worry about what's coming down the pike as far as usage is concerned. Charge for bandwidth, charge for access (backhauls, AP, spectrum usage, tech support, billing, postage, etc). Have a TOS that deal with this. If you're going to lose money (even $.01), don't service that customer. It's ok to let those ones go. Consider it an easy choice for your business. Discuss/talk/learn all you want, but your worries won't be satiated until you do something about it for your business. Mark Nash UnwiredOnline 350 Holly Street Junction City, OR 97448 http://www.uwol.net 541-998- 541-998-5599 fax - Original Message - From: Jonathan Schmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 11:00 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC The dominant service plan outside the US is, indeed, a byte-cap contract. Such a contract, or tiers of contracts, permit the product to be delivered with appropriate cost with those who want more paying more by quantity not speed. The concept is alien to the US and would be subject to derision by large broadband providers in competitive situations yet, it appears, they will all be forced into this sort of relationship with their customers at some time in the near future. . . . J o n a t h a n [EMAIL PROTECTED] 210-893-4007 San Antonio, TX -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Nash Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 12:38 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC In my opinion, a monthly bandwidth cap and throttling during peak hours should do fine for the download on these apps. As for the upload, TOS can prohibit your customer connections from being a server, thereby prohibiting the upload, at least in policy. This comes up all the time, and we know that we should not, but often do, lose money on a small number of subscribers. I say that this is unacceptable (losing $$ for any subscriber whose connection is working properly). A mixture of throttling, bandwidth caps extra charges, and TOS should be deployed in every single provider's business strategy, ESPECIALLY the small provider. If you have not addressed this within your business, it should be done. In my opinion. Mark Nash UnwiredOnline 350 Holly Street Junction City, OR 97448 http://www.uwol.net 541-998- 541-998-5599 fax - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 10:12 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC I would think that any application should be allowed to run, with the expectation of reasonable throughput. IE: real time communications or streams should be permitted unregulated within that user's plan, but that general file sharing be allowed to be restricted, yet still having a reasonable capacity. It's up to someone smarter than myself to figure out better wording. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Eje Gustafsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, November 18,
Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
Eje, respectfully, you should not say that I'm missing the point. Our success in bandwidth management does not lie in one court case or one solution. There were several issues brought up in this message, and the Vuse case is one of them. Vuze is one of many problems that are coming, and it should be addressed, yes. My opinions on this are not just about P2P apps. If it turns out that we will not be able to block or manage P2P applications, then we must have a way to not lose money on that small percentage of users who want to hog the road. Let's say that the courts decide that we can't block P2P applications from a legal content provider. How do we not have customers who cost more than they are paying? - TOS to not let your users have a filesharing server (isn't that a big issue...so that you don't have 20 other computers constantly downloading from your customer, using your bandwidth for free?). - Bandwidth caps (generous ones) so that people who do use more pay more. - Dedicated bandwidth connections to allow a customer to do whatever they want, freely, but pay for the privilege access to do so. This is business. You may not be able to provide to all customers. You may not be able to compete with all providers. But again, in my opinion, you should not have a customer who perpetually costs you more than you charge that customer. Mark Nash UnwiredOnline.Net 350 Holly Street Junction City, OR 97448 http://www.uwol.net 541-998- 541-998-5599 fax - Original Message - From: Eje Gustafsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 3:02 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC Your missing the point. MAYBE if what Vuze is petitioning to FCC becomes law you will no longer be allowed to manage your bandwidth in the fashion I know many WISP's are doing by throttling down or lower the priority peer to peer applications have on their network. Vuze want to prohibit you to do this. / Eje -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Nash Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 1:18 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC I will go further with this. This comes up so very often. The subject line is different, but the conversation is the same. We're spinning our wheels, folks. As a provider, we can very affordably have the ability to throttle, and filter. Do this for your every-day customers. Also sell DEDICATED bandwidth. Should our customers NEED this type of capacity, then they should pay for it. This is a no-brainer. The cost will vary per provider, as our upstream provider options are different, but you CAN charge for dedicated bandwidth. Once your customers know the cost of your dedicated connections, they can decide just how much they NEED to do this type of activity. So for the people who really want to do whatever they want, they can. If they are paying for dedicated bandwidth, you can't really care what they're doing, so long as you know that it's not against your TOS. MORE AND MORE OF THESE APPS ARE COMING (IPTV, streaming video TV shows, YouTube, P2P, Wifi phones), and the small provider is less able to deal with it. Spend the time and the few dollers to get these systems, policies, and pricing structures in place. Then don't worry about what's coming down the pike as far as usage is concerned. Charge for bandwidth, charge for access (backhauls, AP, spectrum usage, tech support, billing, postage, etc). Have a TOS that deal with this. If you're going to lose money (even $.01), don't service that customer. It's ok to let those ones go. Consider it an easy choice for your business. Discuss/talk/learn all you want, but your worries won't be satiated until you do something about it for your business. Mark Nash UnwiredOnline 350 Holly Street Junction City, OR 97448 http://www.uwol.net 541-998- 541-998-5599 fax - Original Message - From: Jonathan Schmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 11:00 AM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC The dominant service plan outside the US is, indeed, a byte-cap contract. Such a contract, or tiers of contracts, permit the product to be delivered with appropriate cost with those who want more paying more by quantity not speed. The concept is alien to the US and would be subject to derision by large broadband providers in competitive situations yet, it appears, they will all be forced into this sort of relationship with their customers at some time in the near future. . . . J o n a t h a n [EMAIL PROTECTED] 210-893-4007 San Antonio, TX -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Nash Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 12:38 PM To: WISPA
RE: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
Alright I see what you are saying now. To comment on this petition is now our chance of making our voice heard. My fear (I'm very certain of it) is that if ISPs wouldn't be allowed to bandwidth manage this content then the cost for the end users WILL go up. My first reaction to this entire debate about Comcast blocking or heavily throttling was alright let them if people don't like it they can go to another provider all about open market and free enterprise. BUT if Vuze can convince FCC this is not acceptable it would no longer be open market with free enterprise from this standpoint any longer. This would then force the ISPs into a bit cap type model for low priced accounts and high priced unlimited service offerings. The unlimited all you can eat buffe that exists in majority of north America I always liked. I never liked the usage based service when I lived in Sweden. But I wouldn't be opposed to go to a usage based service in general just one thing. The services that we today for most as WISP's does not consider true competition is the cellphone carriers. They have bit limits and on top of it very expensive. Now if the $40 internet service would say get a 10GB bit cap on it with fixed service location why wouldn't a user want to consider getting a $60 service with similar service but mobile. In most rural areas today this is not a problem because speeds are slow on the mobile networks while in large metro areas you can get 1-1.5Mbit download speeds. If it would have to go to a bit cap I would think it would make it more interesting for the cell carriers to expand their highspeed locations because they are now on a more level playing field. Good or bad? For a wisp I would say that be bad. / Eje -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Nash Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 5:52 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC Eje, respectfully, you should not say that I'm missing the point. Our success in bandwidth management does not lie in one court case or one solution. There were several issues brought up in this message, and the Vuse case is one of them. Vuze is one of many problems that are coming, and it should be addressed, yes. My opinions on this are not just about P2P apps. If it turns out that we will not be able to block or manage P2P applications, then we must have a way to not lose money on that small percentage of users who want to hog the road. Let's say that the courts decide that we can't block P2P applications from a legal content provider. How do we not have customers who cost more than they are paying? - TOS to not let your users have a filesharing server (isn't that a big issue...so that you don't have 20 other computers constantly downloading from your customer, using your bandwidth for free?). - Bandwidth caps (generous ones) so that people who do use more pay more. - Dedicated bandwidth connections to allow a customer to do whatever they want, freely, but pay for the privilege access to do so. This is business. You may not be able to provide to all customers. You may not be able to compete with all providers. But again, in my opinion, you should not have a customer who perpetually costs you more than you charge that customer. Mark Nash UnwiredOnline.Net 350 Holly Street Junction City, OR 97448 http://www.uwol.net 541-998- 541-998-5599 fax - Original Message - From: Eje Gustafsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 3:02 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC Your missing the point. MAYBE if what Vuze is petitioning to FCC becomes law you will no longer be allowed to manage your bandwidth in the fashion I know many WISP's are doing by throttling down or lower the priority peer to peer applications have on their network. Vuze want to prohibit you to do this. / Eje -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Nash Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 1:18 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC I will go further with this. This comes up so very often. The subject line is different, but the conversation is the same. We're spinning our wheels, folks. As a provider, we can very affordably have the ability to throttle, and filter. Do this for your every-day customers. Also sell DEDICATED bandwidth. Should our customers NEED this type of capacity, then they should pay for it. This is a no-brainer. The cost will vary per provider, as our upstream provider options are different, but you CAN charge for dedicated bandwidth. Once your customers know the cost of your dedicated connections, they can decide just how much they NEED to do this type of activity. So for the people who really want to do whatever they want, they can. If they are paying for dedicated
Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
My strong feeling is that the free market approach is by far the best approach to the Network Neutrality/Network Management. If Comcast wants to degrade the service to their customers, then that is an opportunity for the other providers in the market - they are essentially degrading their own service, especially if they are doing it in a way that breaks specific applications. In markets where there is a monopoly or duopoly and both providers engage in purposefully breaking specific applications, leaving the customer with no choices, the market condition is a result of poor regulatory policy - not poor network management. Competition will take care of that problem. The few remaining independent ISPs have this as one of the few potential advantages that they can bring to the table - a truly different type of service, with the concerns of the provider and the customer in balance and appropriate for both parties. The issue that Vuze seems to be taking is that breaking of applications is unacceptable, but good network management is fine, as long as it doesn't discriminate against specific applications or protocols. I do take issue with the characterization of Vuze/BitTorrent as being a parasite on our networks. They are not forcing the customer to use them for content - our customers paid for connectivity to the Internet, and should be able to use that connectivity for whatever they want to, in a way that does not degrade the performance of the network. It is the responsibility of the network operator to deploy the network is a way to deliver appropriate levels of service, establish clear definitions of the different levels of service and communicate the differences to the customers so that they know what they are getting. I personally love Vuze, I use it to get my favorite Showtime shows and also for downloading OS images and software updates. Using it for these purposes doesn't harm or degrade my network and is a very appropriate set of uses for me or any other user on my network. It does help that I have optimized the software to use a limited number of connections, and have also optimized my network to ensure that no customers are able to open an excessive number of connections to use it. This not a violation of Network Neutrality or an example of Intentional Degradation to an application. It is optimization. It is also the responsibility of companies like Vuze to make sure that their software is optimized for good performance as well - it is in their best interest. Bit Caps are not necessarily the answer, as it introduces levels of billing complexity and doesn't always represent the best solution. If there is extra capacity on the network, and the provider's backbone connection is not subject to bit caps or usage-based billing, then bit caps are not needed because the economic cost of extra bits is inconsequential. However, too many have taken this too far, leading to the idea that bits are free, which is total B.S. There is always an underlying foundational cost of infrastructure connectivity, and that cost needs to be taken into consideration. The free bits exist in the netherland of non-peak hours and the interval between a backbone connection that is too large and one that is saturated. Free bits represent a place for innovation, and some providers are doing just that, with open downloads and service level upgrades during off-peak hours. But not all bits are free. In conclusion, I don't think that the Vuze petition is too far off the mark. Someone SHOULD be raising a stink about what Comcast is doing - it goes beyond prudent network management and right into anti-trust type behavior. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com Anthony Will wrote: Here is some food for thought, We may want to approach this issue with a free market approach. We may want to emphasize that the free market can and will self regulate this behavior. If Comcast is discouraging their customers from operating this type of software, that creates an opportunity for another operator to move into the area that does not. We do have to keep in the back of our mind that the main issue for us as wireless operators is that P2P solutions create an burden on our systems not so much for bandwidth but on the amount of connections that are created by this type of software. One P2P application that goes wild with 2000+ connctions can bring an AP to its knees thus effecting 50 - 200 other customers on that same AP. We may also want to empathize that his type of distributed content if allowed to continue likely will lead to bit caps or other types of metered solutions for customers. Vuze and other content providers are looking to use our infrastructure to implement their business plans without paying for that distribution, with the minor exception of a one time seeding of that contact to the Internet. This is in my opinion as close to
[WISPA] vlans
Hi, I will be the first to admit that I know very little about VLANs. I understand the concept and even how to configure them (somewhat). Currently our entire network is fully routed and switched without any VLANs. However, we are starting to see a problem on larger tower locations where we have 6-10 AP's all plugged into the same ethernet switch, and then into a router before it gets to our backbone. I think what we are seeing are ARP broadcast storms, etc. and it affects all the AP's on that switch at the same time. Ping times to customers and the AP's go up to 1500-2000ms, yet we never see the traffic on the router itself. My question is this: Could I enable VLANs on the switch, and put each AP into it's own VLAN and then make the port the router is plugged into the trunk port? Would this stop the broadcasts from affecting other AP's on that switch? Is there a better solution? What is everyone else doing? Travis Microserv 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/
Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
I look at Vuze and other content providers 180* differently from you. They are not 'stealing my bandwidth' they are providing my customers with a desire to have a faster internet connection. I agree that P2P can kill a network and any network provider needs to be able to do what is needed to keep their network healthy. Either via bitcaps or bandwidth throttling. But if we want to be able to sell our reasoning to our customers (and the courts) we need to define the bad behaviour truthfully. If the issue is too many open connections then throttle with connection limits, if it is too many packets per second then throttle pps. Just killing P2P doesn't solve the issue, unless your issue is not allowing P2P. Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless Anthony Will wrote: Here is some food for thought, We may want to approach this issue with a free market approach. We may want to emphasize that the free market can and will self regulate this behavior. If Comcast is discouraging their customers from operating this type of software, that creates an opportunity for another operator to move into the area that does not. We do have to keep in the back of our mind that the main issue for us as wireless operators is that P2P solutions create an burden on our systems not so much for bandwidth but on the amount of connections that are created by this type of software. One P2P application that goes wild with 2000+ connctions can bring an AP to its knees thus effecting 50 - 200 other customers on that same AP. We may also want to empathize that his type of distributed content if allowed to continue likely will lead to bit caps or other types of metered solutions for customers. Vuze and other content providers are looking to use our infrastructure to implement their business plans without paying for that distribution, with the minor exception of a one time seeding of that contact to the Internet. This is in my opinion as close to theft as you can get without crossing the line. The only recourse that operators will have is to implement a bit cap (by the way this is common in almost every other part of the world) in order to fund the increased infrastructure needed to carry these content providers products for them. Ultimately the customer is the one that is going to have to pay for this and other organizations bypassing of the reasonable cost for the distribution of THEIR content. Of course we would also want to put in there the reality that the vast majority of the content provided by P2P is the illegal distribution of copywrited materials. Looking forward to the discussion, 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/
Re: [WISPA] vlans
That should, now in order to do that you will need to have a separate subnet for each AP and the customers off of it (I believe). Have you done any packet sniffing to see if there is a lot of ARP requests? How many hosts do you have off of that tower? Ryan On Nov 18, 2007, at 10:02 PM, Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, I will be the first to admit that I know very little about VLANs. I understand the concept and even how to configure them (somewhat). Currently our entire network is fully routed and switched without any VLANs. However, we are starting to see a problem on larger tower locations where we have 6-10 AP's all plugged into the same ethernet switch, and then into a router before it gets to our backbone. I think what we are seeing are ARP broadcast storms, etc. and it affects all the AP's on that switch at the same time. Ping times to customers and the AP's go up to 1500-2000ms, yet we never see the traffic on the router itself. My question is this: Could I enable VLANs on the switch, and put each AP into it's own VLAN and then make the port the router is plugged into the trunk port? Would this stop the broadcasts from affecting other AP's on that switch? Is there a better solution? What is everyone else doing? Travis Microserv 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/
Re: [WISPA] EarthLink Says No More Money for Existing Muni Networks
WISPA already has a committee dedicated to designing a wholesale program that would make this doable. We just need a big customer to work with. We can already document that WISPs pass well over 2 million homes. Lot of customer potential there. marlon - Original Message - From: Travis Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2007 7:45 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] EarthLink Says No More Money for Existing Muni Networks Can you imagine trying to partner with 500 WISP's around the country? What a nightmare. Different equipment, different troubleshooting, different everything. It would never work. Travis Microserv Tom DeReggi wrote: Like we didn't see it comming :-) The key statement I saw was... no more investment, unless a change in model, or something like that. What Earthlinks should be doing is staying focused on help desk support, content, and value add, partnering with existing providers that have models that work. Meaning partner with successful WISPs, not try and become one. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Jack Unger [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2007 6:01 PM Subject: [WISPA] EarthLink Says No More Money for Existing Muni Networks http://wifinetnews.com/archives/008052.html -- Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. FCC License # PG-12-25133 Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 Author of the WISP Handbook - Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs True Vendor-Neutral Wireless Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting FCC Part 15 Certification for Manufacturers and Service Providers Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220 www.ask-wi.com 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/ -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 269.15.5/1085 - Release Date: 10/22/2007 10:35 AM 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/
Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
For us this is all good news. It'll actually force a pay as you go model. One that should never have been abandoned in the first place. Can you just imagine, buying your first 3 radios for the network then expecting the next 30 for free??? Our upstream bandwidth (pay as you go) has roughly doubled in the last year and a half or two. Even thought the price per meg has dropped some. The days of all you can eat are hopefully nearing an end. marlon - Original Message - From: Eje Gustafsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 9:21 AM Subject: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC I looked in the mailing list but there seem at least not to been any discussion about this. If there been my apologies. As some of you might know there is a petition turned over to the FCC that relates to net neutrality. Vuze, Inc is a video content provider whom utilizes bittorrent protocol to deliver their content to the end user. Due to the recent articles and discoveries where Comcast seems to either be blocking peer to peer traffic or as they claim bandwidth manage it (but according to end users and some tests) to a point where it's impossible to get any data through Vuze, Inc have filed a petition asking FCC to rule about the bandwidth management handling. If they get their way and FCC rules in their favor as I see it this could be a major problem for anyone in the ISP market especially the small players. If you throttle or block peer to peer traffic in any way then this could potentially have a huge impact on you and your network. The reason most ISP's are throttle this traffic is to prevent abuse of your network and control the impact these fileshare applications can have on the network which can/will cause problems for other customers that try to use the internet interactively while the fileshare (ab)user more then likely is not even at their computer. For many ISPs internet bandwidth can cost them anywhere from $100 to $1000 per megabit and many times access is sold for $30-$60 for 512k-1.5Mbit. So what could the result be of this petition if you ask me. Considerable increase of service fees to the customers which might mean that they leave for a larger ISP (cable co, phone co) because their cost for access is generally far less and they can be more competitive. In markets where you compete with these carriers I feel that one of the way you can compete is by selling similar service level at similar prices but manage the bandwidth better to avoid abuse of your network and this way level the market more. So read the petition. I urge all WISP's to comment on this petition. Explain why you feel not being allowed to manage this traffic would be a bad thing and what the economical impact could be. I would love to see the big guys be prohibited from bandwidth manage peer to peer traffic but still allow the smaller players to continue to manage this traffic. Personally I think it's wrong to blatantly block it unless your in an extreme rural area and bandwidth is an extreme problem. Ie some providers in for example Alaska are limited to satellite feeds that are not very fast and costs an incredible amount or where the highest feed they can get is a T1 or two at outrageous price and the infrastructure behind the T1 can not handle large amount of traffic. Below is a link to the Petition filed by Vuze, Inc to FCC. http://www.vistaprint.com/vp/gateway.aspx?S=5176697856 http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdfid_docume nt=6519811711 id_document=6519811711 / Eje WISP-Router, Inc. 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/
Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
FYI Scott, It's taken a few years, but the unlimited providers in my market are starting to add bit caps too. And charging for overages. marlon - Original Message - From: Scottie Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 12:24 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC I think this could be the straw that breaks the camels back. It may just be what is needed to push internet service to a usage based model by the big guys, instead of a commodity as it is now. I would almost bet my house, that the telcos would already be doing this if it were not for the competition of cable and us smaller guys. It works in long distance, cell phones, electric, water, etc... so why would it not work for ISP's? The ones that use the most pay the most. I know some on this list already charge based on usage. I wish I could, but when you compete against unlimited you almost have to be unlimited too. I know some will argue...what about viruses, hackers, etc... That is a customer's problem, not ours. They will learn to keep their PC's clean and updated. They do not know or really care that a virus is spewing traffic on our network until it interfere's with their internet experience or we call and let them know. When it starts getting into their pocket book then they will become responsible netizens(as I call them). Before anyone jumps me about not being customer focused in the respect, I attempt to block all known virus ports at our border router and send biweekly reminders by email for the customer to update their windows, virus scanners, and spyware apps. just my .02 Scott -- Original Message -- From: Mark Nash [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2007 10:37:41 -0800 In my opinion, a monthly bandwidth cap and throttling during peak hours should do fine for the download on these apps. As for the upload, TOS can prohibit your customer connections from being a server, thereby prohibiting the upload, at least in policy. This comes up all the time, and we know that we should not, but often do, lose money on a small number of subscribers. I say that this is unacceptable (losing $$ for any subscriber whose connection is working properly). A mixture of throttling, bandwidth caps extra charges, and TOS should be deployed in every single provider's business strategy, ESPECIALLY the small provider. If you have not addressed this within your business, it should be done. In my opinion. Mark Nash UnwiredOnline 350 Holly Street Junction City, OR 97448 http://www.uwol.net 541-998- 541-998-5599 fax - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 10:12 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC I would think that any application should be allowed to run, with the expectation of reasonable throughput. IE: real time communications or streams should be permitted unregulated within that user's plan, but that general file sharing be allowed to be restricted, yet still having a reasonable capacity. It's up to someone smarter than myself to figure out better wording. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Eje Gustafsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 11:21 AM Subject: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC I looked in the mailing list but there seem at least not to been any discussion about this. If there been my apologies. As some of you might know there is a petition turned over to the FCC that relates to net neutrality. Vuze, Inc is a video content provider whom utilizes bittorrent protocol to deliver their content to the end user. Due to the recent articles and discoveries where Comcast seems to either be blocking peer to peer traffic or as they claim bandwidth manage it (but according to end users and some tests) to a point where it's impossible to get any data through Vuze, Inc have filed a petition asking FCC to rule about the bandwidth management handling. If they get their way and FCC rules in their favor as I see it this could be a major problem for anyone in the ISP market especially the small players. If you throttle or block peer to peer traffic in any way then this could potentially have a huge impact on you and your network. The reason most ISP's are throttle this traffic is to prevent abuse of your network and control the impact these fileshare applications can have on the network which can/will cause problems for other customers that try to use the internet interactively while the fileshare (ab)user more then likely is not even at their computer. For many ISPs internet bandwidth can cost them anywhere from $100 to $1000 per
