to buy more bandwidth from ISPs.
And help force the price of bandwidth down with ISP's buying more and more
Another is it will just cause lots of bad will between ISPs and there
customers, when they learn they are going to get charged more.
This should already be covered in the AUP! Any ISP that doesnt have
this covered in the AUP with there MIR/CIR rates is ASKING
to get a beat down from there user base.
Its deceptive the the end user.
What is deceptive? Are you telling lies to your users?
We need a truth in lending type rule for ISPs.
They exist already.
And an ISP should get compensated for the use of their network based
on their cost to operate their network, not the average cost that
others may pay.
Compensated by WHO? The ONLY people that should do this is the ISP's end
user, thats WHY they are a user and what they are for!
IF my backbone provder charges me more than they charge the high
volume player, I need compensation for what I get paid.
Say WHAT?
Could you imagine, if SBC was selling transit to ISPs at $200 a mbps
(which is not uncommon for T1 to DS3 pricing levels in rural areas),
and then flooded their ISP customers with traffic, by selling their
end users IPTV easilly at capacity far greater than 1 mbps. SBC would
actually make more money off the ISP's transit fees than they would
make off the end user buying the IPTV service. Clearly the ISP would
be getting taken advantage of. It would put them out of business
fast. These are real issues legislators need to consider. PRoviding
high QOS broadband is not cheap, and not equal for all providers,
based on size and location.
So what if SBC sells bandwidth and TVoIP? SBC sells each at a price.
They do not nor should they be able to charge or be charge the ISP cause
someone
uses this or other services.
And what makes it worse, is how do you tell whose network gets used
and how much? It can't be done. ISPs don't have the equivellent of a
SS7 system. The only protection an ISP will have is to slow down
/bandwidth manage consumers traffic. Its what we have to do. We sell
CIR and MIR traffic. The CIR becomes a factor of the over subscription
rate, and not disclosed to the end user.
It (the cir) should be!
It a value that matches the real cost to deliver data at sustained
rates. The MIR is the speed sold to the customer based on the targeted
oversubscription rate. A 5mbps MIR service may have a 128K CIR if to
a residential prospect. For $30 a month, the end user may get 128K of
sustained throughput, after that they pay more, or get limited. For a
business custoemr paying $200, it may be 512K CIR. Its all about the
math and reality of what a network costs to provide.
Yes it is. You seam to have reversed your self from the above about
supporting SBC and its idea.
I think what needs to be important is that companies are forced to
make policies that are not discriminatory. For example, its also to
charge of a $1 to take a packet from network 1 as long as you also
charge the same $1 to take a packet from network 2. In other words,
If you set a price for passing VOIP, VOIP is VOIP regardless of who
provides it, and the cost to the ISP is the same, and therefore should
be compensated the same. But not in a way that inforces that one
prvider will have a lower competitive advantage over the other.
No way. If we allow this then I have the right to charge what i want to
who i want. Its MY network. Maybe you do not have enough transit
to make talking to you worth the legal bills? Maybe I do not have enough
for you. Its plain WRONG to bill the end user for service AND bill
the content provider JUST because they provide to your network. Now if
SBC wants to sell a pipe to said provider and bill based on USE
from the get go, thats FINE. But not after the fact just cause they are
losing there ass with a bad business model.
Jeromie
Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
- Original Message - From: Frank Muto [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 8:25 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Should content providers pay for standard
accesstoconsumers?
Give me a break. Whitacre is acting like SBC customer's are not
supporting
the network, there is your ROI Ed. So what if all the ISP's did the same
thing? Yeah right, that'll work for about 2 minutes. This is getting
way out
of hand and I would hope Congress and the FCC et al, remember Madison
River
and knock Whitacre down a peg or two.
Ok, now let's see what happens if every ISP and content provider
blocks Ed's
customers? That should flood their support desks for a while.
Frank Muto
Co-founder - Washington Bureau for ISP Advocacy - WBIA
Telecom Summit Ad Hoc Committee
http://gigabytemarch.blog.com/ www.wbia.us
- Original Message - From: Tony Weasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, November 01
