Re: [WISPA] Fwd: Data Caps and Streaming
Are there no boat races going on or what, this is the most I've heard out of the Kunze for a couple of years it seems. Did your number change ? -- Original Message -- From: RickG rgunder...@gmail.com Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2011 01:07:40 -0400 It sounds like it has improved somewhat from when I was using the Allot box back in '97. It would be nice if there was more automation in the process. On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Rick Kunze rku...@colusanet.com wrote: It's been a lengthy learning curve, I've been forming this mechanism since around 2001 but it all works very well now. I use 5 levels of priority for customers, Level 0 through Level 4. Level 5 is for special use when needed and 6 is infrastructure equipment. Level 7 (top level) is reserved so I can reach things in the event of some other host or interface causing a packet storm or the like. Then the balancing act is grouping day-user businesses with night-user residentials, or whatever is needed to lump all customers into a few smaller groups. Then the total bandwidth is partitioned into the same number of slices as there are groups of customers. This becomes the CIR but is fundamentally based on priority. The burst then comes in from the scattering of priority levels within each group. Basically residentials are sacraficed during the week days for any other higher priority packet. But ceilings are also put in place to keep any one customer from sucking all the Ether out of the wire. That's also inherent in the grouping strategy. It's always a moving target though, and needs re-shuffling from time to time as the usage patterns of some users change over time. Some groups are geographical, but mostly it's random based on usage patterns. What I've seen change the most over the last 6-12 months especially is that residential is overtaking business. The night time bandwidth demands are equal to and starting to exceed daytime business demands. The former having ramped up considerably lately with movies and the like. A streaming Netflix standard def movie is roughly a 1.2 meg stream for a couple hours, but the duty cycle as I like to call it is only about 50% to 80%. Rk At 08:53 AM 3/30/2011, you wrote: Rick, Thats great! The real trick is can you prioritize AND bill accordingly? On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Rick Kunze mailto:rku...@colusanet.comrku...@colusanet.com wrote: At 10:37 AM 3/29/2011, you wrote: Wow that would be cool. Now just to find a device which can split all that out easily and maintain accounting. I have this all automatically controlled with a Packeteer. Eight levels of priority with on the fly per packet control, partitioning of bandwidth, and the ability to control both priority and volume on a per customer basis, right down to the actual type of traffic such as www or smtp, or Citrix, or you name it. Traffic discovery, makes graphs, runs scripts to change things on weekends for example, all kinds of features. These things are cheap on Ebay. Rk 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/ -- -RickG Sent via the WebMail system at avolve.net 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] Fwd: Data Caps and Streaming
If you use QOS then they are not using the internet the way they choose. They want it wide open. Besides, this is not about choice. In my scenario, they still have a choice. If people understood how a network works then they would glad to do as I say. For instance, what if there were no traffic lights or laws such as speed limits and those that keep slower traffic in the right lane? The roads would be a mess! Tell me the difference? For me, I want a nice, neat, efficient network that allows me to take advantage of it when I need it to. I'd pay a premium to do so just like those who pay to use high capacity lanes in the big city. On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 11:53 PM, Jeremie Chism jchi...@gmail.com wrote: I think alot of what your talking about is going to be market driven. Right now none of my competition uses caps on their business customers and neither can I. I use QOS and wimax to try to keep everything fair but my customers feel like they should be able to use their Internet in any way they choose. Sent from my iPhone On Mar 29, 2011, at 10:15 PM, RickG rgunder...@gmail.com wrote: Fred, I respectfully disagree. First off, applications being run on my network ARE my business. Many apps can have detrimental effect on it and therefore I have a right and responsibility to say what can run on it. Secondly, priority bits simply cost more to provide and tax the network more than non-priority. Everyone expects their high priority apps (video/voice) to be first in line without delays and that's really what all the fuss is about. Meanwhile, we have been focusing on raw usage but that is only a part of the equation. Just billing for monthly overages does not consider daily peak usage times. In fact, in questioning many customers, they would be happy to pay a premium for a high-priority, low latency connection for certain apps. Heck, I can even see premiums for usage based on the time of day but that may be pushing it. This may sound extreme but everyone laughed at me back in 1997 when I bought an Allot box for UBB. BTW:While economic optimization is good, network optimization is better. Over the years, I've seen fast networks and slow networks, I'd pay more any day to be on a fast network. On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com fgoldst...@ionary.com wrote: At 3/29/2011 01:20 PM, RickG wrote: I still say there needs to be more than just caps. There needs to be a matrix of billing by priority such as video at .03/meg, file transfer at .02, email at .01, etc. Heck, perhaps HD can be .05 and SD at .03? (Prices are just for arguments sake) Well, no, there doesn't. Applications are none of the network's business. That's one reason why DPI is evil. HOWEVER, I am not opposed to appliation-agnostic billing for usage, by QoS. It is perfectly reasonable for a network to charge for usage that imposes a cost. And while the teevee fiends are sure, just certain, that 300 GB/month imposes precisely zero cost on the network, I doubt many WISPs would agree. Especially rural ones who have to pay for backhaul, or who have multi-hop networks. IP, of course, is one-size-fits-all, with QoS being rare. Hence caps and overage charges are a way to do cost averaging for the majority (since people hate billing for usage), while still hitting the heaviest users. Block pricing (like wireless, having say 10, 50, and 150 GB/month plans, plus overage) also works. And if you go beyond plain old IP and do have a QoS-enabled protocol, then lower-loss or delay-limited (or whatever) traffic should carry a premium. Regardless of what it's used for. Then the applications could adapt to the pricing. This leads towards economic optimization. On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Bret Clark bcl...@spectraaccess.com bcl...@spectraaccess.com wrote: I know this is Canada, but I can just see some congressman here in the US one day bitch about not being able to cleaning watch the Jackass 3 movie from Netflix and demanding that all service providers get rid of bandwidth quotas and throttling by introducing a new bill. On 03/29/2011 11:26 AM, Matt wrote: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/03/data-caps-claim-a-victim-netflix-streaming-video.ars http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/03/data-caps-claim-a-victim-netflix-streaming-video.ars -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein at http://ionary.comionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.orgwireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
Re: [WISPA] Fwd: Data Caps and Streaming
I'm not sure my argument is the same as theirs but actually that's my point. Currently, I cant allow certain applications such as PTP due to lack of network and billing inefficiencies. In my scenario, you would be able to run any application but there will be a cost associated with it. As far as the ILEC's - as long as they take public funds I feel we have a right to their networks. I dont feel we have the same right with CableCo's. AFAIK, TW doesn't have to allow me to have access but they do for a price. -RickG Not as much late night climbing these days as continue to add redundancies. Thanks! On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 11:57 PM, Faisal Imtiaz fai...@snappydsl.netwrote: Rick, Be-careful when going down this road... this is slippery slopes... This is the exact argument used by the ILEC's / and Cable Co's to keep folks like you and me to connect to their networks. The one attribute of the Internet has been 'no one is going to mess with the apps running on it'... that is the primary sole attribute of the Internet that has made it what it is... There is noting wrong with they way you look at your network, but if everyone looked at their network in this manner, we all would not be in business... Just pointing out that there is a sensible middle ground in this debate, but be very careful as you start to define terms and conditions.. What you do for your customers is exactly what the Upstream providers can do for us who are downstream and their customers.. :) Regards.. Hope you are doing well and not climbing towers late at night . Faisal Imtiaz On 3/29/2011 11:15 PM, RickG wrote: Fred, I respectfully disagree. First off, applications being run on my network ARE my business. Many apps can have detrimental effect on it and therefore I have a right and responsibility to say what can run on it. Secondly, priority bits simply cost more to provide and tax the network more than non-priority. Everyone expects their high priority apps (video/voice) to be first in line without delays and that's really what all the fuss is about. Meanwhile, we have been focusing on raw usage but that is only a part of the equation. Just billing for monthly overages does not consider daily peak usage times. In fact, in questioning many customers, they would be happy to pay a premium for a high-priority, low latency connection for certain apps. Heck, I can even see premiums for usage based on the time of day but that may be pushing it. This may sound extreme but everyone laughed at me back in 1997 when I bought an Allot box for UBB. BTW:While economic optimization is good, network optimization is better. Over the years, I've seen fast networks and slow networks, I'd pay more any day to be on a fast network. On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.comwrote: At 3/29/2011 01:20 PM, RickG wrote: I still say there needs to be more than just caps. There needs to be a matrix of billing by priority such as video at .03/meg, file transfer at .02, email at .01, etc. Heck, perhaps HD can be .05 and SD at .03? (Prices are just for arguments sake) Well, no, there doesn't. Applications are none of the network's business. That's one reason why DPI is evil. HOWEVER, I am not opposed to appliation-agnostic billing for usage, by QoS. It is perfectly reasonable for a network to charge for usage that imposes a cost. And while the teevee fiends are sure, just certain, that 300 GB/month imposes precisely zero cost on the network, I doubt many WISPs would agree. Especially rural ones who have to pay for backhaul, or who have multi-hop networks. IP, of course, is one-size-fits-all, with QoS being rare. Hence caps and overage charges are a way to do cost averaging for the majority (since people hate billing for usage), while still hitting the heaviest users. Block pricing (like wireless, having say 10, 50, and 150 GB/month plans, plus overage) also works. And if you go beyond plain old IP and do have a QoS-enabled protocol, then lower-loss or delay-limited (or whatever) traffic should carry a premium. Regardless of what it's used for. Then the applications could adapt to the pricing. This leads towards economic optimization. On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Bret Clark bcl...@spectraaccess.com wrote: I know this is Canada, but I can just see some congressman here in the US one day bitch about not being able to cleaning watch the Jackass 3 movie from Netflix and demanding that all service providers get rid of bandwidth quotas and throttling by introducing a new bill. On 03/29/2011 11:26 AM, Matt wrote: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/03/data-caps-claim-a-victim-netflix-streaming-video.ars -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein at ionary.com ionary Consultinghttp://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 %2B1%20617%20795%202701
Re: [WISPA] Fwd: Data Caps and Streaming
A bit off topic... For instance, what if there were no traffic lights or laws such as speed limits and those that keep slower traffic in the right lane? The roads would be a mess! Try living in Buenas Airesmost intersections have no stop signs or lights and the ones that do rarely get paid attention to. It's downright scary trying to cross the street let alone drive. I can see your point. Cameron On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 1:25 AM, RickG rgunder...@gmail.com wrote: If you use QOS then they are not using the internet the way they choose. They want it wide open. Besides, this is not about choice. In my scenario, they still have a choice. If people understood how a network works then they would glad to do as I say. For instance, what if there were no traffic lights or laws such as speed limits and those that keep slower traffic in the right lane? The roads would be a mess! Tell me the difference? For me, I want a nice, neat, efficient network that allows me to take advantage of it when I need it to. I'd pay a premium to do so just like those who pay to use high capacity lanes in the big city. On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 11:53 PM, Jeremie Chism jchi...@gmail.com wrote: I think alot of what your talking about is going to be market driven. Right now none of my competition uses caps on their business customers and neither can I. I use QOS and wimax to try to keep everything fair but my customers feel like they should be able to use their Internet in any way they choose. Sent from my iPhone On Mar 29, 2011, at 10:15 PM, RickG rgunder...@gmail.com wrote: Fred, I respectfully disagree. First off, applications being run on my network ARE my business. Many apps can have detrimental effect on it and therefore I have a right and responsibility to say what can run on it. Secondly, priority bits simply cost more to provide and tax the network more than non-priority. Everyone expects their high priority apps (video/voice) to be first in line without delays and that's really what all the fuss is about. Meanwhile, we have been focusing on raw usage but that is only a part of the equation. Just billing for monthly overages does not consider daily peak usage times. In fact, in questioning many customers, they would be happy to pay a premium for a high-priority, low latency connection for certain apps. Heck, I can even see premiums for usage based on the time of day but that may be pushing it. This may sound extreme but everyone laughed at me back in 1997 when I bought an Allot box for UBB. BTW:While economic optimization is good, network optimization is better. Over the years, I've seen fast networks and slow networks, I'd pay more any day to be on a fast network. On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com fgoldst...@ionary.com wrote: At 3/29/2011 01:20 PM, RickG wrote: I still say there needs to be more than just caps. There needs to be a matrix of billing by priority such as video at .03/meg, file transfer at .02, email at .01, etc. Heck, perhaps HD can be .05 and SD at .03? (Prices are just for arguments sake) Well, no, there doesn't. Applications are none of the network's business. That's one reason why DPI is evil. HOWEVER, I am not opposed to appliation-agnostic billing for usage, by QoS. It is perfectly reasonable for a network to charge for usage that imposes a cost. And while the teevee fiends are sure, just certain, that 300 GB/month imposes precisely zero cost on the network, I doubt many WISPs would agree. Especially rural ones who have to pay for backhaul, or who have multi-hop networks. IP, of course, is one-size-fits-all, with QoS being rare. Hence caps and overage charges are a way to do cost averaging for the majority (since people hate billing for usage), while still hitting the heaviest users. Block pricing (like wireless, having say 10, 50, and 150 GB/month plans, plus overage) also works. And if you go beyond plain old IP and do have a QoS-enabled protocol, then lower-loss or delay-limited (or whatever) traffic should carry a premium. Regardless of what it's used for. Then the applications could adapt to the pricing. This leads towards economic optimization. On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Bret Clark bcl...@spectraaccess.com bcl...@spectraaccess.com wrote: I know this is Canada, but I can just see some congressman here in the US one day bitch about not being able to cleaning watch the Jackass 3 movie from Netflix and demanding that all service providers get rid of bandwidth quotas and throttling by introducing a new bill. On 03/29/2011 11:26 AM, Matt wrote: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/03/data-caps-claim-a-victim-netflix-streaming-video.ars http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/03/data-caps-claim-a-victim-netflix-streaming-video.ars -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein at http://ionary.comionary.com ionary Consulting
Re: [WISPA] Fwd: Data Caps and Streaming
At 10:37 AM 3/29/2011, you wrote: Wow that would be cool. Now just to find a device which can split all that out easily and maintain accounting. I have this all automatically controlled with a Packeteer. Eight levels of priority with on the fly per packet control, partitioning of bandwidth, and the ability to control both priority and volume on a per customer basis, right down to the actual type of traffic such as www or smtp, or Citrix, or you name it. Traffic discovery, makes graphs, runs scripts to change things on weekends for example, all kinds of features. These things are cheap on Ebay. Rk 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] Fwd: Data Caps and Streaming
At 08:53 PM 3/29/2011, you wrote: try to keep everything fair but my customers feel like they should be able to use their Internet in any way they choose. That's what EVERYONE wants to believe, but the obvious fact is that there is no such thing as unlimited, and there never has been. I've found it very easy to explain to customers my various service levels, and the reasoning behind them, especially when I remind them that the term unlimited began during the dial-up days. And dial-up was the most severely limited! We all already have caps, and always have had them. A T-1 is hard capped. All circuits are hard capped. Once someone buys into a discounted service (residential, i.e. CHEAP), they automatically become part of a shared model. If they want dedicated bandwidth, they'll get less of it, but all of it. And the cost will be commensurate. The shared model works very well for 90% of the people. I sell both, and everything in between. But rarely does anyone find dedicated bandwidth to be a better solution for them. About the only time I sell it is when the order comes from higher up. Rk 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] Fwd: Data Caps and Streaming
On 03/30/2011 11:31 AM, Rick Kunze wrote: The shared model works very well for 90% of the people. I sell both, and everything in between. But rarely does anyone find dedicated bandwidth to be a better solution for them. About the only time I sell it is when the order comes from higher up. Rk I assume when you say dedicated you mean at some QoS level since wireless is shared medium at the physical layer and dedicated link would require separate equipment and frequencies from you shared customers. Bret 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] Fwd: Data Caps and Streaming
I'm referring to bandwidth, as opposed to method of delivery. Rk At 08:36 AM 3/30/2011, you wrote: On 03/30/2011 11:31 AM, Rick Kunze wrote: The shared model works very well for 90% of the people. I sell both, and everything in between. But rarely does anyone find dedicated bandwidth to be a better solution for them. About the only time I sell it is when the order comes from higher up. Rk I assume when you say dedicated you mean at some QoS level since wireless is shared medium at the physical layer and dedicated link would require separate equipment and frequencies from you shared customers. Bret 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] Fwd: Data Caps and Streaming
Rick, Thats great! The real trick is can you prioritize AND bill accordingly? On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Rick Kunze rku...@colusanet.com wrote: At 10:37 AM 3/29/2011, you wrote: Wow that would be cool. Now just to find a device which can split all that out easily and maintain accounting. I have this all automatically controlled with a Packeteer. Eight levels of priority with on the fly per packet control, partitioning of bandwidth, and the ability to control both priority and volume on a per customer basis, right down to the actual type of traffic such as www or smtp, or Citrix, or you name it. Traffic discovery, makes graphs, runs scripts to change things on weekends for example, all kinds of features. These things are cheap on Ebay. Rk 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/ -- -RickG 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] Fwd: Data Caps and Streaming
At 3/29/2011 11:15 PM, RickG wrote: Fred, I respectfully disagree. I'm glad to see that we have a good discussion going here, and it's not a flamefest or anything. First off, applications being run on my network ARE my business. Many apps can have detrimental effect on it and therefore I have a right and responsibility to say what can run on it. Let's set that aside for a moment... Secondly, priority bits simply cost more to provide and tax the network more than non-priority. Everyone expects their high priority apps (video/voice) to be first in line without delays and that's really what all the fuss is about. I entirely agree. My original note, if you look carefully, said that priority and other higher-than-BE QoS *should* cost extra. Lack of a good charging model is one reason why we have a big BE Internet and not much else. But I'd like to see one. BTW, entertainment video is much more tolerant than voice. It can use retransmission and buffering, or find other strategies to cope. Real-time video (telepresence) is the bear. Meanwhile, we have been focusing on raw usage but that is only a part of the equation. Just billing for monthly overages does not consider daily peak usage times. I don't object to time-of-day pricing either. One rough example: Usage midnight to six, not counted. Usage 6AM to 9AM, counted half. In fact, in questioning many customers, they would be happy to pay a premium for a high-priority, low latency connection for certain apps. Heck, I can even see premiums for usage based on the time of day but that may be pushing it. This may sound extreme but everyone laughed at me back in 1997 when I bought an Allot box for UBB. BTW:While economic optimization is good, network optimization is better. Over the years, I've seen fast networks and slow networks, I'd pay more any day to be on a fast network. Sure. But if your network is capacity-constrained, or the cost of capacity is particularly high somewhere, then you have to make do with what you have. Which is why you care what apps are run. I am one of those old-timers who thinks that the Computer II decision was one of the smartest moves the FCC ever made. It literally made the ISP industry possible, and its revocation in 2005 directly created the network neutrality kerfuffle. CI II banned LECs from dealing in the upper layers; any enhanced services had to be on a fully separated basis. So it was literally against the law for the telco to ask what the application (in the layer 7 sense) was. But it could certainly offer services with optional QoS features that were optimized for different applications. So it might offer a CBR service (voice-optimized) and a BE (UBR) service (Internet-optimized). But if somebody ran voice over a BE service, that was their own issue, not the telco's. On the other hand, the ISP is explicitly not a common carrier, and thus has the right to be more specific. ISPs are above that boundary, not below. So sure, as an ISP, you should have the right to sell applications. There is no bright line between ISP and ASP, or between ISP and time-sharing service. (That ancient business has been revived under the moniker cloud.) So sure, you can do DPI if you want, provided that you do it in a way that respects customer privacy. Note that I do not think that DPI should go all the way in to the payload, as some systems do, or ferret out value from transactions, etc., as some vendors propose. I call that wiretapping. However, I'll quote R. Milhouse Nixon here and suggest that in most cases, you can do it, but it would be wrong. The reason is that the value proposition that customers want from the Internet is one of flexibility and openness. They probably don't want their ISP to be a mail-and-web service, although that's what Blackberries usually get (in exchange for unmetered usage of those applications). While I am not one who believes that all innovation happens at the edge, I don't want edge innovations to be blocked in the middle. So the best compromise I can see is to price one's menu of services in a manner that reflects cost, with some averaging to make it more palatable. And then you can ignore what people do with the bits they buy. They will have incentives to behave economically. I'm also an advocate of widespread encryption, and am doing my part to make encryption of user traffic the rule, rather than the exception, over the next few years. (See the Pouzin Society stuff for more details.) That will utterly break DPI. But it will work with explicit QoS options, so there is no excuse that the network will have to snoop the application in order to know what QoS to deliver (the IMS approach). On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Fred Goldstein mailto:fgoldst...@ionary.comfgoldst...@ionary.com wrote: At 3/29/2011 01:20 PM, RickG wrote: I still say there needs to be more than just caps. There needs to be a
Re: [WISPA] Fwd: Data Caps and Streaming
It's been a lengthy learning curve, I've been forming this mechanism since around 2001 but it all works very well now. I use 5 levels of priority for customers, Level 0 through Level 4. Level 5 is for special use when needed and 6 is infrastructure equipment. Level 7 (top level) is reserved so I can reach things in the event of some other host or interface causing a packet storm or the like. Then the balancing act is grouping day-user businesses with night-user residentials, or whatever is needed to lump all customers into a few smaller groups. Then the total bandwidth is partitioned into the same number of slices as there are groups of customers. This becomes the CIR but is fundamentally based on priority. The burst then comes in from the scattering of priority levels within each group. Basically residentials are sacraficed during the week days for any other higher priority packet. But ceilings are also put in place to keep any one customer from sucking all the Ether out of the wire. That's also inherent in the grouping strategy. It's always a moving target though, and needs re-shuffling from time to time as the usage patterns of some users change over time. Some groups are geographical, but mostly it's random based on usage patterns. What I've seen change the most over the last 6-12 months especially is that residential is overtaking business. The night time bandwidth demands are equal to and starting to exceed daytime business demands. The former having ramped up considerably lately with movies and the like. A streaming Netflix standard def movie is roughly a 1.2 meg stream for a couple hours, but the duty cycle as I like to call it is only about 50% to 80%. Rk At 08:53 AM 3/30/2011, you wrote: Rick, Thats great! The real trick is can you prioritize AND bill accordingly? On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Rick Kunze mailto:rku...@colusanet.comrku...@colusanet.com wrote: At 10:37 AM 3/29/2011, you wrote: Wow that would be cool. Now just to find a device which can split all that out easily and maintain accounting. I have this all automatically controlled with a Packeteer. Eight levels of priority with on the fly per packet control, partitioning of bandwidth, and the ability to control both priority and volume on a per customer basis, right down to the actual type of traffic such as www or smtp, or Citrix, or you name it. Traffic discovery, makes graphs, runs scripts to change things on weekends for example, all kinds of features. These things are cheap on Ebay. Rk 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] Fwd: Data Caps and Streaming
Flamefests accomplish nothing! I agree with what you say below and at this point not sure what else I can add. Making it happen is what I want to see. I may be wrong but I truly beleive proper UBB it's the only way to true QOS on the internet, especially as applications continue to grow and become even bigger resource hogs. I beleive we previously established that you have a few years on me but this subject reminded me of back in '79 when I worked at IBM as an Engineer. Companies charged for usage of their multi-million dollar mainframes to both their internal and external customers in order to keep a handle on resources. The current attitude of internet users is that network resources are cheap. Over-usage is an unsustainable model even with Moore's Law in play. The next few years will be interesting to say the least! On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.comwrote: At 3/29/2011 11:15 PM, RickG wrote: Fred, I respectfully disagree. I'm glad to see that we have a good discussion going here, and it's not a flamefest or anything. First off, applications being run on my network ARE my business. Many apps can have detrimental effect on it and therefore I have a right and responsibility to say what can run on it. Let's set that aside for a moment... Secondly, priority bits simply cost more to provide and tax the network more than non-priority. Everyone expects their high priority apps (video/voice) to be first in line without delays and that's really what all the fuss is about. I entirely agree. My original note, if you look carefully, said that priority and other higher-than-BE QoS *should* cost extra. Lack of a good charging model is one reason why we have a big BE Internet and not much else. But I'd like to see one. BTW, entertainment video is much more tolerant than voice. It can use retransmission and buffering, or find other strategies to cope. Real-time video (telepresence) is the bear. Meanwhile, we have been focusing on raw usage but that is only a part of the equation. Just billing for monthly overages does not consider daily peak usage times. I don't object to time-of-day pricing either. One rough example: Usage midnight to six, not counted. Usage 6AM to 9AM, counted half. In fact, in questioning many customers, they would be happy to pay a premium for a high-priority, low latency connection for certain apps. Heck, I can even see premiums for usage based on the time of day but that may be pushing it. This may sound extreme but everyone laughed at me back in 1997 when I bought an Allot box for UBB. BTW:While economic optimization is good, network optimization is better. Over the years, I've seen fast networks and slow networks, I'd pay more any day to be on a fast network. Sure. But if your network is capacity-constrained, or the cost of capacity is particularly high somewhere, then you have to make do with what you have. Which is why you care what apps are run. I am one of those old-timers who thinks that the Computer II decision was one of the smartest moves the FCC ever made. It literally made the ISP industry possible, and its revocation in 2005 directly created the network neutrality kerfuffle. CI II banned LECs from dealing in the upper layers; any enhanced services had to be on a fully separated basis. So it was literally against the law for the telco to ask what the application (in the layer 7 sense) was. But it could certainly offer services with optional QoS features that were optimized for different applications. So it might offer a CBR service (voice-optimized) and a BE (UBR) service (Internet-optimized). But if somebody ran voice over a BE service, that was their own issue, not the telco's. On the other hand, the ISP is explicitly not a common carrier, and thus has the right to be more specific. ISPs are above that boundary, not below. So sure, as an ISP, you should have the right to sell applications. There is no bright line between ISP and ASP, or between ISP and time-sharing service. (That ancient business has been revived under the moniker cloud.) So sure, you can do DPI if you want, provided that you do it in a way that respects customer privacy. Note that I do not think that DPI should go all the way in to the payload, as some systems do, or ferret out value from transactions, etc., as some vendors propose. I call that wiretapping. However, I'll quote R. Milhouse Nixon here and suggest that in most cases, you can do it, but it would be wrong. The reason is that the value proposition that customers want from the Internet is one of flexibility and openness. They probably don't want their ISP to be a mail-and-web service, although that's what Blackberries usually get (in exchange for unmetered usage of those applications). While I am not one who believes that all innovation happens at the edge, I don't want edge innovations to be blocked in the
Re: [WISPA] Fwd: Data Caps and Streaming
It sounds like it has improved somewhat from when I was using the Allot box back in '97. It would be nice if there was more automation in the process. On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Rick Kunze rku...@colusanet.com wrote: It's been a lengthy learning curve, I've been forming this mechanism since around 2001 but it all works very well now. I use 5 levels of priority for customers, Level 0 through Level 4. Level 5 is for special use when needed and 6 is infrastructure equipment. Level 7 (top level) is reserved so I can reach things in the event of some other host or interface causing a packet storm or the like. Then the balancing act is grouping day-user businesses with night-user residentials, or whatever is needed to lump all customers into a few smaller groups. Then the total bandwidth is partitioned into the same number of slices as there are groups of customers. This becomes the CIR but is fundamentally based on priority. The burst then comes in from the scattering of priority levels within each group. Basically residentials are sacraficed during the week days for any other higher priority packet. But ceilings are also put in place to keep any one customer from sucking all the Ether out of the wire. That's also inherent in the grouping strategy. It's always a moving target though, and needs re-shuffling from time to time as the usage patterns of some users change over time. Some groups are geographical, but mostly it's random based on usage patterns. What I've seen change the most over the last 6-12 months especially is that residential is overtaking business. The night time bandwidth demands are equal to and starting to exceed daytime business demands. The former having ramped up considerably lately with movies and the like. A streaming Netflix standard def movie is roughly a 1.2 meg stream for a couple hours, but the duty cycle as I like to call it is only about 50% to 80%. Rk At 08:53 AM 3/30/2011, you wrote: Rick, Thats great! The real trick is can you prioritize AND bill accordingly? On Wed, Mar 30, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Rick Kunze mailto:rku...@colusanet.comrku...@colusanet.com wrote: At 10:37 AM 3/29/2011, you wrote: Wow that would be cool. Now just to find a device which can split all that out easily and maintain accounting. I have this all automatically controlled with a Packeteer. Eight levels of priority with on the fly per packet control, partitioning of bandwidth, and the ability to control both priority and volume on a per customer basis, right down to the actual type of traffic such as www or smtp, or Citrix, or you name it. Traffic discovery, makes graphs, runs scripts to change things on weekends for example, all kinds of features. These things are cheap on Ebay. Rk 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/ -- -RickG 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] Fwd: Data Caps and Streaming
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/03/data-caps-claim-a-victim-netflix-streaming-video.ars 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] Fwd: Data Caps and Streaming
awesome! Let's all put data caps in... On 3/29/2011 8:26 AM, Matt wrote: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/03/data-caps-claim-a-victim-netflix-streaming-video.ars 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] Fwd: Data Caps and Streaming
I know this is Canada, but I can just see some congressman here in the US one day bitch about not being able to cleaning watch the Jackass 3 movie from Netflix and demanding that all service providers get rid of bandwidth quotas and throttling by introducing a new bill. On 03/29/2011 11:26 AM, Matt wrote: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/03/data-caps-claim-a-victim-netflix-streaming-video.ars 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] Fwd: Data Caps and Streaming
cleaning watch? Do you mean cleaning while watching? Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Bret Clark bcl...@spectraaccess.comwrote: I know this is Canada, but I can just see some congressman here in the US one day bitch about not being able to cleaning watch the Jackass 3 movie from Netflix and demanding that all service providers get rid of bandwidth quotas and throttling by introducing a new bill. On 03/29/2011 11:26 AM, Matt wrote: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/03/data-caps-claim-a-victim-netflix-streaming-video.ars 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] Fwd: Data Caps and Streaming
I know this is Canada, but I can just see some congressman here in the US one day bitch about not being able to cleaning watch the Jackass 3 movie from Netflix and demanding that all service providers get rid of bandwidth quotas and throttling by introducing a new bill. Unfortunately I fear you may be right and a congressman has already tried to introduce such a bill if I recall correctly? I cannot properly cool my home in the summer due to the high price of electricity. Is that different? On 03/29/2011 11:26 AM, Matt wrote: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/03/data-caps-claim-a-victim-netflix-streaming-video.ars 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] Fwd: Data Caps and Streaming
yeah...didn't proof well enough...cleanly watch is what I meant. On 03/29/2011 11:51 AM, Josh Luthman wrote: cleaning watch? Do you mean cleaning while watching? Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Bret Clark bcl...@spectraaccess.com mailto:bcl...@spectraaccess.com wrote: I know this is Canada, but I can just see some congressman here in the US one day bitch about not being able to cleaning watch the Jackass 3 movie from Netflix and demanding that all service providers get rid of bandwidth quotas and throttling by introducing a new bill. On 03/29/2011 11:26 AM, Matt wrote: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/03/data-caps-claim-a-victim-netflix-streaming-video.ars WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org mailto: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 mailto: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] Fwd: Data Caps and Streaming
I still say there needs to be more than just caps. There needs to be a matrix of billing by priority such as video at .03/meg, file transfer at .02, email at .01, etc. Heck, perhaps HD can be .05 and SD at .03? (Prices are just for arguments sake) On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Bret Clark bcl...@spectraaccess.comwrote: I know this is Canada, but I can just see some congressman here in the US one day bitch about not being able to cleaning watch the Jackass 3 movie from Netflix and demanding that all service providers get rid of bandwidth quotas and throttling by introducing a new bill. On 03/29/2011 11:26 AM, Matt wrote: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/03/data-caps-claim-a-victim-netflix-streaming-video.ars 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/ -- -RickG 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] Fwd: Data Caps and Streaming
Wow that would be cool. Now just to find a device which can split all that out easily and maintain accounting. Cameron On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 12:20 PM, RickG rgunder...@gmail.com wrote: I still say there needs to be more than just caps. There needs to be a matrix of billing by priority such as video at .03/meg, file transfer at .02, email at .01, etc. Heck, perhaps HD can be .05 and SD at .03? (Prices are just for arguments sake) On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Bret Clark bcl...@spectraaccess.comwrote: I know this is Canada, but I can just see some congressman here in the US one day bitch about not being able to cleaning watch the Jackass 3 movie from Netflix and demanding that all service providers get rid of bandwidth quotas and throttling by introducing a new bill. On 03/29/2011 11:26 AM, Matt wrote: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/03/data-caps-claim-a-victim-netflix-streaming-video.ars 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/ -- -RickG 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] Fwd: Data Caps and Streaming
At 3/29/2011 01:20 PM, RickG wrote: I still say there needs to be more than just caps. There needs to be a matrix of billing by priority such as video at .03/meg, file transfer at .02, email at .01, etc. Heck, perhaps HD can be .05 and SD at .03? (Prices are just for arguments sake) Well, no, there doesn't. Applications are none of the network's business. That's one reason why DPI is evil. HOWEVER, I am not opposed to appliation-agnostic billing for usage, by QoS. It is perfectly reasonable for a network to charge for usage that imposes a cost. And while the teevee fiends are sure, just certain, that 300 GB/month imposes precisely zero cost on the network, I doubt many WISPs would agree. Especially rural ones who have to pay for backhaul, or who have multi-hop networks. IP, of course, is one-size-fits-all, with QoS being rare. Hence caps and overage charges are a way to do cost averaging for the majority (since people hate billing for usage), while still hitting the heaviest users. Block pricing (like wireless, having say 10, 50, and 150 GB/month plans, plus overage) also works. And if you go beyond plain old IP and do have a QoS-enabled protocol, then lower-loss or delay-limited (or whatever) traffic should carry a premium. Regardless of what it's used for. Then the applications could adapt to the pricing. This leads towards economic optimization. On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Bret Clark mailto:bcl...@spectraaccess.combcl...@spectraaccess.com wrote: I know this is Canada, but I can just see some congressman here in the US one day bitch about not being able to cleaning watch the Jackass 3 movie from Netflix and demanding that all service providers get rid of bandwidth quotas and throttling by introducing a new bill. On 03/29/2011 11:26 AM, Matt wrote: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/03/data-caps-claim-a-victim-netflix-streaming-video.arshttp://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/03/data-caps-claim-a-victim-netflix-streaming-video.ars -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein at ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 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] Fwd: Data Caps and Streaming
Fred, I respectfully disagree. First off, applications being run on my network ARE my business. Many apps can have detrimental effect on it and therefore I have a right and responsibility to say what can run on it. Secondly, priority bits simply cost more to provide and tax the network more than non-priority. Everyone expects their high priority apps (video/voice) to be first in line without delays and that's really what all the fuss is about. Meanwhile, we have been focusing on raw usage but that is only a part of the equation. Just billing for monthly overages does not consider daily peak usage times. In fact, in questioning many customers, they would be happy to pay a premium for a high-priority, low latency connection for certain apps. Heck, I can even see premiums for usage based on the time of day but that may be pushing it. This may sound extreme but everyone laughed at me back in 1997 when I bought an Allot box for UBB. BTW:While economic optimization is good, network optimization is better. Over the years, I've seen fast networks and slow networks, I'd pay more any day to be on a fast network. On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.comwrote: At 3/29/2011 01:20 PM, RickG wrote: I still say there needs to be more than just caps. There needs to be a matrix of billing by priority such as video at .03/meg, file transfer at .02, email at .01, etc. Heck, perhaps HD can be .05 and SD at .03? (Prices are just for arguments sake) Well, no, there doesn't. Applications are none of the network's business. That's one reason why DPI is evil. HOWEVER, I am not opposed to appliation-agnostic billing for usage, by QoS. It is perfectly reasonable for a network to charge for usage that imposes a cost. And while the teevee fiends are sure, just certain, that 300 GB/month imposes precisely zero cost on the network, I doubt many WISPs would agree. Especially rural ones who have to pay for backhaul, or who have multi-hop networks. IP, of course, is one-size-fits-all, with QoS being rare. Hence caps and overage charges are a way to do cost averaging for the majority (since people hate billing for usage), while still hitting the heaviest users. Block pricing (like wireless, having say 10, 50, and 150 GB/month plans, plus overage) also works. And if you go beyond plain old IP and do have a QoS-enabled protocol, then lower-loss or delay-limited (or whatever) traffic should carry a premium. Regardless of what it's used for. Then the applications could adapt to the pricing. This leads towards economic optimization. On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Bret Clark bcl...@spectraaccess.com wrote: I know this is Canada, but I can just see some congressman here in the US one day bitch about not being able to cleaning watch the Jackass 3 movie from Netflix and demanding that all service providers get rid of bandwidth quotas and throttling by introducing a new bill. On 03/29/2011 11:26 AM, Matt wrote: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/03/data-caps-claim-a-victim-netflix-streaming-video.ars -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein at ionary.com ionary Consultinghttp://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 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/ -- -RickG 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] Fwd: Data Caps and Streaming
I think alot of what your talking about is going to be market driven. Right now none of my competition uses caps on their business customers and neither can I. I use QOS and wimax to try to keep everything fair but my customers feel like they should be able to use their Internet in any way they choose. Sent from my iPhone On Mar 29, 2011, at 10:15 PM, RickG rgunder...@gmail.com wrote: Fred, I respectfully disagree. First off, applications being run on my network ARE my business. Many apps can have detrimental effect on it and therefore I have a right and responsibility to say what can run on it. Secondly, priority bits simply cost more to provide and tax the network more than non-priority. Everyone expects their high priority apps (video/voice) to be first in line without delays and that's really what all the fuss is about. Meanwhile, we have been focusing on raw usage but that is only a part of the equation. Just billing for monthly overages does not consider daily peak usage times. In fact, in questioning many customers, they would be happy to pay a premium for a high-priority, low latency connection for certain apps. Heck, I can even see premiums for usage based on the time of day but that may be pushing it. This may sound extreme but everyone laughed at me back in 1997 when I bought an Allot box for UBB. BTW:While economic optimization is good, network optimization is better. Over the years, I've seen fast networks and slow networks, I'd pay more any day to be on a fast network. On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com wrote: At 3/29/2011 01:20 PM, RickG wrote: I still say there needs to be more than just caps. There needs to be a matrix of billing by priority such as video at .03/meg, file transfer at .02, email at .01, etc. Heck, perhaps HD can be .05 and SD at .03? (Prices are just for arguments sake) Well, no, there doesn't. Applications are none of the network's business. That's one reason why DPI is evil. HOWEVER, I am not opposed to appliation-agnostic billing for usage, by QoS. It is perfectly reasonable for a network to charge for usage that imposes a cost. And while the teevee fiends are sure, just certain, that 300 GB/month imposes precisely zero cost on the network, I doubt many WISPs would agree. Especially rural ones who have to pay for backhaul, or who have multi-hop networks. IP, of course, is one-size-fits-all, with QoS being rare. Hence caps and overage charges are a way to do cost averaging for the majority (since people hate billing for usage), while still hitting the heaviest users. Block pricing (like wireless, having say 10, 50, and 150 GB/month plans, plus overage) also works. And if you go beyond plain old IP and do have a QoS-enabled protocol, then lower-loss or delay-limited (or whatever) traffic should carry a premium. Regardless of what it's used for. Then the applications could adapt to the pricing. This leads towards economic optimization. On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Bret Clark bcl...@spectraaccess.com wrote: I know this is Canada, but I can just see some congressman here in the US one day bitch about not being able to cleaning watch the Jackass 3 movie from Netflix and demanding that all service providers get rid of bandwidth quotas and throttling by introducing a new bill. On 03/29/2011 11:26 AM, Matt wrote: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/03/data-caps-claim-a-victim-netflix-streaming-video.ars -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein at ionary.com ionary Consultinghttp://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 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/ -- -RickG 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] Fwd: Data Caps and Streaming
Rick, Be-careful when going down this road... this is slippery slopes... This is the exact argument used by the ILEC's / and Cable Co's to keep folks like you and me to connect to their networks. The one attribute of the Internet has been 'no one is going to mess with the apps running on it'... that is the primary sole attribute of the Internet that has made it what it is... There is noting wrong with they way you look at your network, but if everyone looked at their network in this manner, we all would not be in business... Just pointing out that there is a sensible middle ground in this debate, but be very careful as you start to define terms and conditions.. What you do for your customers is exactly what the Upstream providers can do for us who are downstream and their customers.. :) Regards.. Hope you are doing well and not climbing towers late at night . Faisal Imtiaz On 3/29/2011 11:15 PM, RickG wrote: Fred, I respectfully disagree. First off, applications being run on my network ARE my business. Many apps can have detrimental effect on it and therefore I have a right and responsibility to say what can run on it. Secondly, priority bits simply cost more to provide and tax the network more than non-priority. Everyone expects their high priority apps (video/voice) to be first in line without delays and that's really what all the fuss is about. Meanwhile, we have been focusing on raw usage but that is only a part of the equation. Just billing for monthly overages does not consider daily peak usage times. In fact, in questioning many customers, they would be happy to pay a premium for a high-priority, low latency connection for certain apps. Heck, I can even see premiums for usage based on the time of day but that may be pushing it. This may sound extreme but everyone laughed at me back in 1997 when I bought an Allot box for UBB. BTW:While economic optimization is good, network optimization is better. Over the years, I've seen fast networks and slow networks, I'd pay more any day to be on a fast network. On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com mailto:fgoldst...@ionary.com wrote: At 3/29/2011 01:20 PM, RickG wrote: I still say there needs to be more than just caps. There needs to be a matrix of billing by priority such as video at .03/meg, file transfer at .02, email at .01, etc. Heck, perhaps HD can be .05 and SD at .03? (Prices are just for arguments sake) Well, no, there doesn't. Applications are none of the network's business. That's one reason why DPI is evil. HOWEVER, I am not opposed to appliation-agnostic billing for usage, by QoS. It is perfectly reasonable for a network to charge for usage that imposes a cost. And while the teevee fiends are sure, just certain, that 300 GB/month imposes precisely zero cost on the network, I doubt many WISPs would agree. Especially rural ones who have to pay for backhaul, or who have multi-hop networks. IP, of course, is one-size-fits-all, with QoS being rare. Hence caps and overage charges are a way to do cost averaging for the majority (since people hate billing for usage), while still hitting the heaviest users. Block pricing (like wireless, having say 10, 50, and 150 GB/month plans, plus overage) also works. And if you go beyond plain old IP and do have a QoS-enabled protocol, then lower-loss or delay-limited (or whatever) traffic should carry a premium. Regardless of what it's used for. Then the applications could adapt to the pricing. This leads towards economic optimization. On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Bret Clark bcl...@spectraaccess.com mailto:bcl...@spectraaccess.com wrote: I know this is Canada, but I can just see some congressman here in the US one day bitch about not being able to cleaning watch the Jackass 3 movie from Netflix and demanding that all service providers get rid of bandwidth quotas and throttling by introducing a new bill. On 03/29/2011 11:26 AM, Matt wrote: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/03/data-caps-claim-a-victim-netflix-streaming-video.ars -- Fred Goldsteink1io fgoldstein at ionary.com http://ionary.com ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ +1 617 795 2701 tel:%2B1%20617%20795%202701 WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org mailto:wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- -RickG
Re: [WISPA] Fwd: Data Caps and Streaming
You guys should have come to the Orlando Meeting.. There was a fellow from Texas, operating a very large WISP (last day session panel on Netflix) Chuck Hogg can u possible get his presentation copy for all of us ? It was the best business case presentation of long term usage trends and projections for future. No Technical jargon.. just a business case of what we have done and seen in the past. and how things are changing and what we can expect in the future... Having said that.. folks serving Resi are on the leading edge of seeing the effects of that trend.. folks serving business are very likely to be on the tail edge of things. The key point was made.. IS YOUR / OUR Current NETWORK sized to serve our Customer's needs and demands today ? and for Tomorrow ? What do we need to have in place, (both from network elements, process , procedure etc) to be able to change to the demand trend . You all have to put on your business hat.. and watch / see this presentation and then decide what you have to do ? Granted.. if you are small, you can continue 'shooting from the hip' style of network ops and expansion.. but if you are medium to large, you better pay attention and plan / execute accordingly... (not trying to offend or pick on anyone). For myself that one presentation alone was an eye opener !. Regards. Faisal Imtiaz Snappy Internet Telecom On 3/29/2011 11:53 PM, Jeremie Chism wrote: I think alot of what your talking about is going to be market driven. Right now none of my competition uses caps on their business customers and neither can I. I use QOS and wimax to try to keep everything fair but my customers feel like they should be able to use their Internet in any way they choose. Sent from my iPhone On Mar 29, 2011, at 10:15 PM, RickG rgunder...@gmail.com mailto:rgunder...@gmail.com wrote: Fred, I respectfully disagree. First off, applications being run on my network ARE my business. Many apps can have detrimental effect on it and therefore I have a right and responsibility to say what can run on it. Secondly, priority bits simply cost more to provide and tax the network more than non-priority. Everyone expects their high priority apps (video/voice) to be first in line without delays and that's really what all the fuss is about. Meanwhile, we have been focusing on raw usage but that is only a part of the equation. Just billing for monthly overages does not consider daily peak usage times. In fact, in questioning many customers, they would be happy to pay a premium for a high-priority, low latency connection for certain apps. Heck, I can even see premiums for usage based on the time of day but that may be pushing it. This may sound extreme but everyone laughed at me back in 1997 when I bought an Allot box for UBB. BTW:While economic optimization is good, network optimization is better. Over the years, I've seen fast networks and slow networks, I'd pay more any day to be on a fast network. On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Fred Goldstein fgoldst...@ionary.com mailto:fgoldst...@ionary.com wrote: At 3/29/2011 01:20 PM, RickG wrote: I still say there needs to be more than just caps. There needs to be a matrix of billing by priority such as video at .03/meg, file transfer at .02, email at .01, etc. Heck, perhaps HD can be .05 and SD at .03? (Prices are just for arguments sake) Well, no, there doesn't. Applications are none of the network's business. That's one reason why DPI is evil. HOWEVER, I am not opposed to appliation-agnostic billing for usage, by QoS. It is perfectly reasonable for a network to charge for usage that imposes a cost. And while the teevee fiends are sure, just certain, that 300 GB/month imposes precisely zero cost on the network, I doubt many WISPs would agree. Especially rural ones who have to pay for backhaul, or who have multi-hop networks. IP, of course, is one-size-fits-all, with QoS being rare. Hence caps and overage charges are a way to do cost averaging for the majority (since people hate billing for usage), while still hitting the heaviest users. Block pricing (like wireless, having say 10, 50, and 150 GB/month plans, plus overage) also works. And if you go beyond plain old IP and do have a QoS-enabled protocol, then lower-loss or delay-limited (or whatever) traffic should carry a premium. Regardless of what it's used for. Then the applications could adapt to the pricing. This leads towards economic optimization. On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Bret Clark bcl...@spectraaccess.com mailto:bcl...@spectraaccess.com wrote: I know this is Canada, but I can just see some congressman here in the US one day bitch about not being able to cleaning watch the Jackass 3 movie from Netflix and demanding that all service providers get rid of
