RE: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2007 2:18 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC What is considered a large number of connections? How many connections is it safe to limit to, without compromising a user's typical usage. Would this be an effective way of determining when a class of plan is being abused, such as a business using a residential plan, or a small community WISP trying to use a single residential plan conneciton? Is it possible that we need to start charge for number of connections instead of just say the number of bytes transfered or speed? My nephew and I occassionally play BF2142 online. My Linksys DD-WRT based router had a problem. It had max ports set out 512. When my PC then his polled hundreds of servers to find the best connection it hit that limit. Raising it to 1024 seemed to fix it. So limiting connections will likely smack gamers as well as p2p users. Keep in mind that when a gamer opens 1024 connections within a few seconds, he will have a detrimental effect on any wireless network and severe effect on those wireless networks that do not use polling (i.e. 802.11 based systems). So as a network operator, you may still be interested in limiting resource availability for that sort of application. - Larry 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
What is considered a large number of connections? How many connections is it safe to limit to, without compromising a user's typical usage. Would this be an effective way of determining when a class of plan is being abused, such as a business using a residential plan, or a small community WISP trying to use a single residential plan conneciton? Is it possible that we need to start charge for number of connections instead of just say the number of bytes transfered or speed? My nephew and I occassionally play BF2142 online. My Linksys DD-WRT based router had a problem. It had max ports set out 512. When my PC then his polled hundreds of servers to find the best connection it hit that limit. Raising it to 1024 seemed to fix it. So limiting connections will likely smack gamers as well as p2p users. Keep in mind that when a gamer opens 1024 connections within a few seconds, he will have a detrimental effect on any wireless network and severe effect on those wireless networks that do not use polling (i.e. 802.11 based systems). So as a network operator, you may still be interested in limiting resource availability for that sort of application. We run Canopy. When a gamer does this they usually find a server and do not have to run another scan for quite some time. Where p2p does this crap all day long. P2p is also a bandwidth hog and we have limited resources there due to the wireless loop and we deploy in rural areas where bandwidth is pricey. Matt 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
Matt wrote: What is considered a large number of connections? How many connections is it safe to limit to, without compromising a user's typical usage. My nephew and I occassionally play BF2142 online. My Linksys DD-WRT based router had a problem. It had max ports set out 512. When my PC then his polled hundreds of servers to find the best connection it hit that limit. Raising it to 1024 seemed to fix it. So limiting connections will likely smack gamers as well as p2p users. For that matter, it can easily kill legitimate traffic. For a while, I toyed with setting a limit of, say, 24 simultaneous connections per client IP address. Then I found out folks use Firefox and set it to open a dozen tabs when launched, oh and they all use the FasterFox extension that ignores browser politeness, downloading 20 and 30 files from a given Web server at once, and pre-caching links you're likely to click on. Those little bursts of traffic look, from the tower's point of view, very much like bursty P2P traffic. If you're just going by number of TCP connections or number of packets in a given window of time you'll have far too many false positives. Generally, this kind of traffic is perfectly alright anyway. If someone hammers the tower for half a second, that's okay, nobody will really even notice. It's when someone is hammering the tower for hours at a time that people start to call and complain. The best (or the least-bad) solution for this really is packet inspection to identify and limit the p2p-style traffic. We may hate it from a lot of perspectives, but from the keeping your network running well and keeping your subscribers happy perspective it's pretty much the only viable choice right now. David Smith MVN.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] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 10:22 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC What is considered a large number of connections? How many connections is it safe to limit to, without compromising a user's typical usage. Would this be an effective way of determining when a class of plan is being abused, such as a business using a residential plan, or a small community WISP trying to use a single residential plan conneciton? Is it possible that we need to start charge for number of connections instead of just say the number of bytes transfered or speed? My nephew and I occassionally play BF2142 online. My Linksys DD-WRT based router had a problem. It had max ports set out 512. When my PC then his polled hundreds of servers to find the best connection it hit that limit. Raising it to 1024 seemed to fix it. So limiting connections will likely smack gamers as well as p2p users. Keep in mind that when a gamer opens 1024 connections within a few seconds, he will have a detrimental effect on any wireless network and severe effect on those wireless networks that do not use polling (i.e. 802.11 based systems). So as a network operator, you may still be interested in limiting resource availability for that sort of application. We run Canopy. When a gamer does this they usually find a server and do not have to run another scan for quite some time. Where p2p does this crap all day long. P2p is also a bandwidth hog and we have limited resources there due to the wireless loop and we deploy in rural areas where bandwidth is pricey. Good Point The duration of a scan would certainly have an effect on the impact on the network. If the scan is completed within a few seconds then the network disruption might go unnoticed. It sounds like the solution here would not be to limit the number of simultaneous connections but rather to limit the number of sustained simultaneous connections. - Larry 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
What is considered a large number of connections? How many connections is it safe to limit to, without compromising a user's typical usage. Would this be an effective way of determining when a class of plan is being abused, such as a business using a residential plan, or a small community WISP trying to use a single residential plan conneciton? Is it possible that we need to start charge for number of connections instead of just say the number of bytes transfered or speed? My nephew and I occassionally play BF2142 online. My Linksys DD-WRT based router had a problem. It had max ports set out 512. When my PC then his polled hundreds of servers to find the best connection it hit that limit. Raising it to 1024 seemed to fix it. So limiting connections will likely smack gamers as well as p2p users. Matt 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
What is considered a large number of connections? How many connections is it safe to limit to, without compromising a user's typical usage. Would this be an effective way of determining when a class of plan is being abused, such as a business using a residential plan, or a small community WISP trying to use a single residential plan conneciton? Is it possible that we need to start charge for number of connections instead of just say the number of bytes transfered or speed? Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Sam Tetherow [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2007 12:52 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC Which is why I feel that trying to address the issue as a P2P issue is wrong, the issue is not what the traffic is, it is what the traffic is doing to your network. If you address that issue, then encryption is pointless. Limit large connection counts, implement burstable bandwidth, add a transfer cap. Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless CHUCK PROFITO wrote: I agree, you are fairly well protected, Travis, but for how long. But more and more we are seeing encrypted P2P and encrypted Bit Torrent... This will soon be the norm across the world because so many like you and I and George, Comcast, etc ARE limiting it. We cannot keep trying to control the application, we have to control the packet ONLY, no matter who,what or where it goes to. That is our business, Open access via Packets and excellent customer Service... for a price that is. Chuck Profito 209-988-7388 CV-ACCESS, INC [EMAIL PROTECTED] Providing High Speed Broadband to Rural Central California 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/
Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
Just out of curiousity, all of you who have AP problems because of bit torrent: what APs are you using? Thanks, Clint On Nov 22, 2007 11:41 PM, Scottie Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I put a connection limit on all traffic from ports 1024-65535, because the torrent has to use a connection somewhere and usually the bit progs are set to use somewhere above port 1024. That will not help on UDP or the ones using port 80. I have another connection limit set higher on all tcp connections to try to help combat the port 80 users. -- Original Message -- From: George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 19:15:14 -0800 Thats my point. I use star and it has all the layer 7 stuff built into the cpe. I can control to my hearts content. Generaly I put a switch in or bridge the linksys wifi router and take control there. If I had to and I did one situation, I can give daddy one set of rules and little abusing johnny another. for the most part, I don't have too much to worry about, it's not being able to tightly control the encrypted stuff that is the issue. CHUCK PROFITO wrote: You are nuts or spoiled on 5 gig or have fiber stuffed up every tower. 1 P2P on a 2.4 rural ap opening 100+ connections will packet flood an ap in about 1 minute. 2.4 will only realistically deliver 5 megs per radio. 1 P2P uploading to 60 plus users will be slowed enough to bring the bits per packet way down, then the packet flood ensues. Now put six sectors on a tower, with 300+ subs, 10 megs of back haul, then add 6 P2P and on top of that add three or four bit torrent users with 50 or 60 connections each down loading the best movie ever from Netflix, and now your backhaul starts the flood too.. And you are 30 miles from the fiber head in. Yeah, right... Don't tell me not to shape the traffic. Chuck Profito 209-988-7388 CV-ACCESS, INC [EMAIL PROTECTED] Providing High Speed Broadband to Rural Central California -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Rogato Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 6:42 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC Come on, you guys that sell slow broadband generaly don't have too much to worry about. It's not like if you got an ap that does 10 megs and you sell 50 512k subs that the one or three out of 20 running p2p is going to be very noticable. Try giving those 50 equal access to the full 10 megs and see what happens then, if you don't throttle the p2p. Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, If your network can't handle a small amount of p2p traffic, you have bigger issues. :) Travis Microserv George Rogato wrote: How do you cap the encrypted stuff? Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, First let me say that we cap p2p traffic during the business day, but otherwise we let it run wide open. However, we sell our connections based on speed. Whatever they pay for is what they get... none of this burstable stuff, etc. If they want 512k, they pay for 512k. If they want 1meg, they pay for 1meg. The problem with bandwidth caps of xx gigs per month is that NOBODY else is doing it... not DSL, not Cable, not any of my wireless competitors, etc. Once you start putting that limitation on their connection, they will start switching to something that does not have caps. If you have bandwidth limits in place already, there is no need for the monthly limits. (This does not mean we allow 24x7 bandwidth usage, but we allow reasonable usage). Travis Microserv George Rogato wrote: I think the way to go is to be able to identify the various types of traffic and rate limit them. And once we can do this, then it's time to pull out the menu of various offerings we can provide. Want a 3 meg x 3 meg burstable connection with a sustained traffic rate of 1meg x 256k and bandwidth cap of x gigs, it's price a, want a higher something in your package, it's price b. Want something different, then it's price c. The sub can choose. Once they choose they know what they bought. Mark Nash wrote: This is a good debate. What you mention here, George, is something that's been on my mind for the last year or so. As Lingo/Slingbox/Netflix/Vonage/etc/etc/etc make $$$ off of our connections, where's our cut? The customer is paying for a connection, yes, but at what point do we start charging more as this content proliferates through our networks? Bandwidth is getting cheaper per meg, you can get a bigger pipe for less per meg, you can do things to lower the cost of bandwidth. However, that should give US a better cash flow model, so we're not so squeezed out that we feel like not providing service anymore to folks who
Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
Nope. I have it with Moto 900 Mhz AP's. Will completely lock it down to where it takes a minute or longer just to access it by telnet to reboot it. I can login to Mikrotik and kill all P2P connections and immediately access the 900 Mhz AP after the connections clear. -- Original Message -- From: Butch Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 09:32:49 -0600 (CST) On Fri, 23 Nov 2007, Clint Ricker wrote: Just out of curiousity, all of you who have AP problems because of bit torrent: what APs are you using? It is anything that is 802.11 based (A, B or G) that would have trouble with this. Any polled system would not have this issue. -- Butch Evans Network Engineering and Security Consulting 573-276-2879 http://www.butchevans.com/ My calendar: http://tinyurl.com/y24ad6 Training Partners: http://tinyurl.com/smfkf Mikrotik Certified Consultant http://www.mikrotik.com/consultants.html 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/ --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] 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
On Fri, 23 Nov 2007, Clint Ricker wrote: Just out of curiousity, all of you who have AP problems because of bit torrent: what APs are you using? It is anything that is 802.11 based (A, B or G) that would have trouble with this. Any polled system would not have this issue. -- Butch Evans Network Engineering and Security Consulting 573-276-2879 http://www.butchevans.com/ My calendar: http://tinyurl.com/y24ad6 Training Partners: http://tinyurl.com/smfkf Mikrotik Certified Consultant http://www.mikrotik.com/consultants.html 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
If WISPA is going to make an official statement I think it should be presented as: The ISP needs to be able to manage their internal network in a manner which allows them to provide a consistent quality of service to their customers. If we say p2p applications are bad now we will have to define and then defend what a p2p application is. Whereas if we say we need to be able to manage the network traffic characteristics on an individual and network wide basis we have covered what the root problem is without limiting the tools we use. Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless Matt wrote: I don't think he meant completely lock it up. I think he mean that a P2P sub seeding a torrent causes this. A good torrent is enough to cause major connectivity issues on 4 meg Canopy 900 AP. Does your 900 AP have a public IP? There is a known issue with HTTP requests locking up the units. I have mine with private IPs and firewalled off so only we can get to them. We don't have any lockup issues with Motorola APs. WISPA or someone needs to post some comments to FCC to counter this argument that ISP's should not be allowed to limit p2p. If ISP's are not allowed to curb the bandwidth these applications use the quality of service for all users will go down as the p2p applications suck up all the bandwidth and pps of the system, Matt 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
I don't think he meant completely lock it up. I think he mean that a P2P sub seeding a torrent causes this. A good torrent is enough to cause major connectivity issues on 4 meg Canopy 900 AP. Does your 900 AP have a public IP? There is a known issue with HTTP requests locking up the units. I have mine with private IPs and firewalled off so only we can get to them. We don't have any lockup issues with Motorola APs. WISPA or someone needs to post some comments to FCC to counter this argument that ISP's should not be allowed to limit p2p. If ISP's are not allowed to curb the bandwidth these applications use the quality of service for all users will go down as the p2p applications suck up all the bandwidth and pps of the system, Matt 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 don't think he meant completely lock it up. I think he mean that a P2P sub seeding a torrent causes this. A good torrent is enough to cause major connectivity issues on 4 meg Canopy 900 AP. -Eric Eric Rogers wrote: Does your 900 AP have a public IP? There is a known issue with HTTP requests locking up the units. I have mine with private IPs and firewalled off so only we can get to them. We don't have any lockup issues with Motorola APs. Eric Rogers Precision Data Solutions, LLC (317) 831-3000 x200 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Scottie Arnett Sent: Friday, November 23, 2007 11:18 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC Nope. I have it with Moto 900 Mhz AP's. Will completely lock it down to where it takes a minute or longer just to access it by telnet to reboot it. I can login to Mikrotik and kill all P2P connections and immediately access the 900 Mhz AP after the connections clear. 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
Does your 900 AP have a public IP? There is a known issue with HTTP requests locking up the units. I have mine with private IPs and firewalled off so only we can get to them. We don't have any lockup issues with Motorola APs. Eric Rogers Precision Data Solutions, LLC (317) 831-3000 x200 -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Scottie Arnett Sent: Friday, November 23, 2007 11:18 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC Nope. I have it with Moto 900 Mhz AP's. Will completely lock it down to where it takes a minute or longer just to access it by telnet to reboot it. I can login to Mikrotik and kill all P2P connections and immediately access the 900 Mhz AP after the connections clear. -- Original Message -- From: Butch Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2007 09:32:49 -0600 (CST) On Fri, 23 Nov 2007, Clint Ricker wrote: Just out of curiousity, all of you who have AP problems because of bit torrent: what APs are you using? It is anything that is 802.11 based (A, B or G) that would have trouble with this. Any polled system would not have this issue. -- Butch Evans Network Engineering and Security Consulting 573-276-2879 http://www.butchevans.com/ My calendar: http://tinyurl.com/y24ad6 Training Partners: http://tinyurl.com/smfkf Mikrotik Certified Consultant http://www.mikrotik.com/consultants.html --- - 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/ --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] 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/ 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 put a connection limit on all traffic from ports 1024-65535, because the torrent has to use a connection somewhere and usually the bit progs are set to use somewhere above port 1024. That will not help on UDP or the ones using port 80. I have another connection limit set higher on all tcp connections to try to help combat the port 80 users. -- Original Message -- From: George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2007 19:15:14 -0800 Thats my point. I use star and it has all the layer 7 stuff built into the cpe. I can control to my hearts content. Generaly I put a switch in or bridge the linksys wifi router and take control there. If I had to and I did one situation, I can give daddy one set of rules and little abusing johnny another. for the most part, I don't have too much to worry about, it's not being able to tightly control the encrypted stuff that is the issue. CHUCK PROFITO wrote: You are nuts or spoiled on 5 gig or have fiber stuffed up every tower. 1 P2P on a 2.4 rural ap opening 100+ connections will packet flood an ap in about 1 minute. 2.4 will only realistically deliver 5 megs per radio. 1 P2P uploading to 60 plus users will be slowed enough to bring the bits per packet way down, then the packet flood ensues. Now put six sectors on a tower, with 300+ subs, 10 megs of back haul, then add 6 P2P and on top of that add three or four bit torrent users with 50 or 60 connections each down loading the best movie ever from Netflix, and now your backhaul starts the flood too.. And you are 30 miles from the fiber head in. Yeah, right... Don't tell me not to shape the traffic. Chuck Profito 209-988-7388 CV-ACCESS, INC [EMAIL PROTECTED] Providing High Speed Broadband to Rural Central California -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Rogato Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 6:42 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC Come on, you guys that sell slow broadband generaly don't have too much to worry about. It's not like if you got an ap that does 10 megs and you sell 50 512k subs that the one or three out of 20 running p2p is going to be very noticable. Try giving those 50 equal access to the full 10 megs and see what happens then, if you don't throttle the p2p. Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, If your network can't handle a small amount of p2p traffic, you have bigger issues. :) Travis Microserv George Rogato wrote: How do you cap the encrypted stuff? Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, First let me say that we cap p2p traffic during the business day, but otherwise we let it run wide open. However, we sell our connections based on speed. Whatever they pay for is what they get... none of this burstable stuff, etc. If they want 512k, they pay for 512k. If they want 1meg, they pay for 1meg. The problem with bandwidth caps of xx gigs per month is that NOBODY else is doing it... not DSL, not Cable, not any of my wireless competitors, etc. Once you start putting that limitation on their connection, they will start switching to something that does not have caps. If you have bandwidth limits in place already, there is no need for the monthly limits. (This does not mean we allow 24x7 bandwidth usage, but we allow reasonable usage). Travis Microserv George Rogato wrote: I think the way to go is to be able to identify the various types of traffic and rate limit them. And once we can do this, then it's time to pull out the menu of various offerings we can provide. Want a 3 meg x 3 meg burstable connection with a sustained traffic rate of 1meg x 256k and bandwidth cap of x gigs, it's price a, want a higher something in your package, it's price b. Want something different, then it's price c. The sub can choose. Once they choose they know what they bought. Mark Nash wrote: This is a good debate. What you mention here, George, is something that's been on my mind for the last year or so. As Lingo/Slingbox/Netflix/Vonage/etc/etc/etc make $$$ off of our connections, where's our cut? The customer is paying for a connection, yes, but at what point do we start charging more as this content proliferates through our networks? Bandwidth is getting cheaper per meg, you can get a bigger pipe for less per meg, you can do things to lower the cost of bandwidth. However, that should give US a better cash flow model, so we're not so squeezed out that we feel like not providing service anymore to folks who desperately want it. With more and more apps providing high-throughput content, it could easily offset the savings that can be realized by going with a bigger/cheaper pipe. IF IT IS UNCHECKED. My whole part in this discussion has been focused on not letting our customers cost us
Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
How do you cap the encrypted stuff? Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, First let me say that we cap p2p traffic during the business day, but otherwise we let it run wide open. However, we sell our connections based on speed. Whatever they pay for is what they get... none of this burstable stuff, etc. If they want 512k, they pay for 512k. If they want 1meg, they pay for 1meg. The problem with bandwidth caps of xx gigs per month is that NOBODY else is doing it... not DSL, not Cable, not any of my wireless competitors, etc. Once you start putting that limitation on their connection, they will start switching to something that does not have caps. If you have bandwidth limits in place already, there is no need for the monthly limits. (This does not mean we allow 24x7 bandwidth usage, but we allow reasonable usage). Travis Microserv George Rogato wrote: I think the way to go is to be able to identify the various types of traffic and rate limit them. And once we can do this, then it's time to pull out the menu of various offerings we can provide. Want a 3 meg x 3 meg burstable connection with a sustained traffic rate of 1meg x 256k and bandwidth cap of x gigs, it's price a, want a higher something in your package, it's price b. Want something different, then it's price c. The sub can choose. Once they choose they know what they bought. Mark Nash wrote: This is a good debate. What you mention here, George, is something that's been on my mind for the last year or so. As Lingo/Slingbox/Netflix/Vonage/etc/etc/etc make $$$ off of our connections, where's our cut? The customer is paying for a connection, yes, but at what point do we start charging more as this content proliferates through our networks? Bandwidth is getting cheaper per meg, you can get a bigger pipe for less per meg, you can do things to lower the cost of bandwidth. However, that should give US a better cash flow model, so we're not so squeezed out that we feel like not providing service anymore to folks who desperately want it. With more and more apps providing high-throughput content, it could easily offset the savings that can be realized by going with a bigger/cheaper pipe. IF IT IS UNCHECKED. My whole part in this discussion has been focused on not letting our customers cost us more than they are paying us, and I still say that deploying a system that allows us to be compensated for heavy usage is a valuable consideration in any business plan for an ISP. Bandwidth shaping, bandwidth caps, bill for overages, dedicated bandwidth option. If you have this in place, you really need not worry about anything else with respect to high bandwidth usage. IMHO. Thanks everyone for listening to my half-rant. I'm going to get something done now. ;) Mark Nash UnwiredOnline.Net 350 Holly Street Junction City, OR 97448 http://www.uwol.net 541-998- 541-998-5599 fax - Original Message - From: George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 8:51 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC Another thought is Why wouldn't Vuze have to pay Comcast for using the Comcast network to support it's business plan. If they are relying on Comcasts network to store and send files to it's customer base, why should they be treated for a free ride instead of using a hosting provider like Akamia. Guess that is just as a significant point as any other, the fair compensation for services? -- -- 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/ -- George Rogato Welcome to WISPA www.wispa.org http://signup.wispa.org/ WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org
Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
Hi, We are using Mikrotik to cap the p2p stuff. Yes, some stuff is going to get through but very little overall... and you can't stop 100% of it all the time. If your network can't handle a small amount of p2p traffic, you have bigger issues. :) Travis Microserv George Rogato wrote: How do you cap the encrypted stuff? Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, First let me say that we cap p2p traffic during the business day, but otherwise we let it run wide open. However, we sell our connections based on speed. Whatever they pay for is what they get... none of this burstable stuff, etc. If they want 512k, they pay for 512k. If they want 1meg, they pay for 1meg. The problem with bandwidth caps of xx gigs per month is that NOBODY else is doing it... not DSL, not Cable, not any of my wireless competitors, etc. Once you start putting that limitation on their connection, they will start switching to something that does not have caps. If you have bandwidth limits in place already, there is no need for the monthly limits. (This does not mean we allow 24x7 bandwidth usage, but we allow reasonable usage). Travis Microserv George Rogato wrote: I think the way to go is to be able to identify the various types of traffic and rate limit them. And once we can do this, then it's time to pull out the menu of various offerings we can provide. Want a 3 meg x 3 meg burstable connection with a sustained traffic rate of 1meg x 256k and bandwidth cap of x gigs, it's price a, want a higher something in your package, it's price b. Want something different, then it's price c. The sub can choose. Once they choose they know what they bought. Mark Nash wrote: This is a good debate. What you mention here, George, is something that's been on my mind for the last year or so. As Lingo/Slingbox/Netflix/Vonage/etc/etc/etc make $$$ off of our connections, where's our cut? The customer is paying for a connection, yes, but at what point do we start charging more as this content proliferates through our networks? Bandwidth is getting cheaper per meg, you can get a bigger pipe for less per meg, you can do things to lower the cost of bandwidth. However, that should give US a better cash flow model, so we're not so squeezed out that we feel like not providing service anymore to folks who desperately want it. With more and more apps providing high-throughput content, it could easily offset the savings that can be realized by going with a bigger/cheaper pipe. IF IT IS UNCHECKED. My whole part in this discussion has been focused on not letting our customers cost us more than they are paying us, and I still say that deploying a system that allows us to be compensated for heavy usage is a valuable consideration in any business plan for an ISP. Bandwidth shaping, bandwidth caps, bill for overages, dedicated bandwidth option. If you have this in place, you really need not worry about anything else with respect to high bandwidth usage. IMHO. Thanks everyone for listening to my half-rant. I'm going to get something done now. ;) Mark Nash UnwiredOnline.Net 350 Holly Street Junction City, OR 97448 http://www.uwol.net 541-998- 541-998-5599 fax - Original Message - From: George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 8:51 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC Another thought is Why wouldn't Vuze have to pay Comcast for using the Comcast network to support it's business plan. If they are relying on Comcasts network to store and send files to it's customer base, why should they be treated for a free ride instead of using a hosting provider like Akamia. Guess that is just as a significant point as any other, the fair compensation for services? -- -- 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
RE: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
I agree and disagree with this. As of right now, Internet Service is still a unregulated business except for things such CALEA, Child Porn laws, and such. We are not a telecommunications utility and that is where the FCC makes faults because they are losing control. They have not got Internet Service regulated by Congress and such and I think that is why they give the cable and telco's more and more because they are regulated and can put some control on them through other means. I am all for regulation if they will give me some of that USF that they freely give out to telcos. I think Marlon has been working on this some. In rural areas, I have heard that is as much as $4000 per year per customer, I do NOT know how much truth there is to that. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Clint Ricker Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 8:00 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC You are, in at least some sense, a telecommunications utility--and, just like there are regulations that ensure certain guidelines in being able to place telephone calls, watch television, and so forth, there are, will, and should be certain guidelines regulating you as a telecommunications utility. I philosophically don't buy the it's my network, and I can do whatever the hell I want with it idea. What level and what type of regulations is something to be discussed, but that they do, will, and should exist on some level is a given. No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.2/1143 - Release Date: 11/21/2007 10:01 AM --- [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] 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
Come on, you guys that sell slow broadband generaly don't have too much to worry about. It's not like if you got an ap that does 10 megs and you sell 50 512k subs that the one or three out of 20 running p2p is going to be very noticable. Try giving those 50 equal access to the full 10 megs and see what happens then, if you don't throttle the p2p. Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, If your network can't handle a small amount of p2p traffic, you have bigger issues. :) Travis Microserv George Rogato wrote: How do you cap the encrypted stuff? Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, First let me say that we cap p2p traffic during the business day, but otherwise we let it run wide open. However, we sell our connections based on speed. Whatever they pay for is what they get... none of this burstable stuff, etc. If they want 512k, they pay for 512k. If they want 1meg, they pay for 1meg. The problem with bandwidth caps of xx gigs per month is that NOBODY else is doing it... not DSL, not Cable, not any of my wireless competitors, etc. Once you start putting that limitation on their connection, they will start switching to something that does not have caps. If you have bandwidth limits in place already, there is no need for the monthly limits. (This does not mean we allow 24x7 bandwidth usage, but we allow reasonable usage). Travis Microserv George Rogato wrote: I think the way to go is to be able to identify the various types of traffic and rate limit them. And once we can do this, then it's time to pull out the menu of various offerings we can provide. Want a 3 meg x 3 meg burstable connection with a sustained traffic rate of 1meg x 256k and bandwidth cap of x gigs, it's price a, want a higher something in your package, it's price b. Want something different, then it's price c. The sub can choose. Once they choose they know what they bought. Mark Nash wrote: This is a good debate. What you mention here, George, is something that's been on my mind for the last year or so. As Lingo/Slingbox/Netflix/Vonage/etc/etc/etc make $$$ off of our connections, where's our cut? The customer is paying for a connection, yes, but at what point do we start charging more as this content proliferates through our networks? Bandwidth is getting cheaper per meg, you can get a bigger pipe for less per meg, you can do things to lower the cost of bandwidth. However, that should give US a better cash flow model, so we're not so squeezed out that we feel like not providing service anymore to folks who desperately want it. With more and more apps providing high-throughput content, it could easily offset the savings that can be realized by going with a bigger/cheaper pipe. IF IT IS UNCHECKED. My whole part in this discussion has been focused on not letting our customers cost us more than they are paying us, and I still say that deploying a system that allows us to be compensated for heavy usage is a valuable consideration in any business plan for an ISP. Bandwidth shaping, bandwidth caps, bill for overages, dedicated bandwidth option. If you have this in place, you really need not worry about anything else with respect to high bandwidth usage. IMHO. Thanks everyone for listening to my half-rant. I'm going to get something done now. ;) Mark Nash UnwiredOnline.Net 350 Holly Street Junction City, OR 97448 http://www.uwol.net 541-998- 541-998-5599 fax - Original Message - From: George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 8:51 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC Another thought is Why wouldn't Vuze have to pay Comcast for using the Comcast network to support it's business plan. If they are relying on Comcasts network to store and send files to it's customer base, why should they be treated for a free ride instead of using a hosting provider like Akamia. Guess that is just as a significant point as any other, the fair compensation for services? -- -- 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] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
You are nuts or spoiled on 5 gig or have fiber stuffed up every tower. 1 P2P on a 2.4 rural ap opening 100+ connections will packet flood an ap in about 1 minute. 2.4 will only realistically deliver 5 megs per radio. 1 P2P uploading to 60 plus users will be slowed enough to bring the bits per packet way down, then the packet flood ensues. Now put six sectors on a tower, with 300+ subs, 10 megs of back haul, then add 6 P2P and on top of that add three or four bit torrent users with 50 or 60 connections each down loading the best movie ever from Netflix, and now your backhaul starts the flood too.. And you are 30 miles from the fiber head in. Yeah, right... Don't tell me not to shape the traffic. Chuck Profito 209-988-7388 CV-ACCESS, INC [EMAIL PROTECTED] Providing High Speed Broadband to Rural Central California -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Rogato Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 6:42 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC Come on, you guys that sell slow broadband generaly don't have too much to worry about. It's not like if you got an ap that does 10 megs and you sell 50 512k subs that the one or three out of 20 running p2p is going to be very noticable. Try giving those 50 equal access to the full 10 megs and see what happens then, if you don't throttle the p2p. Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, If your network can't handle a small amount of p2p traffic, you have bigger issues. :) Travis Microserv George Rogato wrote: How do you cap the encrypted stuff? Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, First let me say that we cap p2p traffic during the business day, but otherwise we let it run wide open. However, we sell our connections based on speed. Whatever they pay for is what they get... none of this burstable stuff, etc. If they want 512k, they pay for 512k. If they want 1meg, they pay for 1meg. The problem with bandwidth caps of xx gigs per month is that NOBODY else is doing it... not DSL, not Cable, not any of my wireless competitors, etc. Once you start putting that limitation on their connection, they will start switching to something that does not have caps. If you have bandwidth limits in place already, there is no need for the monthly limits. (This does not mean we allow 24x7 bandwidth usage, but we allow reasonable usage). Travis Microserv George Rogato wrote: I think the way to go is to be able to identify the various types of traffic and rate limit them. And once we can do this, then it's time to pull out the menu of various offerings we can provide. Want a 3 meg x 3 meg burstable connection with a sustained traffic rate of 1meg x 256k and bandwidth cap of x gigs, it's price a, want a higher something in your package, it's price b. Want something different, then it's price c. The sub can choose. Once they choose they know what they bought. Mark Nash wrote: This is a good debate. What you mention here, George, is something that's been on my mind for the last year or so. As Lingo/Slingbox/Netflix/Vonage/etc/etc/etc make $$$ off of our connections, where's our cut? The customer is paying for a connection, yes, but at what point do we start charging more as this content proliferates through our networks? Bandwidth is getting cheaper per meg, you can get a bigger pipe for less per meg, you can do things to lower the cost of bandwidth. However, that should give US a better cash flow model, so we're not so squeezed out that we feel like not providing service anymore to folks who desperately want it. With more and more apps providing high-throughput content, it could easily offset the savings that can be realized by going with a bigger/cheaper pipe. IF IT IS UNCHECKED. My whole part in this discussion has been focused on not letting our customers cost us more than they are paying us, and I still say that deploying a system that allows us to be compensated for heavy usage is a valuable consideration in any business plan for an ISP. Bandwidth shaping, bandwidth caps, bill for overages, dedicated bandwidth option. If you have this in place, you really need not worry about anything else with respect to high bandwidth usage. IMHO. Thanks everyone for listening to my half-rant. I'm going to get something done now. ;) Mark Nash UnwiredOnline.Net 350 Holly Street Junction City, OR 97448 http://www.uwol.net 541-998- 541-998-5599 fax - Original Message - From: George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 8:51 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC Another thought is Why wouldn't Vuze have to pay Comcast for using the Comcast network to support it's business plan. If they are relying on Comcasts network to store and send files to it's customer base, why
RE: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
So, I'm right? Unlimited BWYou are lucky. Chuck Profito 209-988-7388 CV-ACCESS, INC [EMAIL PROTECTED] Providing High Speed Broadband to Rural Central California -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Rogato Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 7:24 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC Chuck I am connected to fiber. It's right next to my water tank with a lot of sectors on it to ditribute out to the vrious repeaters, I sectorized the hell out of my network with tight beam widths and reuse frequency without interfering with myself. A good portion of my network is 5gig and I have almost 1000 radios. I could double my customer base and not too heavily impact my network. I believe in high capacity systems, so thats the way I build it. CHUCK PROFITO wrote: You are nuts or spoiled on 5 gig or have fiber stuffed up every tower. 1 P2P on a 2.4 rural ap opening 100+ connections will packet flood an ap in about 1 minute. 2.4 will only realistically deliver 5 megs per radio. 1 P2P uploading to 60 plus users will be slowed enough to bring the bits per packet way down, then the packet flood ensues. Now put six sectors on a tower, with 300+ subs, 10 megs of back haul, then add 6 P2P and on top of that add three or four bit torrent users with 50 or 60 connections each down loading the best movie ever from Netflix, and now your backhaul starts the flood too.. And you are 30 miles from the fiber head in. Yeah, right... Don't tell me not to shape the traffic. Chuck Profito 209-988-7388 CV-ACCESS, INC [EMAIL PROTECTED] Providing High Speed Broadband to Rural Central California -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Rogato Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 6:42 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC Come on, you guys that sell slow broadband generaly don't have too much to worry about. It's not like if you got an ap that does 10 megs and you sell 50 512k subs that the one or three out of 20 running p2p is going to be very noticable. Try giving those 50 equal access to the full 10 megs and see what happens then, if you don't throttle the p2p. Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, If your network can't handle a small amount of p2p traffic, you have bigger issues. :) Travis Microserv George Rogato wrote: How do you cap the encrypted stuff? Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, First let me say that we cap p2p traffic during the business day, but otherwise we let it run wide open. However, we sell our connections based on speed. Whatever they pay for is what they get... none of this burstable stuff, etc. If they want 512k, they pay for 512k. If they want 1meg, they pay for 1meg. The problem with bandwidth caps of xx gigs per month is that NOBODY else is doing it... not DSL, not Cable, not any of my wireless competitors, etc. Once you start putting that limitation on their connection, they will start switching to something that does not have caps. If you have bandwidth limits in place already, there is no need for the monthly limits. (This does not mean we allow 24x7 bandwidth usage, but we allow reasonable usage). Travis Microserv George Rogato wrote: I think the way to go is to be able to identify the various types of traffic and rate limit them. And once we can do this, then it's time to pull out the menu of various offerings we can provide. Want a 3 meg x 3 meg burstable connection with a sustained traffic rate of 1meg x 256k and bandwidth cap of x gigs, it's price a, want a higher something in your package, it's price b. Want something different, then it's price c. The sub can choose. Once they choose they know what they bought. Mark Nash wrote: This is a good debate. What you mention here, George, is something that's been on my mind for the last year or so. As Lingo/Slingbox/Netflix/Vonage/etc/etc/etc make $$$ off of our connections, where's our cut? The customer is paying for a connection, yes, but at what point do we start charging more as this content proliferates through our networks? Bandwidth is getting cheaper per meg, you can get a bigger pipe for less per meg, you can do things to lower the cost of bandwidth. However, that should give US a better cash flow model, so we're not so squeezed out that we feel like not providing service anymore to folks who desperately want it. With more and more apps providing high-throughput content, it could easily offset the savings that can be realized by going with a bigger/cheaper pipe. IF IT IS UNCHECKED. My whole part in this discussion has been focused on not letting our customers cost us more than they are paying us, and I still say that deploying a system that allows us to be compensated for heavy usage
Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
Thats my point. I use star and it has all the layer 7 stuff built into the cpe. I can control to my hearts content. Generaly I put a switch in or bridge the linksys wifi router and take control there. If I had to and I did one situation, I can give daddy one set of rules and little abusing johnny another. for the most part, I don't have too much to worry about, it's not being able to tightly control the encrypted stuff that is the issue. CHUCK PROFITO wrote: You are nuts or spoiled on 5 gig or have fiber stuffed up every tower. 1 P2P on a 2.4 rural ap opening 100+ connections will packet flood an ap in about 1 minute. 2.4 will only realistically deliver 5 megs per radio. 1 P2P uploading to 60 plus users will be slowed enough to bring the bits per packet way down, then the packet flood ensues. Now put six sectors on a tower, with 300+ subs, 10 megs of back haul, then add 6 P2P and on top of that add three or four bit torrent users with 50 or 60 connections each down loading the best movie ever from Netflix, and now your backhaul starts the flood too.. And you are 30 miles from the fiber head in. Yeah, right... Don't tell me not to shape the traffic. Chuck Profito 209-988-7388 CV-ACCESS, INC [EMAIL PROTECTED] Providing High Speed Broadband to Rural Central California -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Rogato Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 6:42 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC Come on, you guys that sell slow broadband generaly don't have too much to worry about. It's not like if you got an ap that does 10 megs and you sell 50 512k subs that the one or three out of 20 running p2p is going to be very noticable. Try giving those 50 equal access to the full 10 megs and see what happens then, if you don't throttle the p2p. Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, If your network can't handle a small amount of p2p traffic, you have bigger issues. :) Travis Microserv George Rogato wrote: How do you cap the encrypted stuff? Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, First let me say that we cap p2p traffic during the business day, but otherwise we let it run wide open. However, we sell our connections based on speed. Whatever they pay for is what they get... none of this burstable stuff, etc. If they want 512k, they pay for 512k. If they want 1meg, they pay for 1meg. The problem with bandwidth caps of xx gigs per month is that NOBODY else is doing it... not DSL, not Cable, not any of my wireless competitors, etc. Once you start putting that limitation on their connection, they will start switching to something that does not have caps. If you have bandwidth limits in place already, there is no need for the monthly limits. (This does not mean we allow 24x7 bandwidth usage, but we allow reasonable usage). Travis Microserv George Rogato wrote: I think the way to go is to be able to identify the various types of traffic and rate limit them. And once we can do this, then it's time to pull out the menu of various offerings we can provide. Want a 3 meg x 3 meg burstable connection with a sustained traffic rate of 1meg x 256k and bandwidth cap of x gigs, it's price a, want a higher something in your package, it's price b. Want something different, then it's price c. The sub can choose. Once they choose they know what they bought. Mark Nash wrote: This is a good debate. What you mention here, George, is something that's been on my mind for the last year or so. As Lingo/Slingbox/Netflix/Vonage/etc/etc/etc make $$$ off of our connections, where's our cut? The customer is paying for a connection, yes, but at what point do we start charging more as this content proliferates through our networks? Bandwidth is getting cheaper per meg, you can get a bigger pipe for less per meg, you can do things to lower the cost of bandwidth. However, that should give US a better cash flow model, so we're not so squeezed out that we feel like not providing service anymore to folks who desperately want it. With more and more apps providing high-throughput content, it could easily offset the savings that can be realized by going with a bigger/cheaper pipe. IF IT IS UNCHECKED. My whole part in this discussion has been focused on not letting our customers cost us more than they are paying us, and I still say that deploying a system that allows us to be compensated for heavy usage is a valuable consideration in any business plan for an ISP. Bandwidth shaping, bandwidth caps, bill for overages, dedicated bandwidth option. If you have this in place, you really need not worry about anything else with respect to high bandwidth usage. IMHO. Thanks everyone for listening to my half-rant. I'm going to get something done now. ;) Mark Nash UnwiredOnline.Net 350 Holly Street Junction City, OR 97448 http://www.uwol.net 541-998- 541-998-5599 fax - Original
Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
Chuck I am connected to fiber. It's right next to my water tank with a lot of sectors on it to ditribute out to the vrious repeaters, I sectorized the hell out of my network with tight beam widths and reuse frequency without interfering with myself. A good portion of my network is 5gig and I have almost 1000 radios. I could double my customer base and not too heavily impact my network. I believe in high capacity systems, so thats the way I build it. CHUCK PROFITO wrote: You are nuts or spoiled on 5 gig or have fiber stuffed up every tower. 1 P2P on a 2.4 rural ap opening 100+ connections will packet flood an ap in about 1 minute. 2.4 will only realistically deliver 5 megs per radio. 1 P2P uploading to 60 plus users will be slowed enough to bring the bits per packet way down, then the packet flood ensues. Now put six sectors on a tower, with 300+ subs, 10 megs of back haul, then add 6 P2P and on top of that add three or four bit torrent users with 50 or 60 connections each down loading the best movie ever from Netflix, and now your backhaul starts the flood too.. And you are 30 miles from the fiber head in. Yeah, right... Don't tell me not to shape the traffic. Chuck Profito 209-988-7388 CV-ACCESS, INC [EMAIL PROTECTED] Providing High Speed Broadband to Rural Central California -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Rogato Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 6:42 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC Come on, you guys that sell slow broadband generaly don't have too much to worry about. It's not like if you got an ap that does 10 megs and you sell 50 512k subs that the one or three out of 20 running p2p is going to be very noticable. Try giving those 50 equal access to the full 10 megs and see what happens then, if you don't throttle the p2p. Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, If your network can't handle a small amount of p2p traffic, you have bigger issues. :) Travis Microserv George Rogato wrote: How do you cap the encrypted stuff? Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, First let me say that we cap p2p traffic during the business day, but otherwise we let it run wide open. However, we sell our connections based on speed. Whatever they pay for is what they get... none of this burstable stuff, etc. If they want 512k, they pay for 512k. If they want 1meg, they pay for 1meg. The problem with bandwidth caps of xx gigs per month is that NOBODY else is doing it... not DSL, not Cable, not any of my wireless competitors, etc. Once you start putting that limitation on their connection, they will start switching to something that does not have caps. If you have bandwidth limits in place already, there is no need for the monthly limits. (This does not mean we allow 24x7 bandwidth usage, but we allow reasonable usage). Travis Microserv George Rogato wrote: I think the way to go is to be able to identify the various types of traffic and rate limit them. And once we can do this, then it's time to pull out the menu of various offerings we can provide. Want a 3 meg x 3 meg burstable connection with a sustained traffic rate of 1meg x 256k and bandwidth cap of x gigs, it's price a, want a higher something in your package, it's price b. Want something different, then it's price c. The sub can choose. Once they choose they know what they bought. Mark Nash wrote: This is a good debate. What you mention here, George, is something that's been on my mind for the last year or so. As Lingo/Slingbox/Netflix/Vonage/etc/etc/etc make $$$ off of our connections, where's our cut? The customer is paying for a connection, yes, but at what point do we start charging more as this content proliferates through our networks? Bandwidth is getting cheaper per meg, you can get a bigger pipe for less per meg, you can do things to lower the cost of bandwidth. However, that should give US a better cash flow model, so we're not so squeezed out that we feel like not providing service anymore to folks who desperately want it. With more and more apps providing high-throughput content, it could easily offset the savings that can be realized by going with a bigger/cheaper pipe. IF IT IS UNCHECKED. My whole part in this discussion has been focused on not letting our customers cost us more than they are paying us, and I still say that deploying a system that allows us to be compensated for heavy usage is a valuable consideration in any business plan for an ISP. Bandwidth shaping, bandwidth caps, bill for overages, dedicated bandwidth option. If you have this in place, you really need not worry about anything else with respect to high bandwidth usage. IMHO. Thanks everyone for listening to my half-rant. I'm going to get something done now. ;) Mark Nash UnwiredOnline.Net 350 Holly Street Junction City, OR 97448 http://www.uwol.net 541-998- 541-998-5599 fax
Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
I wish CHUCK PROFITO wrote: So, I'm right? Unlimited BWYou are lucky. Chuck Profito 209-988-7388 CV-ACCESS, INC [EMAIL PROTECTED] Providing High Speed Broadband to Rural Central California -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Rogato Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 7:24 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC Chuck I am connected to fiber. It's right next to my water tank with a lot of sectors on it to ditribute out to the vrious repeaters, I sectorized the hell out of my network with tight beam widths and reuse frequency without interfering with myself. A good portion of my network is 5gig and I have almost 1000 radios. I could double my customer base and not too heavily impact my network. I believe in high capacity systems, so thats the way I build it. CHUCK PROFITO wrote: You are nuts or spoiled on 5 gig or have fiber stuffed up every tower. 1 P2P on a 2.4 rural ap opening 100+ connections will packet flood an ap in about 1 minute. 2.4 will only realistically deliver 5 megs per radio. 1 P2P uploading to 60 plus users will be slowed enough to bring the bits per packet way down, then the packet flood ensues. Now put six sectors on a tower, with 300+ subs, 10 megs of back haul, then add 6 P2P and on top of that add three or four bit torrent users with 50 or 60 connections each down loading the best movie ever from Netflix, and now your backhaul starts the flood too.. And you are 30 miles from the fiber head in. Yeah, right... Don't tell me not to shape the traffic. Chuck Profito 209-988-7388 CV-ACCESS, INC [EMAIL PROTECTED] Providing High Speed Broadband to Rural Central California -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Rogato Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 6:42 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC Come on, you guys that sell slow broadband generaly don't have too much to worry about. It's not like if you got an ap that does 10 megs and you sell 50 512k subs that the one or three out of 20 running p2p is going to be very noticable. Try giving those 50 equal access to the full 10 megs and see what happens then, if you don't throttle the p2p. Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, If your network can't handle a small amount of p2p traffic, you have bigger issues. :) Travis Microserv George Rogato wrote: How do you cap the encrypted stuff? Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, First let me say that we cap p2p traffic during the business day, but otherwise we let it run wide open. However, we sell our connections based on speed. Whatever they pay for is what they get... none of this burstable stuff, etc. If they want 512k, they pay for 512k. If they want 1meg, they pay for 1meg. The problem with bandwidth caps of xx gigs per month is that NOBODY else is doing it... not DSL, not Cable, not any of my wireless competitors, etc. Once you start putting that limitation on their connection, they will start switching to something that does not have caps. If you have bandwidth limits in place already, there is no need for the monthly limits. (This does not mean we allow 24x7 bandwidth usage, but we allow reasonable usage). Travis Microserv George Rogato wrote: I think the way to go is to be able to identify the various types of traffic and rate limit them. And once we can do this, then it's time to pull out the menu of various offerings we can provide. Want a 3 meg x 3 meg burstable connection with a sustained traffic rate of 1meg x 256k and bandwidth cap of x gigs, it's price a, want a higher something in your package, it's price b. Want something different, then it's price c. The sub can choose. Once they choose they know what they bought. Mark Nash wrote: This is a good debate. What you mention here, George, is something that's been on my mind for the last year or so. As Lingo/Slingbox/Netflix/Vonage/etc/etc/etc make $$$ off of our connections, where's our cut? The customer is paying for a connection, yes, but at what point do we start charging more as this content proliferates through our networks? Bandwidth is getting cheaper per meg, you can get a bigger pipe for less per meg, you can do things to lower the cost of bandwidth. However, that should give US a better cash flow model, so we're not so squeezed out that we feel like not providing service anymore to folks who desperately want it. With more and more apps providing high-throughput content, it could easily offset the savings that can be realized by going with a bigger/cheaper pipe. IF IT IS UNCHECKED. My whole part in this discussion has been focused on not letting our customers cost us more than they are paying us, and I still say that deploying a system that allows us to be compensated for heavy usage is a valuable consideration in any business plan
Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
Hi, I think some people missed my point on this discussion... so I'm going to re-cap: We use MT to cap the p2p sharing (during business hours only, because that is my peak usage time). Some people say MT is only catching about 70% of the p2p traffic. My point was that by using MT (that I already had in place and is FREE), if I am able to cap 70% of the p2p, that should take care of 99% of the problems... because any network should be able to handle what little p2p is left. I am also capping each sub at the CPE, so overall I am fairly well protected from a single (or small group) of p2p users affecting anything seriously. Travis Microserv CHUCK PROFITO wrote: You are nuts or spoiled on 5 gig or have fiber stuffed up every tower. 1 P2P on a 2.4 rural ap opening 100+ connections will packet flood an ap in about 1 minute. 2.4 will only realistically deliver 5 megs per radio. 1 P2P uploading to 60 plus users will be slowed enough to bring the bits per packet way down, then the packet flood ensues. Now put six sectors on a tower, with 300+ subs, 10 megs of back haul, then add 6 P2P and on top of that add three or four bit torrent users with 50 or 60 connections each down loading the best movie ever from Netflix, and now your backhaul starts the flood too.. And you are 30 miles from the fiber head in. Yeah, right... Don't tell me not to shape the traffic. Chuck Profito 209-988-7388 CV-ACCESS, INC [EMAIL PROTECTED] Providing High Speed Broadband to Rural Central California -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of George Rogato Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 6:42 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC Come on, you guys that sell "slow" broadband generaly don't have too much to worry about. It's not like if you got an ap that does 10 megs and you sell 50 512k subs that the one or three out of 20 running p2p is going to be very noticable. Try giving those 50 equal access to the full 10 megs and see what happens then, if you don't throttle the p2p. Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, If your network can't handle a small amount of p2p traffic, you have bigger issues. :) Travis Microserv George Rogato wrote: How do you cap the encrypted stuff? Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, First let me say that we cap p2p traffic during the business day, but otherwise we let it run wide open. However, we sell our connections based on speed. Whatever they pay for is what they get... none of this burstable stuff, etc. If they want 512k, they pay for 512k. If they want 1meg, they pay for 1meg. The problem with bandwidth caps of xx gigs per month is that NOBODY else is doing it... not DSL, not Cable, not any of my wireless competitors, etc. Once you start putting that limitation on their connection, they will start switching to something that does not have caps. If you have bandwidth limits in place already, there is no need for the monthly limits. (This does not mean we allow 24x7 bandwidth usage, but we allow "reasonable" usage). Travis Microserv George Rogato wrote: I think the way to go is to be able to identify the various types of traffic and rate limit them. And once we can do this, then it's time to pull out the menu of various offerings we can provide. Want a 3 meg x 3 meg burstable connection with a sustained traffic rate of 1meg x 256k and bandwidth cap of x gigs, it's price "a", want a higher something in your package, it's price "b". Want something different, then it's price "c". The sub can choose. Once they choose they know what they bought. Mark Nash wrote: This is a good debate. What you mention here, George, is something that's been on my mind for the last year or so. As Lingo/Slingbox/Netflix/Vonage/etc/etc/etc make $$$ off of our connections, where's our cut? The customer is paying for a connection, yes, but at what point do we start charging more as this content proliferates through our networks? Bandwidth is getting cheaper per meg, you can get a bigger pipe for less per meg, you can do things to lower the cost of bandwidth. However, that should give US a better cash flow model, so we're not so squeezed out that we feel like not providing service anymore to folks who desperately want it. With more and more apps providing high-throughput content, it could easily offset the savings that can be realized by going with a bigger/cheaper pipe. IF IT IS UNCHECKED. My whole part in this discussion has been focused on not letting our customers cost us more than they are paying us, and I still say that deploying a system that allows us to be compensated for heavy usage is a valuable consideration in any business plan for an ISP. Bandwidth shaping, bandwidth c
RE: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
I agree, you are fairly well protected, Travis, but for how long. But more and more we are seeing encrypted P2P and encrypted Bit Torrent... This will soon be the norm across the world because so many like you and I and George, Comcast, etc ARE limiting it. We cannot keep trying to control the application, we have to control the packet ONLY, no matter who,what or where it goes to. That is our business, Open access via Packets and excellent customer Service... for a price that is. Chuck Profito 209-988-7388 CV-ACCESS, INC [EMAIL PROTECTED] Providing High Speed Broadband to Rural Central California -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 7:46 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC Hi, I think some people missed my point on this discussion... so I'm going to re-cap: We use MT to cap the p2p sharing (during business hours only, because that is my peak usage time). Some people say MT is only catching about 70% of the p2p traffic. My point was that by using MT (that I already had in place and is FREE), if I am able to cap 70% of the p2p, that should take care of 99% of the problems... because any network should be able to handle what little p2p is left. I am also capping each sub at the CPE, so overall I am fairly well protected from a single (or small group) of p2p users affecting anything seriously. Travis Microserv CHUCK PROFITO wrote: You are nuts or spoiled on 5 gig or have fiber stuffed up every tower. 1 P2P on a 2.4 rural ap opening 100+ connections will packet flood an ap in about 1 minute. 2.4 will only realistically deliver 5 megs per radio. 1 P2P uploading to 60 plus users will be slowed enough to bring the bits per packet way down, then the packet flood ensues. Now put six sectors on a tower, with 300+ subs, 10 megs of back haul, then add 6 P2P and on top of that add three or four bit torrent users with 50 or 60 connections each down loading the best movie ever from Netflix, and now your backhaul starts the flood too.. And you are 30 miles from the fiber head in. Yeah, right... Don't tell me not to shape the traffic. Chuck Profito 209-988-7388 CV-ACCESS, INC [EMAIL PROTECTED] Providing High Speed Broadband to Rural Central California -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Rogato Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 6:42 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC Come on, you guys that sell slow broadband generaly don't have too much to worry about. It's not like if you got an ap that does 10 megs and you sell 50 512k subs that the one or three out of 20 running p2p is going to be very noticable. Try giving those 50 equal access to the full 10 megs and see what happens then, if you don't throttle the p2p. Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, If your network can't handle a small amount of p2p traffic, you have bigger issues. :) Travis Microserv George Rogato wrote: How do you cap the encrypted stuff? Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, First let me say that we cap p2p traffic during the business day, but otherwise we let it run wide open. However, we sell our connections based on speed. Whatever they pay for is what they get... none of this burstable stuff, etc. If they want 512k, they pay for 512k. If they want 1meg, they pay for 1meg. The problem with bandwidth caps of xx gigs per month is that NOBODY else is doing it... not DSL, not Cable, not any of my wireless competitors, etc. Once you start putting that limitation on their connection, they will start switching to something that does not have caps. If you have bandwidth limits in place already, there is no need for the monthly limits. (This does not mean we allow 24x7 bandwidth usage, but we allow reasonable usage). Travis Microserv George Rogato wrote: I think the way to go is to be able to identify the various types of traffic and rate limit them. And once we can do this, then it's time to pull out the menu of various offerings we can provide. Want a 3 meg x 3 meg burstable connection with a sustained traffic rate of 1meg x 256k and bandwidth cap of x gigs, it's price a, want a higher something in your package, it's price b. Want something different, then it's price c. The sub can choose. Once they choose they know what they bought. Mark Nash wrote: This is a good debate. What you mention here, George, is something that's been on my mind for the last year or so. As Lingo/Slingbox/Netflix/Vonage/etc/etc/etc make $$$ off of our connections, where's our cut? The customer is paying for a connection, yes, but at what point do we start charging more as this content proliferates through our networks
Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
Hi, I gave up on the worry about how to protect for the future stuff long ago... 5 years ago there was no such thing as p2p. Six years ago there were no viruses/worms/etc. that would affect an AP like today. A few years from now there will be another new thing that we will be dealing with, and there will be many suitable solutions to this p2p issue we see today. Deal with today's issues today. Plan for tomorrow's issues tomorrow. :) Travis Microserv CHUCK PROFITO wrote: I agree, you are fairly well protected, Travis, but for how long. But more and more we are seeing encrypted P2P and encrypted Bit Torrent... This will soon be the norm across the world because so many like you and I and George, Comcast, etc ARE limiting it. We cannot keep trying to control the application, we have to control the packet ONLY, no matter who,what or where it goes to. That is our business, Open access via Packets and excellent customer Service... for a price that is. Chuck Profito 209-988-7388 CV-ACCESS, INC [EMAIL PROTECTED] Providing High Speed Broadband to Rural Central California -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 7:46 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC Hi, I think some people missed my point on this discussion... so I'm going to re-cap: We use MT to cap the p2p sharing (during business hours only, because that is my peak usage time). Some people say MT is only catching about 70% of the p2p traffic. My point was that by using MT (that I already had in place and is FREE), if I am able to cap 70% of the p2p, that should take care of 99% of the problems... because any network should be able to handle what little p2p is left. I am also capping each sub at the CPE, so overall I am fairly well protected from a single (or small group) of p2p users affecting anything seriously. Travis Microserv CHUCK PROFITO wrote: You are nuts or spoiled on 5 gig or have fiber stuffed up every tower. 1 P2P on a 2.4 rural ap opening 100+ connections will packet flood an ap in about 1 minute. 2.4 will only realistically deliver 5 megs per radio. 1 P2P uploading to 60 plus users will be slowed enough to bring the bits per packet way down, then the packet flood ensues. Now put six sectors on a tower, with 300+ subs, 10 megs of back haul, then add 6 P2P and on top of that add three or four bit torrent users with 50 or 60 connections each down loading the best movie ever from Netflix, and now your backhaul starts the flood too.. And you are 30 miles from the fiber head in. Yeah, right... Don't tell me not to shape the traffic. Chuck Profito 209-988-7388 CV-ACCESS, INC [EMAIL PROTECTED] Providing High Speed Broadband to Rural Central California -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of George Rogato Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 6:42 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC Come on, you guys that sell slow broadband generaly don't have too much to worry about. It's not like if you got an ap that does 10 megs and you sell 50 512k subs that the one or three out of 20 running p2p is going to be very noticable. Try giving those 50 equal access to the full 10 megs and see what happens then, if you don't throttle the p2p. Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, If your network can't handle a small amount of p2p traffic, you have bigger issues. :) Travis Microserv George Rogato wrote: How do you cap the encrypted stuff? Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, First let me say that we cap p2p traffic during the business day, but otherwise we let it run wide open. However, we sell our connections based on speed. Whatever they pay for is what they get... none of this burstable stuff, etc. If they want 512k, they pay for 512k. If they want 1meg, they pay for 1meg. The problem with bandwidth caps of xx gigs per month is that NOBODY else is doing it... not DSL, not Cable, not any of my wireless competitors, etc. Once you start putting that limitation on their connection, they will start switching to something that does not have caps. If you have bandwidth limits in place already, there is no need for the monthly limits. (This does not mean we allow 24x7 bandwidth usage, but we allow reasonable usage). Travis Microserv George Rogato wrote: I think the way to go is to be able to identify the various types of traffic and rate limit them. And once we can do this, then it's time to pull out the menu of various offerings we can provide. Want a 3 meg x 3 meg burstable connection with a sustained traffic rate of 1meg x 256k and bandwidth cap of x gigs, it's price a, want a higher something in your package, it's price b. Want
Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
Which is why I feel that trying to address the issue as a P2P issue is wrong, the issue is not what the traffic is, it is what the traffic is doing to your network. If you address that issue, then encryption is pointless. Limit large connection counts, implement burstable bandwidth, add a transfer cap. Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless CHUCK PROFITO wrote: I agree, you are fairly well protected, Travis, but for how long. But more and more we are seeing encrypted P2P and encrypted Bit Torrent... This will soon be the norm across the world because so many like you and I and George, Comcast, etc ARE limiting it. We cannot keep trying to control the application, we have to control the packet ONLY, no matter who,what or where it goes to. That is our business, Open access via Packets and excellent customer Service... for a price that is. Chuck Profito 209-988-7388 CV-ACCESS, INC [EMAIL PROTECTED] Providing High Speed Broadband to Rural Central California 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 Comcast deal has very little to do with traffic prioritization except for the regulatory liability of ineptness. The Comcast deal, using Sandvine gear, actually _actively_ disrupts the service by inserting spoofed packets into the TCP stream, which is a far cry from the best effort philosophy that that usually applies to residential connections is best effort. Traffic prioritization is MUCH different than blocking, rate limiting, or, in the comcast case, actively disrupting service. The issue we have before us, is are we the operators of our network, or is the government/consumer/application? So, where do you stand on using FCC-certified gear? :) (_please_, don't answer--I'm not wanting to get that started up again) To some extent, the government _does_ have a right to have some say in how utilities operate. You are not a retail shop, you are not an eatery, you are not running a car wash. You are, in at least some sense, a telecommunications utility--and, just like there are regulations that ensure certain guidelines in being able to place telephone calls, watch television, and so forth, there are, will, and should be certain guidelines regulating you as a telecommunications utility. I philosophically don't buy the it's my network, and I can do whatever the hell I want with it idea. What level and what type of regulations is something to be discussed, but that they do, will, and should exist on some level is a given. 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
I completely disagree that the government should have anything to do with our industry and that it is a given except in matters of anti-trust, managing a scarce public resource (radio spectrum) or safety. Anything else hands off. And that also applies to any other industry. I could understand regulating us if VOIP replaces the normal PSTN network for safety reasons ak. E911. This is never going to happen though due to cell phones. I also can understand the need for CALEA and agree with it, again for the safety of the public. Other then that I can't see any other reason why we should have any regulations on our industry or any other industry. Anthony Will Broadband Corp. http://www.broadband-mn.com Clint Ricker wrote: The Comcast deal has very little to do with traffic prioritization except for the regulatory liability of ineptness. The Comcast deal, using Sandvine gear, actually _actively_ disrupts the service by inserting spoofed packets into the TCP stream, which is a far cry from the best effort philosophy that that usually applies to residential connections is best effort. Traffic prioritization is MUCH different than blocking, rate limiting, or, in the comcast case, actively disrupting service. The issue we have before us, is are we the operators of our network, or is the government/consumer/application? So, where do you stand on using FCC-certified gear? :) (_please_, don't answer--I'm not wanting to get that started up again) To some extent, the government _does_ have a right to have some say in how utilities operate. You are not a retail shop, you are not an eatery, you are not running a car wash. You are, in at least some sense, a telecommunications utility--and, just like there are regulations that ensure certain guidelines in being able to place telephone calls, watch television, and so forth, there are, will, and should be certain guidelines regulating you as a telecommunications utility. I philosophically don't buy the it's my network, and I can do whatever the hell I want with it idea. What level and what type of regulations is something to be discussed, but that they do, will, and should exist on some level is a given. 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
Another thought is Why wouldn't Vuze have to pay Comcast for using the Comcast network to support it's business plan. If they are relying on Comcasts network to store and send files to it's customer base, why should they be treated for a free ride instead of using a hosting provider like Akamia. Guess that is just as a significant point as any other, the fair compensation for services? 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
Clint Ricker wrote: Traffic prioritization is MUCH different than blocking, rate limiting, or, in the comcast case, actively disrupting service. What if I want to sell various plans each with specific terms? To simplify things, I could have a cheap deal, that gave a high download rate and a low upload rate, or a mid priced plan that had a high download rate and a high upload rate, and a high priced plan that had a high sustained usage upload and download rate. Wouldn't that be fair to both me and the consumer? Can I not rate limit and give the customer a choice of different plans at different prices? 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
On Nov 20, 2007 11:17 AM, George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Clint Ricker wrote: Traffic prioritization is MUCH different than blocking, rate limiting, or, in the comcast case, actively disrupting service. What if I want to sell various plans each with specific terms? To simplify things, I could have a cheap deal, that gave a high download rate and a low upload rate, or a mid priced plan that had a high download rate and a high upload rate, and a high priced plan that had a high sustained usage upload and download rate. Wouldn't that be fair to both me and the consumer? Can I not rate limit and give the customer a choice of different plans at different prices? Sure. No problem. Just not on a per protocol basis except for some fairly generic and sensible prioritizations. Do you _really_ want an Internet that resembles http://isen.com/blog/uploaded_images/boingboingscreenshot-723474.jpg? If this seems far-fetched to you, go shop for cell phones and evdo service and read the TOS :) Honestly, if the world was full of small WISPs, this would be a different matter. But, consider the following: 1. About 90% (rough guess, I'm not sure of what the statistic is) of the United States Internet users are on connections through providers that offer services (and, indeed, derive most of their profit) that directly compete with services that run through their Internet access. (the RBOCs and major MSOs) 2. Those same service providers constitute, more or less, an oligarchy since they generally act in unison on both regulatory petitions (odd how all major ILECs just happen to file similar FCC petitions on the same day--great minds must think alike) and so forth and pretty much control the market. 3. Now, those same service providers are selectively blocking and filtering traffic, some of which carries content which just happens to undermine the value of their major cash cows. Most of you seem to be saying: so what?. I still maintain that this is _not_ a positive path for the industry and for your interests. Sure, you can squeeze a couple of dollars of margin (if that) off of some resi accounts. But, you undercut the very infrastructure that makes you profitable. Some of you probably are almost hoping to use this to entice customers--ie let Comcast screw their customers over; it'll drive customers my way Consider this, however. In the end, people use your connections to connect to applications and services on the Internet. If your competitors offer voice services but kill off an Internet voice industry, how many people will buy your service to connect to Vonage, etc.. Plenty...until Vonage can't make it with access to only 10% of the market. Video services, collaborative office apps, etc... The application providers that, in the end, drive your business, cannot survive in areas where they only have reasonable access to a fraction of the market. I would prefer that free market _could_ fix this problem. But, when you are dealing with entities that are looking to leverage their horizontal monopoly to build vertical monopolies, the rules of capitalism start breaking down pretty quickly. -Clint Ricker Kentnis Technologies 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
George, Comcast's customers are the ones paying for access to the Comcast network. If a Comcast customer wants to use Vuze, he should be able to because he is ALREADY PAYING FOR THE RIGHT TO USE THE NETWORK. This idea of content providers being parasites on networks is a total load of horsecrap promoted by the phone and cable companies to keep their networks as closed as possible. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com George Rogato wrote: Another thought is Why wouldn't Vuze have to pay Comcast for using the Comcast network to support it's business plan. If they are relying on Comcasts network to store and send files to it's customer base, why should they be treated for a free ride instead of using a hosting provider like Akamia. Guess that is just as a significant point as any other, the fair compensation for services? 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
I have always thought that if you buy DEDICATED bandwidth you can do what you want with it. If you buy a best effort service then you have to be willing to share marlon Marlon (509) 982-2181 (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 1999! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 10:48 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC I've been a firm believer in that the last mile can shoot themselves in the foot if they like, but the next company up in the chain must be neutral. Level 3, ATT, Cogent, Verizon, NTT, etc. should not be doing anything on their end for their wholesale markets again, if they have retail end users, do whatever they want. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Matt Larsen - Lists [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 12:03 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC This is not a black or white position - take the time to read the Vuze petition and focus specifically on the last two pages where they outline the goals of what they want to achieve. Then take some time and look at what Comcast did to Bit Torrent - they specifically broke the application. What Vuze is asking for is pretty reasonable - the ability to run their applications without undue interference. If you back Comcast, you are backing the ability for YOUR backbone provider to break the applications you run on their network. The Vuze petition is the position that should be backed, IMHO. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com George Rogato wrote: I'm not buying it. Yes, we as service providers have a right to determine th service level agreements we want to set for the price we decide. A consumer has always believed that they have an unlimited do anything they want with our connection mentality. We on the other hand have always had terms of service that nullify the anything you want unlimited mentality. If we are in disagreement with Comcast's position, then what are we really saying? We would be saying, anything goes, we have no control, we can't rate limit. The free market system, does not tie the hands of the isp, but rather allows us each to set our own service levels and terms of service, and compete based on our own service offerings. To restrict an isp from making a decision, is in no way the free market system, but rather the regulated system. I'm with Comcast on this. I do not want to be regulated. Let me live or die on the way I decide to run my network. Thanks Eje for bringing this to our attention. My recommendation is to back Comcast. George Clint Ricker wrote: Sam and Matt, very well said. To the rest: If you are petitioning the FCC in union with the cable companies and telcos, you are screwing your future and help your competition. You can't win by the rules that they make. The network neutrality battle could potentially change the service provider economics enough in very positive directions for you. This is a politically-charged enough topic that something interesting may actually happen on this :) First of all, get more customers! With enough customers, the oversubscription on bandwidth becomes much better--you can fit thousands and thousands of resi customers in a 100Mb/s pipe without dropping, but about 10-20 in a 5Mb/s pipe. With enough customers, the bandwidth cost per customer comes down to almost nothing. If you need to limit a couple of outlying customers (the ones using 3Mb/s all the time), sure, go ahead. But don't hate bit torrent or any other protocol :) Bit Torrent bandwidth costs _exactly_ the same price as http bandwidth. I really don't agree with a business philosophy that fundamentally sees it as a bad thing if people are actually using your service :). Embrace it and figure out how to make it profitable (hint--spend more time getting new customers and less time trying to shave costs). The bandwidth math is MUCH better with 1,000 customers than a hundred and MUCH better with 10,000 than a 1,000. To everyone thinking that there needs to be network neutrality requirements for big guys, but little guys should be allowed to block: do you really want to send the message to your (potential) customers: hey--my competition will let you run the service you want, I won't. This is an opportunity to actually get ahead of the game and have a leg up on your competition. Here are the facts as I see them (applies to the residential market only): 1. The cost of bandwidth for telcos and MSOs is really extremely low on a per customer basis. The bulk of their cost--and why this is a big
Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
I'll bet I have MORE competition per capita than you do I compete against DSL, Cable, FTTH, and other WISPs in almost all of my coverage zones. Sometimes all three are there! The problem isn't all about the incoming bandwidth cost. There is also a capacity/spectrum cost on the tower end laters, Marlon (509) 982-2181 (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 1999! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Clint Ricker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 10:43 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC Marlon, you are pretty rural :) You probably would have a hard time growing much without heading 500 miles to find a market with more people than cows :). From what I'd guess from your economics, strict bandwidth caps may be a good choice for you--but, for people who either are in or have access to larger markets, more subscribers is a better route for _so_ many reasons and has the nice benefit of making bandwidth much cheaper on a per-subscriber basis--increased oversubscription ratios combined with lower bandwidth costs. Thanks, -Clint Ricker Kentnis Technologies On Nov 19, 2007 12:20 PM, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's easy to say when you are in an area with thousands of potential customers ;-) Marlon (509) 982-2181 (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 1999! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 8:48 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC I'm glad someone else has the same philosophy I do. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Clint Ricker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 9:48 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC Sam and Matt, very well said. To the rest: If you are petitioning the FCC in union with the cable companies and telcos, you are screwing your future and help your competition. You can't win by the rules that they make. The network neutrality battle could potentially change the service provider economics enough in very positive directions for you. This is a politically-charged enough topic that something interesting may actually happen on this :) First of all, get more customers! With enough customers, the oversubscription on bandwidth becomes much better--you can fit thousands and thousands of resi customers in a 100Mb/s pipe without dropping, but about 10-20 in a 5Mb/s pipe. With enough customers, the bandwidth cost per customer comes down to almost nothing. If you need to limit a couple of outlying customers (the ones using 3Mb/s all the time), sure, go ahead. But don't hate bit torrent or any other protocol :) Bit Torrent bandwidth costs _exactly_ the same price as http bandwidth. I really don't agree with a business philosophy that fundamentally sees it as a bad thing if people are actually using your service :). Embrace it and figure out how to make it profitable (hint--spend more time getting new customers and less time trying to shave costs). The bandwidth math is MUCH better with 1,000 customers than a hundred and MUCH better with 10,000 than a 1,000. To everyone thinking that there needs to be network neutrality requirements for big guys, but little guys should be allowed to block: do you really want to send the message to your (potential) customers: hey--my competition will let you run the service you want, I won't. This is an opportunity to actually get ahead of the game and have a leg up on your competition. Here are the facts as I see them (applies to the residential market only): 1. The cost of bandwidth for telcos and MSOs is really extremely low on a per customer basis. The bulk of their cost--and why this is a big issue for them--is the cost of getting that bandwidth to the customer. For these guys, the major cost is in the transport networks: fiber buildout is extremely expensive, transport gear is incredibly expensive, etc. WISPs have ridiculously cheap transport networks and, with enough scale, don't really pay much more for bandwidth. If you get scale, your bandwidth costs also drop. In other words, once you hit a certain scale, your cost of delivering service becomes much less than your competition. 2. You can't compete on price with a telco/mso doing triple play. The economics aren't there. You don't offer video
Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
You're right, Mike. Never. I understand that, and I guess my previous post kind of eluded to me thinking that way. The second part of your analogy is perfect for my point... The state charges extra registration. They charge more for the frequency and the way they use the road (heavier vehicles abuse the road more). Mark Nash UnwiredOnline.Net 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: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 9:43 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC At what point? Never. Your taxes (or tolls) go to pay for the right to use the road. The state charges extra registration for commercial vehicles, but they don't have the right to charge anyone more based on what they use the road for. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Mark Nash [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 11:34 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC This is a good debate. What you mention here, George, is something that's been on my mind for the last year or so. As Lingo/Slingbox/Netflix/Vonage/etc/etc/etc make $$$ off of our connections, where's our cut? The customer is paying for a connection, yes, but at what point do we start charging more as this content proliferates through our networks? Bandwidth is getting cheaper per meg, you can get a bigger pipe for less per meg, you can do things to lower the cost of bandwidth. However, that should give US a better cash flow model, so we're not so squeezed out that we feel like not providing service anymore to folks who desperately want it. With more and more apps providing high-throughput content, it could easily offset the savings that can be realized by going with a bigger/cheaper pipe. IF IT IS UNCHECKED. My whole part in this discussion has been focused on not letting our customers cost us more than they are paying us, and I still say that deploying a system that allows us to be compensated for heavy usage is a valuable consideration in any business plan for an ISP. Bandwidth shaping, bandwidth caps, bill for overages, dedicated bandwidth option. If you have this in place, you really need not worry about anything else with respect to high bandwidth usage. IMHO. Thanks everyone for listening to my half-rant. I'm going to get something done now. ;) Mark Nash UnwiredOnline.Net 350 Holly Street Junction City, OR 97448 http://www.uwol.net 541-998- 541-998-5599 fax - Original Message - From: George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 8:51 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC Another thought is Why wouldn't Vuze have to pay Comcast for using the Comcast network to support it's business plan. If they are relying on Comcasts network to store and send files to it's customer base, why should they be treated for a free ride instead of using a hosting provider like Akamia. Guess that is just as a significant point as any other, the fair compensation for services? - - -- 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
Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
Is WISPA or Part-15 posting follow up comments on this? Is anyone? Don't most broadband Internet user agreements have a clause that says something like no servers? Is bittorrent a server? Matt 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
Agreed. Sharing is good. But, best effort implies that, well, an effort is being made to deliver the traffic, not we will actively try to stop insert disliked protocol of the month :) On Nov 20, 2007 12:38 PM, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have always thought that if you buy DEDICATED bandwidth you can do what you want with it. If you buy a best effort service then you have to be willing to share marlon Marlon (509) 982-2181 (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 1999! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 10:48 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC I've been a firm believer in that the last mile can shoot themselves in the foot if they like, but the next company up in the chain must be neutral. Level 3, ATT, Cogent, Verizon, NTT, etc. should not be doing anything on their end for their wholesale markets again, if they have retail end users, do whatever they want. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Matt Larsen - Lists [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 12:03 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC This is not a black or white position - take the time to read the Vuze petition and focus specifically on the last two pages where they outline the goals of what they want to achieve. Then take some time and look at what Comcast did to Bit Torrent - they specifically broke the application. What Vuze is asking for is pretty reasonable - the ability to run their applications without undue interference. If you back Comcast, you are backing the ability for YOUR backbone provider to break the applications you run on their network. The Vuze petition is the position that should be backed, IMHO. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com George Rogato wrote: I'm not buying it. Yes, we as service providers have a right to determine th service level agreements we want to set for the price we decide. A consumer has always believed that they have an unlimited do anything they want with our connection mentality. We on the other hand have always had terms of service that nullify the anything you want unlimited mentality. If we are in disagreement with Comcast's position, then what are we really saying? We would be saying, anything goes, we have no control, we can't rate limit. The free market system, does not tie the hands of the isp, but rather allows us each to set our own service levels and terms of service, and compete based on our own service offerings. To restrict an isp from making a decision, is in no way the free market system, but rather the regulated system. I'm with Comcast on this. I do not want to be regulated. Let me live or die on the way I decide to run my network. Thanks Eje for bringing this to our attention. My recommendation is to back Comcast. George Clint Ricker wrote: Sam and Matt, very well said. To the rest: If you are petitioning the FCC in union with the cable companies and telcos, you are screwing your future and help your competition. You can't win by the rules that they make. The network neutrality battle could potentially change the service provider economics enough in very positive directions for you. This is a politically-charged enough topic that something interesting may actually happen on this :) First of all, get more customers! With enough customers, the oversubscription on bandwidth becomes much better--you can fit thousands and thousands of resi customers in a 100Mb/s pipe without dropping, but about 10-20 in a 5Mb/s pipe. With enough customers, the bandwidth cost per customer comes down to almost nothing. If you need to limit a couple of outlying customers (the ones using 3Mb/s all the time), sure, go ahead. But don't hate bit torrent or any other protocol :) Bit Torrent bandwidth costs _exactly_ the same price as http bandwidth. I really don't agree with a business philosophy that fundamentally sees it as a bad thing if people are actually using your service :). Embrace it and figure out how to make it profitable (hint--spend more time getting new customers and less time trying to shave costs). The bandwidth math is MUCH better with 1,000 customers than a hundred and MUCH better with 10,000 than a 1,000. To everyone thinking that there needs to be network neutrality requirements for big guys, but little guys should be allowed to block: do you really
Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
By most every definition bittorrent is a server. Atleast the part of bittorrent that has the most negative impact on networks. The problem is mostly in customer education/perception. Most people don't know the negative impact that running bittorrent can have on a network, and the probably don't realize that by running a bittorrent client they are also running a server. There are things that can be done to drastically reduce the negative impact and still allow bittorrents to function, but most people don't realize they should change settings and most bittorrent sites and developers have a juvenile view towards bandwidth usage and the ISP in general. Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless Matt wrote: Is WISPA or Part-15 posting follow up comments on this? Is anyone? Don't most broadband Internet user agreements have a clause that says something like no servers? Is bittorrent a server? Matt 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
Matt wrote: Don't most broadband Internet user agreements have a clause that says something like no servers? Is bittorrent a server? If you want to get really technical, there is no such thing as a server. :P There are programs that listen to certain TCP and UDP ports, but that's absolutely required for all Internet traffic anyway. (If you request a Web page, for instance, the request gets sent off, then your computer listens on a certain port, specifically the one it used to make the request, for a response. That's no different from their computer listening on, say, port 80 for people to request Web pages.) The customary definition would probably be program that listens of certain ports for requests all the time, but BitTorrent even cleverly circumvents that. Most BT clients can be configured not to listen, but they'll still send out parts of files to peers that they already know about, because perhaps they've already connected to that given peer to /download/ part of a file. I'm not aware of any BT clients that permit you to turn that off; in fact, most of them are configured to reward others' uploads. (If you're not uploading back to the swarm, other clients will shun you and your download speeds will be decreased.) While I imagine most of our contracts have no servers/daemons clauses, and you could technically use them to fire ANY customer (zomg your computer was listening on port 1234 right after you requested a Web page!) it's a bit of a heavy-handed way to solve the problem. (Anyone have a better way to solve the problem?) David Smith MVN.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] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
Right, so that's why you charge a commercial account more than a residential. A car that drives 60 miles to work every day puts more wear and tear on the road than the commercial truck that drives across town once a week, but the state doesn't charge them any different. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Mark Nash [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 12:04 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC You're right, Mike. Never. I understand that, and I guess my previous post kind of eluded to me thinking that way. The second part of your analogy is perfect for my point... The state charges extra registration. They charge more for the frequency and the way they use the road (heavier vehicles abuse the road more). Mark Nash UnwiredOnline.Net 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: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 9:43 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC At what point? Never. Your taxes (or tolls) go to pay for the right to use the road. The state charges extra registration for commercial vehicles, but they don't have the right to charge anyone more based on what they use the road for. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Mark Nash [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 11:34 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC This is a good debate. What you mention here, George, is something that's been on my mind for the last year or so. As Lingo/Slingbox/Netflix/Vonage/etc/etc/etc make $$$ off of our connections, where's our cut? The customer is paying for a connection, yes, but at what point do we start charging more as this content proliferates through our networks? Bandwidth is getting cheaper per meg, you can get a bigger pipe for less per meg, you can do things to lower the cost of bandwidth. However, that should give US a better cash flow model, so we're not so squeezed out that we feel like not providing service anymore to folks who desperately want it. With more and more apps providing high-throughput content, it could easily offset the savings that can be realized by going with a bigger/cheaper pipe. IF IT IS UNCHECKED. My whole part in this discussion has been focused on not letting our customers cost us more than they are paying us, and I still say that deploying a system that allows us to be compensated for heavy usage is a valuable consideration in any business plan for an ISP. Bandwidth shaping, bandwidth caps, bill for overages, dedicated bandwidth option. If you have this in place, you really need not worry about anything else with respect to high bandwidth usage. IMHO. Thanks everyone for listening to my half-rant. I'm going to get something done now. ;) Mark Nash UnwiredOnline.Net 350 Holly Street Junction City, OR 97448 http://www.uwol.net 541-998- 541-998-5599 fax - Original Message - From: George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 8:51 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC Another thought is Why wouldn't Vuze have to pay Comcast for using the Comcast network to support it's business plan. If they are relying on Comcasts network to store and send files to it's customer base, why should they be treated for a free ride instead of using a hosting provider like Akamia. Guess that is just as a significant point as any other, the fair compensation for services? - - -- 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
Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
What's Lingo/Slingbox/Netflix/Vonage/etc/etc/etc's cut every time you sign up a customer who is getting Internet access to get to Lingo / Slingbox / Netflix? You are making money off of them--no one gets Internet access to get to access to their ISPs portal and only their ISPs portal. What you mention here, George, is something that's been on my mind for the last year or so. As Lingo/Slingbox/Netflix/Vonage/etc/etc/etc make $$$ off of our connections, where's our cut? The customer is paying for a connection, yes, but at what point do we start charging more as this content proliferates through our networks? Bandwidth is getting cheaper per meg, you can get a bigger pipe for less per meg, you can do things to lower the cost of bandwidth. However, that should give US a better cash flow model, so we're not so squeezed out that we feel like not providing service anymore to folks who desperately want it. With more and more apps providing high-throughput content, it could easily offset the savings that can be realized by going with a bigger/cheaper pipe. IF IT IS UNCHECKED. My whole part in this discussion has been focused on not letting our customers cost us more than they are paying us, and I still say that deploying a system that allows us to be compensated for heavy usage is a valuable consideration in any business plan for an ISP. Bandwidth shaping, bandwidth caps, bill for overages, dedicated bandwidth option. If you have this in place, you really need not worry about anything else with respect to high bandwidth usage. IMHO. Thanks everyone for listening to my half-rant. I'm going to get something done now. ;) Mark Nash UnwiredOnline.Net 350 Holly Street Junction City, OR 97448 http://www.uwol.net 541-998- 541-998-5599 fax - Original Message - From: George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 8:51 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC Another thought is Why wouldn't Vuze have to pay Comcast for using the Comcast network to support it's business plan. If they are relying on Comcasts network to store and send files to it's customer base, why should they be treated for a free ride instead of using a hosting provider like Akamia. Guess that is just as a significant point as any other, the fair compensation for services? -- -- 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
Mark Nash wrote: This is a good debate. What you mention here, George, is something that's been on my mind for the last year or so. As Lingo/Slingbox/Netflix/Vonage/etc/etc/etc make $$$ off of our connections, where's our cut? The customer is paying for a connection, yes, but at what point do we start charging more as this content proliferates through our networks? Bandwidth is getting cheaper per meg, you can get a bigger pipe for less per meg, you can do things to lower the cost of bandwidth. You cut comes from the subscriber who is your customer. The provider is already paying his piece to his ISP. Your customer is agreeing to faster download service by trading part of their upload bandwidth. This may be in violation of your TOS with that customer and hence your issue is with the customer not the content provider. However, that should give US a better cash flow model, so we're not so squeezed out that we feel like not providing service anymore to folks who desperately want it. With more and more apps providing high-throughput content, it could easily offset the savings that can be realized by going with a bigger/cheaper pipe. IF IT IS UNCHECKED. Easily solved, charge more to the customer. If they are using more bandwidth charge them more either via overages or raise your rates on unmetered service. My whole part in this discussion has been focused on not letting our customers cost us more than they are paying us, and I still say that deploying a system that allows us to be compensated for heavy usage is a valuable consideration in any business plan for an ISP. Bandwidth shaping, bandwidth caps, bill for overages, dedicated bandwidth option. If you have this in place, you really need not worry about anything else with respect to high bandwidth usage. If net neutrality, as some people have been proposing here, is passed billing will have to migrate to either an overage/bit usage model or a dedicated pricing model. But the concept of no customer ever costing more than you collect from them is a bit dangerous. Where do you draw the line on evaluating cost? Pure bandwidth usage? What about tech support? Any business is about averages. Some customers require more support than others. If they are abusing that support or are a serious burden we will charge them for it. But I have notice that probably 90% of my customers I never hear from, about 5% have occasional problems, usually something different usually normal stuff and 5% are cronic service calls either billed or unbilled. I suppose I could 'fire' the 5% that are a burden but I do get good press from them in that they are the ones that will tell other people that we are always there when they need help. That type of advertising is hard to put a dollar on. If you are making the requirement that each customer must have x% profitability are you willing to reduce the cost to those customers that have in access of x%? Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless IMHO. Thanks everyone for listening to my half-rant. I'm going to get something done now. ;) Mark Nash UnwiredOnline.Net 350 Holly Street Junction City, OR 97448 http://www.uwol.net 541-998- 541-998-5599 fax 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
Not to pick nits, but you web browser is not listening on port X after requesting a web page, it is waiting for a reply on a connection that it established with the web server. In other words I placed the phone call to the web server and it picked up the phone. The web browser is not answering the phone. Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless David E. Smith wrote: Matt wrote: Don't most broadband Internet user agreements have a clause that says something like no servers? Is bittorrent a server? If you want to get really technical, there is no such thing as a server. :P There are programs that listen to certain TCP and UDP ports, but that's absolutely required for all Internet traffic anyway. (If you request a Web page, for instance, the request gets sent off, then your computer listens on a certain port, specifically the one it used to make the request, for a response. That's no different from their computer listening on, say, port 80 for people to request Web pages.) The customary definition would probably be program that listens of certain ports for requests all the time, but BitTorrent even cleverly circumvents that. Most BT clients can be configured not to listen, but they'll still send out parts of files to peers that they already know about, because perhaps they've already connected to that given peer to /download/ part of a file. I'm not aware of any BT clients that permit you to turn that off; in fact, most of them are configured to reward others' uploads. (If you're not uploading back to the swarm, other clients will shun you and your download speeds will be decreased.) While I imagine most of our contracts have no servers/daemons clauses, and you could technically use them to fire ANY customer (zomg your computer was listening on port 1234 right after you requested a Web page!) it's a bit of a heavy-handed way to solve the problem. (Anyone have a better way to solve the problem?) David Smith MVN.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/ 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
Sure they do. The more gas you use, the more gas TAX you pay. grin marlon - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 10:24 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC Right, so that's why you charge a commercial account more than a residential. A car that drives 60 miles to work every day puts more wear and tear on the road than the commercial truck that drives across town once a week, but the state doesn't charge them any different. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Mark Nash [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 12:04 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC You're right, Mike. Never. I understand that, and I guess my previous post kind of eluded to me thinking that way. The second part of your analogy is perfect for my point... The state charges extra registration. They charge more for the frequency and the way they use the road (heavier vehicles abuse the road more). Mark Nash UnwiredOnline.Net 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: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 9:43 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC At what point? Never. Your taxes (or tolls) go to pay for the right to use the road. The state charges extra registration for commercial vehicles, but they don't have the right to charge anyone more based on what they use the road for. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Mark Nash [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 11:34 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC This is a good debate. What you mention here, George, is something that's been on my mind for the last year or so. As Lingo/Slingbox/Netflix/Vonage/etc/etc/etc make $$$ off of our connections, where's our cut? The customer is paying for a connection, yes, but at what point do we start charging more as this content proliferates through our networks? Bandwidth is getting cheaper per meg, you can get a bigger pipe for less per meg, you can do things to lower the cost of bandwidth. However, that should give US a better cash flow model, so we're not so squeezed out that we feel like not providing service anymore to folks who desperately want it. With more and more apps providing high-throughput content, it could easily offset the savings that can be realized by going with a bigger/cheaper pipe. IF IT IS UNCHECKED. My whole part in this discussion has been focused on not letting our customers cost us more than they are paying us, and I still say that deploying a system that allows us to be compensated for heavy usage is a valuable consideration in any business plan for an ISP. Bandwidth shaping, bandwidth caps, bill for overages, dedicated bandwidth option. If you have this in place, you really need not worry about anything else with respect to high bandwidth usage. IMHO. Thanks everyone for listening to my half-rant. I'm going to get something done now. ;) Mark Nash UnwiredOnline.Net 350 Holly Street Junction City, OR 97448 http://www.uwol.net 541-998- 541-998-5599 fax - Original Message - From: George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 8:51 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC Another thought is Why wouldn't Vuze have to pay Comcast for using the Comcast network to support it's business plan. If they are relying on Comcasts network to store and send files to it's customer base, why should they be treated for a free ride instead of using a hosting provider like Akamia. Guess that is just as a significant point as any other, the fair compensation for services? - - -- 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
Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
I think the way to go is to be able to identify the various types of traffic and rate limit them. And once we can do this, then it's time to pull out the menu of various offerings we can provide. Want a 3 meg x 3 meg burstable connection with a sustained traffic rate of 1meg x 256k and bandwidth cap of x gigs, it's price a, want a higher something in your package, it's price b. Want something different, then it's price c. The sub can choose. Once they choose they know what they bought. Mark Nash wrote: This is a good debate. What you mention here, George, is something that's been on my mind for the last year or so. As Lingo/Slingbox/Netflix/Vonage/etc/etc/etc make $$$ off of our connections, where's our cut? The customer is paying for a connection, yes, but at what point do we start charging more as this content proliferates through our networks? Bandwidth is getting cheaper per meg, you can get a bigger pipe for less per meg, you can do things to lower the cost of bandwidth. However, that should give US a better cash flow model, so we're not so squeezed out that we feel like not providing service anymore to folks who desperately want it. With more and more apps providing high-throughput content, it could easily offset the savings that can be realized by going with a bigger/cheaper pipe. IF IT IS UNCHECKED. My whole part in this discussion has been focused on not letting our customers cost us more than they are paying us, and I still say that deploying a system that allows us to be compensated for heavy usage is a valuable consideration in any business plan for an ISP. Bandwidth shaping, bandwidth caps, bill for overages, dedicated bandwidth option. If you have this in place, you really need not worry about anything else with respect to high bandwidth usage. IMHO. Thanks everyone for listening to my half-rant. I'm going to get something done now. ;) Mark Nash UnwiredOnline.Net 350 Holly Street Junction City, OR 97448 http://www.uwol.net 541-998- 541-998-5599 fax - Original Message - From: George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 8:51 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC Another thought is Why wouldn't Vuze have to pay Comcast for using the Comcast network to support it's business plan. If they are relying on Comcasts network to store and send files to it's customer base, why should they be treated for a free ride instead of using a hosting provider like Akamia. Guess that is just as a significant point as any other, the fair compensation for services? -- -- 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/ -- George Rogato Welcome to WISPA www.wispa.org http://signup.wispa.org/ 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
Hi, First let me say that we cap p2p traffic during the business day, but otherwise we let it run wide open. However, we sell our connections based on speed. Whatever they pay for is what they get... none of this burstable stuff, etc. If they want 512k, they pay for 512k. If they want 1meg, they pay for 1meg. The problem with bandwidth caps of xx gigs per month is that NOBODY else is doing it... not DSL, not Cable, not any of my wireless competitors, etc. Once you start putting that limitation on their connection, they will start switching to something that does not have caps. If you have bandwidth limits in place already, there is no need for the monthly limits. (This does not mean we allow 24x7 bandwidth usage, but we allow reasonable usage). Travis Microserv George Rogato wrote: I think the way to go is to be able to identify the various types of traffic and rate limit them. And once we can do this, then it's time to pull out the menu of various offerings we can provide. Want a 3 meg x 3 meg burstable connection with a sustained traffic rate of 1meg x 256k and bandwidth cap of x gigs, it's price a, want a higher something in your package, it's price b. Want something different, then it's price c. The sub can choose. Once they choose they know what they bought. Mark Nash wrote: This is a good debate. What you mention here, George, is something that's been on my mind for the last year or so. As Lingo/Slingbox/Netflix/Vonage/etc/etc/etc make $$$ off of our connections, where's our cut? The customer is paying for a connection, yes, but at what point do we start charging more as this content proliferates through our networks? Bandwidth is getting cheaper per meg, you can get a bigger pipe for less per meg, you can do things to lower the cost of bandwidth. However, that should give US a better cash flow model, so we're not so squeezed out that we feel like not providing service anymore to folks who desperately want it. With more and more apps providing high-throughput content, it could easily offset the savings that can be realized by going with a bigger/cheaper pipe. IF IT IS UNCHECKED. My whole part in this discussion has been focused on not letting our customers cost us more than they are paying us, and I still say that deploying a system that allows us to be compensated for heavy usage is a valuable consideration in any business plan for an ISP. Bandwidth shaping, bandwidth caps, bill for overages, dedicated bandwidth option. If you have this in place, you really need not worry about anything else with respect to high bandwidth usage. IMHO. Thanks everyone for listening to my half-rant. I'm going to get something done now. ;) Mark Nash UnwiredOnline.Net 350 Holly Street Junction City, OR 97448 http://www.uwol.net 541-998- 541-998-5599 fax - Original Message - From: George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 8:51 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC Another thought is Why wouldn't Vuze have to pay Comcast for using the Comcast network to support it's business plan. If they are relying on Comcasts network to store and send files to it's customer base, why should they be treated for a free ride instead of using a hosting provider like Akamia. Guess that is just as a significant point as any other, the fair compensation for services? -- -- 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
I've never had much luck selling anything other than fast and really fast connections. When it comes to residential anything more than 2 or 3 plans seems to overwhelm the average user. They want either as fast as they can afford or they want something pretty cheap because all they do is check email and occasionally browse the web. Most customers don't know what 'burstable' is and they could care less, the just want it to go fast. Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless George Rogato wrote: I think the way to go is to be able to identify the various types of traffic and rate limit them. And once we can do this, then it's time to pull out the menu of various offerings we can provide. Want a 3 meg x 3 meg burstable connection with a sustained traffic rate of 1meg x 256k and bandwidth cap of x gigs, it's price a, want a higher something in your package, it's price b. Want something different, then it's price c. The sub can choose. Once they choose they know what they bought. 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
If you look at most TOS or SAs you will see a maximum monthly cap on traffic. I know that both Cox and Time Warner have it on cable. That said I don't know of anyone personally that has been penalized for an overage. I think the clause is there though so that they can take measures if they are dealing with abuse. I have a cap on my service but very seldom have I charged an overage fee for the few users that have exceeded it. But it is there if I have a customer that gets out of line. The only bandwidth shaping I do is rate limiting as well. I have turned on p2p throttling on rare occasions when there has been an issue, but it is usually when the Nebraska Public Power people are in town for something. Sam Tetherow Sandhills Wireless Travis Johnson wrote: Hi, First let me say that we cap p2p traffic during the business day, but otherwise we let it run wide open. However, we sell our connections based on speed. Whatever they pay for is what they get... none of this burstable stuff, etc. If they want 512k, they pay for 512k. If they want 1meg, they pay for 1meg. The problem with bandwidth caps of xx gigs per month is that NOBODY else is doing it... not DSL, not Cable, not any of my wireless competitors, etc. Once you start putting that limitation on their connection, they will start switching to something that does not have caps. If you have bandwidth limits in place already, there is no need for the monthly limits. (This does not mean we allow 24x7 bandwidth usage, but we allow reasonable usage). 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
Sam and Matt, very well said. To the rest: If you are petitioning the FCC in union with the cable companies and telcos, you are screwing your future and help your competition. You can't win by the rules that they make. The network neutrality battle could potentially change the service provider economics enough in very positive directions for you. This is a politically-charged enough topic that something interesting may actually happen on this :) First of all, get more customers! With enough customers, the oversubscription on bandwidth becomes much better--you can fit thousands and thousands of resi customers in a 100Mb/s pipe without dropping, but about 10-20 in a 5Mb/s pipe. With enough customers, the bandwidth cost per customer comes down to almost nothing. If you need to limit a couple of outlying customers (the ones using 3Mb/s all the time), sure, go ahead. But don't hate bit torrent or any other protocol :) Bit Torrent bandwidth costs _exactly_ the same price as http bandwidth. I really don't agree with a business philosophy that fundamentally sees it as a bad thing if people are actually using your service :). Embrace it and figure out how to make it profitable (hint--spend more time getting new customers and less time trying to shave costs). The bandwidth math is MUCH better with 1,000 customers than a hundred and MUCH better with 10,000 than a 1,000. To everyone thinking that there needs to be network neutrality requirements for big guys, but little guys should be allowed to block: do you really want to send the message to your (potential) customers: hey--my competition will let you run the service you want, I won't. This is an opportunity to actually get ahead of the game and have a leg up on your competition. Here are the facts as I see them (applies to the residential market only): 1. The cost of bandwidth for telcos and MSOs is really extremely low on a per customer basis. The bulk of their cost--and why this is a big issue for them--is the cost of getting that bandwidth to the customer. For these guys, the major cost is in the transport networks: fiber buildout is extremely expensive, transport gear is incredibly expensive, etc. WISPs have ridiculously cheap transport networks and, with enough scale, don't really pay much more for bandwidth. If you get scale, your bandwidth costs also drop. In other words, once you hit a certain scale, your cost of delivering service becomes much less than your competition. 2. You can't compete on price with a telco/mso doing triple play. The economics aren't there. You don't offer video. Your customers want video. They want to be able to watch House and CSI and Dancing with the Stars. This means that even if they keep you for Internet access, they will sign up for television service. They will then, every month, get offers for bundled video + data services (and sometimes voice) for prices that you can't compete with. 3. Your competitors can't compete in price without subsidizing their network buildout with revenue from overpriced, monopolistic telephony and video solutions. If/When the Internet becomes _the_ medium for delivering this, you can adapt to that by...the end of this week. Your competition will take years and years to get to this point and fight it every step of the way. From a revenue / cost standpoint, they simply cannot survive in such an environment. However, if people use Joost and Vuze and whatall, then they can use YOUR connection and no longer have a need to get their video services elsewhere. Embrace this. Advertise this. Help your customers find video services online. Make a portal for this. Start mailing your customers (and your competitor's customers!) and saying Bob's Internet: includes over 10,000 video channels for free and Bob's three step guide to saving $800 per year: (step 1: get Bob's Internet, step 2: Tell your cable company bye-bye step 3: Enjoy 10,000 video channels on Bob's Internet Access). Get your customers thinking: I can watch CSI and so forth on the Internet. You take a data customer away from a cable company...big deal. You get a community converted to watching their video on the Internet and the math changes DRASTICALLY in your favor. You are trying to compete using a business model that revolves around a $30-$40 average monthly revenue per customer against providers who have $100-$250 average monthly revenue per customer. Attack that! They simply can't afford to be profitable on a single pipe / single service model--you can. Remember, the late 90s were a golden era for independent ISPs because they got ahead of the curve. Most of you are, quite bluntly, behind the curve now. This is an opportunity to get ahead of the curve Comment on this to the FCC--just comment in favor of Network Neutrality. Believe it or not, you will do MUCH better under this model than your competition because it very much favors your business model and is incredibly harmful to your competitor's
Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
I'm glad someone else has the same philosophy I do. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Clint Ricker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 9:48 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC Sam and Matt, very well said. To the rest: If you are petitioning the FCC in union with the cable companies and telcos, you are screwing your future and help your competition. You can't win by the rules that they make. The network neutrality battle could potentially change the service provider economics enough in very positive directions for you. This is a politically-charged enough topic that something interesting may actually happen on this :) First of all, get more customers! With enough customers, the oversubscription on bandwidth becomes much better--you can fit thousands and thousands of resi customers in a 100Mb/s pipe without dropping, but about 10-20 in a 5Mb/s pipe. With enough customers, the bandwidth cost per customer comes down to almost nothing. If you need to limit a couple of outlying customers (the ones using 3Mb/s all the time), sure, go ahead. But don't hate bit torrent or any other protocol :) Bit Torrent bandwidth costs _exactly_ the same price as http bandwidth. I really don't agree with a business philosophy that fundamentally sees it as a bad thing if people are actually using your service :). Embrace it and figure out how to make it profitable (hint--spend more time getting new customers and less time trying to shave costs). The bandwidth math is MUCH better with 1,000 customers than a hundred and MUCH better with 10,000 than a 1,000. To everyone thinking that there needs to be network neutrality requirements for big guys, but little guys should be allowed to block: do you really want to send the message to your (potential) customers: hey--my competition will let you run the service you want, I won't. This is an opportunity to actually get ahead of the game and have a leg up on your competition. Here are the facts as I see them (applies to the residential market only): 1. The cost of bandwidth for telcos and MSOs is really extremely low on a per customer basis. The bulk of their cost--and why this is a big issue for them--is the cost of getting that bandwidth to the customer. For these guys, the major cost is in the transport networks: fiber buildout is extremely expensive, transport gear is incredibly expensive, etc. WISPs have ridiculously cheap transport networks and, with enough scale, don't really pay much more for bandwidth. If you get scale, your bandwidth costs also drop. In other words, once you hit a certain scale, your cost of delivering service becomes much less than your competition. 2. You can't compete on price with a telco/mso doing triple play. The economics aren't there. You don't offer video. Your customers want video. They want to be able to watch House and CSI and Dancing with the Stars. This means that even if they keep you for Internet access, they will sign up for television service. They will then, every month, get offers for bundled video + data services (and sometimes voice) for prices that you can't compete with. 3. Your competitors can't compete in price without subsidizing their network buildout with revenue from overpriced, monopolistic telephony and video solutions. If/When the Internet becomes _the_ medium for delivering this, you can adapt to that by...the end of this week. Your competition will take years and years to get to this point and fight it every step of the way. From a revenue / cost standpoint, they simply cannot survive in such an environment. However, if people use Joost and Vuze and whatall, then they can use YOUR connection and no longer have a need to get their video services elsewhere. Embrace this. Advertise this. Help your customers find video services online. Make a portal for this. Start mailing your customers (and your competitor's customers!) and saying Bob's Internet: includes over 10,000 video channels for free and Bob's three step guide to saving $800 per year: (step 1: get Bob's Internet, step 2: Tell your cable company bye-bye step 3: Enjoy 10,000 video channels on Bob's Internet Access). Get your customers thinking: I can watch CSI and so forth on the Internet. You take a data customer away from a cable company...big deal. You get a community converted to watching their video on the Internet and the math changes DRASTICALLY in your favor. You are trying to compete using a business model that revolves around a $30-$40 average monthly revenue per customer against providers who have $100-$250 average monthly revenue per customer. Attack that! They simply can't afford to be profitable on a single pipe / single service model--you can. Remember, the late 90s were a golden era for independent ISPs because they got ahead
Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
I'm glad someone else has the same philosophy I do. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Clint Ricker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 9:48 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC Sam and Matt, very well said. To the rest: If you are petitioning the FCC in union with the cable companies and telcos, you are screwing your future and help your competition. You can't win by the rules that they make. The network neutrality battle could potentially change the service provider economics enough in very positive directions for you. This is a politically-charged enough topic that something interesting may actually happen on this :) First of all, get more customers! With enough customers, the oversubscription on bandwidth becomes much better--you can fit thousands and thousands of resi customers in a 100Mb/s pipe without dropping, but about 10-20 in a 5Mb/s pipe. With enough customers, the bandwidth cost per customer comes down to almost nothing. If you need to limit a couple of outlying customers (the ones using 3Mb/s all the time), sure, go ahead. But don't hate bit torrent or any other protocol :) Bit Torrent bandwidth costs _exactly_ the same price as http bandwidth. I really don't agree with a business philosophy that fundamentally sees it as a bad thing if people are actually using your service :). Embrace it and figure out how to make it profitable (hint--spend more time getting new customers and less time trying to shave costs). The bandwidth math is MUCH better with 1,000 customers than a hundred and MUCH better with 10,000 than a 1,000. To everyone thinking that there needs to be network neutrality requirements for big guys, but little guys should be allowed to block: do you really want to send the message to your (potential) customers: hey--my competition will let you run the service you want, I won't. This is an opportunity to actually get ahead of the game and have a leg up on your competition. Here are the facts as I see them (applies to the residential market only): 1. The cost of bandwidth for telcos and MSOs is really extremely low on a per customer basis. The bulk of their cost--and why this is a big issue for them--is the cost of getting that bandwidth to the customer. For these guys, the major cost is in the transport networks: fiber buildout is extremely expensive, transport gear is incredibly expensive, etc. WISPs have ridiculously cheap transport networks and, with enough scale, don't really pay much more for bandwidth. If you get scale, your bandwidth costs also drop. In other words, once you hit a certain scale, your cost of delivering service becomes much less than your competition. 2. You can't compete on price with a telco/mso doing triple play. The economics aren't there. You don't offer video. Your customers want video. They want to be able to watch House and CSI and Dancing with the Stars. This means that even if they keep you for Internet access, they will sign up for television service. They will then, every month, get offers for bundled video + data services (and sometimes voice) for prices that you can't compete with. 3. Your competitors can't compete in price without subsidizing their network buildout with revenue from overpriced, monopolistic telephony and video solutions. If/When the Internet becomes _the_ medium for delivering this, you can adapt to that by...the end of this week. Your competition will take years and years to get to this point and fight it every step of the way. From a revenue / cost standpoint, they simply cannot survive in such an environment. However, if people use Joost and Vuze and whatall, then they can use YOUR connection and no longer have a need to get their video services elsewhere. Embrace this. Advertise this. Help your customers find video services online. Make a portal for this. Start mailing your customers (and your competitor's customers!) and saying Bob's Internet: includes over 10,000 video channels for free and Bob's three step guide to saving $800 per year: (step 1: get Bob's Internet, step 2: Tell your cable company bye-bye step 3: Enjoy 10,000 video channels on Bob's Internet Access). Get your customers thinking: I can watch CSI and so forth on the Internet. You take a data customer away from a cable company...big deal. You get a community converted to watching their video on the Internet and the math changes DRASTICALLY in your favor. You are trying to compete using a business model that revolves around a $30-$40 average monthly revenue per customer against providers who have $100-$250 average monthly revenue per customer. Attack that! They simply can't afford to be profitable on a single pipe / single service model--you can. Remember, the late 90s were a golden era for independent ISPs because they got ahead
Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
That's easy to say when you are in an area with thousands of potential customers ;-) Marlon (509) 982-2181 (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 1999! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 8:48 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC I'm glad someone else has the same philosophy I do. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Clint Ricker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 9:48 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC Sam and Matt, very well said. To the rest: If you are petitioning the FCC in union with the cable companies and telcos, you are screwing your future and help your competition. You can't win by the rules that they make. The network neutrality battle could potentially change the service provider economics enough in very positive directions for you. This is a politically-charged enough topic that something interesting may actually happen on this :) First of all, get more customers! With enough customers, the oversubscription on bandwidth becomes much better--you can fit thousands and thousands of resi customers in a 100Mb/s pipe without dropping, but about 10-20 in a 5Mb/s pipe. With enough customers, the bandwidth cost per customer comes down to almost nothing. If you need to limit a couple of outlying customers (the ones using 3Mb/s all the time), sure, go ahead. But don't hate bit torrent or any other protocol :) Bit Torrent bandwidth costs _exactly_ the same price as http bandwidth. I really don't agree with a business philosophy that fundamentally sees it as a bad thing if people are actually using your service :). Embrace it and figure out how to make it profitable (hint--spend more time getting new customers and less time trying to shave costs). The bandwidth math is MUCH better with 1,000 customers than a hundred and MUCH better with 10,000 than a 1,000. To everyone thinking that there needs to be network neutrality requirements for big guys, but little guys should be allowed to block: do you really want to send the message to your (potential) customers: hey--my competition will let you run the service you want, I won't. This is an opportunity to actually get ahead of the game and have a leg up on your competition. Here are the facts as I see them (applies to the residential market only): 1. The cost of bandwidth for telcos and MSOs is really extremely low on a per customer basis. The bulk of their cost--and why this is a big issue for them--is the cost of getting that bandwidth to the customer. For these guys, the major cost is in the transport networks: fiber buildout is extremely expensive, transport gear is incredibly expensive, etc. WISPs have ridiculously cheap transport networks and, with enough scale, don't really pay much more for bandwidth. If you get scale, your bandwidth costs also drop. In other words, once you hit a certain scale, your cost of delivering service becomes much less than your competition. 2. You can't compete on price with a telco/mso doing triple play. The economics aren't there. You don't offer video. Your customers want video. They want to be able to watch House and CSI and Dancing with the Stars. This means that even if they keep you for Internet access, they will sign up for television service. They will then, every month, get offers for bundled video + data services (and sometimes voice) for prices that you can't compete with. 3. Your competitors can't compete in price without subsidizing their network buildout with revenue from overpriced, monopolistic telephony and video solutions. If/When the Internet becomes _the_ medium for delivering this, you can adapt to that by...the end of this week. Your competition will take years and years to get to this point and fight it every step of the way. From a revenue / cost standpoint, they simply cannot survive in such an environment. However, if people use Joost and Vuze and whatall, then they can use YOUR connection and no longer have a need to get their video services elsewhere. Embrace this. Advertise this. Help your customers find video services online. Make a portal for this. Start mailing your customers (and your competitor's customers!) and saying Bob's Internet: includes over 10,000 video channels for free and Bob's three step guide to saving $800 per year: (step 1: get Bob's Internet, step 2: Tell your cable company bye-bye step 3: Enjoy 10,000 video channels on Bob's Internet Access). Get your customers thinking: I can watch CSI and so forth on the Internet. You take a data
Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
I'm not buying it. Yes, we as service providers have a right to determine th service level agreements we want to set for the price we decide. A consumer has always believed that they have an unlimited do anything they want with our connection mentality. We on the other hand have always had terms of service that nullify the anything you want unlimited mentality. If we are in disagreement with Comcast's position, then what are we really saying? We would be saying, anything goes, we have no control, we can't rate limit. The free market system, does not tie the hands of the isp, but rather allows us each to set our own service levels and terms of service, and compete based on our own service offerings. To restrict an isp from making a decision, is in no way the free market system, but rather the regulated system. I'm with Comcast on this. I do not want to be regulated. Let me live or die on the way I decide to run my network. Thanks Eje for bringing this to our attention. My recommendation is to back Comcast. George Clint Ricker wrote: Sam and Matt, very well said. To the rest: If you are petitioning the FCC in union with the cable companies and telcos, you are screwing your future and help your competition. You can't win by the rules that they make. The network neutrality battle could potentially change the service provider economics enough in very positive directions for you. This is a politically-charged enough topic that something interesting may actually happen on this :) First of all, get more customers! With enough customers, the oversubscription on bandwidth becomes much better--you can fit thousands and thousands of resi customers in a 100Mb/s pipe without dropping, but about 10-20 in a 5Mb/s pipe. With enough customers, the bandwidth cost per customer comes down to almost nothing. If you need to limit a couple of outlying customers (the ones using 3Mb/s all the time), sure, go ahead. But don't hate bit torrent or any other protocol :) Bit Torrent bandwidth costs _exactly_ the same price as http bandwidth. I really don't agree with a business philosophy that fundamentally sees it as a bad thing if people are actually using your service :). Embrace it and figure out how to make it profitable (hint--spend more time getting new customers and less time trying to shave costs). The bandwidth math is MUCH better with 1,000 customers than a hundred and MUCH better with 10,000 than a 1,000. To everyone thinking that there needs to be network neutrality requirements for big guys, but little guys should be allowed to block: do you really want to send the message to your (potential) customers: hey--my competition will let you run the service you want, I won't. This is an opportunity to actually get ahead of the game and have a leg up on your competition. Here are the facts as I see them (applies to the residential market only): 1. The cost of bandwidth for telcos and MSOs is really extremely low on a per customer basis. The bulk of their cost--and why this is a big issue for them--is the cost of getting that bandwidth to the customer. For these guys, the major cost is in the transport networks: fiber buildout is extremely expensive, transport gear is incredibly expensive, etc. WISPs have ridiculously cheap transport networks and, with enough scale, don't really pay much more for bandwidth. If you get scale, your bandwidth costs also drop. In other words, once you hit a certain scale, your cost of delivering service becomes much less than your competition. 2. You can't compete on price with a telco/mso doing triple play. The economics aren't there. You don't offer video. Your customers want video. They want to be able to watch House and CSI and Dancing with the Stars. This means that even if they keep you for Internet access, they will sign up for television service. They will then, every month, get offers for bundled video + data services (and sometimes voice) for prices that you can't compete with. 3. Your competitors can't compete in price without subsidizing their network buildout with revenue from overpriced, monopolistic telephony and video solutions. If/When the Internet becomes _the_ medium for delivering this, you can adapt to that by...the end of this week. Your competition will take years and years to get to this point and fight it every step of the way. From a revenue / cost standpoint, they simply cannot survive in such an environment. However, if people use Joost and Vuze and whatall, then they can use YOUR connection and no longer have a need to get their video services elsewhere. Embrace this. Advertise this. Help your customers find video services online. Make a portal for this. Start mailing your customers (and your competitor's customers!) and saying Bob's Internet: includes over 10,000 video channels for free and Bob's three step guide to saving $800 per year: (step 1: get Bob's Internet, step 2: Tell your cable company bye-bye
Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
Marlon, you are pretty rural :) You probably would have a hard time growing much without heading 500 miles to find a market with more people than cows :). From what I'd guess from your economics, strict bandwidth caps may be a good choice for you--but, for people who either are in or have access to larger markets, more subscribers is a better route for _so_ many reasons and has the nice benefit of making bandwidth much cheaper on a per-subscriber basis--increased oversubscription ratios combined with lower bandwidth costs. Thanks, -Clint Ricker Kentnis Technologies On Nov 19, 2007 12:20 PM, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's easy to say when you are in an area with thousands of potential customers ;-) Marlon (509) 982-2181 (408) 907-6910 (Vonage)Consulting services 42846865 (icq)WISP Operator since 1999! [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.odessaoffice.com/wireless www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam - Original Message - From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 8:48 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC I'm glad someone else has the same philosophy I do. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Clint Ricker [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 9:48 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC Sam and Matt, very well said. To the rest: If you are petitioning the FCC in union with the cable companies and telcos, you are screwing your future and help your competition. You can't win by the rules that they make. The network neutrality battle could potentially change the service provider economics enough in very positive directions for you. This is a politically-charged enough topic that something interesting may actually happen on this :) First of all, get more customers! With enough customers, the oversubscription on bandwidth becomes much better--you can fit thousands and thousands of resi customers in a 100Mb/s pipe without dropping, but about 10-20 in a 5Mb/s pipe. With enough customers, the bandwidth cost per customer comes down to almost nothing. If you need to limit a couple of outlying customers (the ones using 3Mb/s all the time), sure, go ahead. But don't hate bit torrent or any other protocol :) Bit Torrent bandwidth costs _exactly_ the same price as http bandwidth. I really don't agree with a business philosophy that fundamentally sees it as a bad thing if people are actually using your service :). Embrace it and figure out how to make it profitable (hint--spend more time getting new customers and less time trying to shave costs). The bandwidth math is MUCH better with 1,000 customers than a hundred and MUCH better with 10,000 than a 1,000. To everyone thinking that there needs to be network neutrality requirements for big guys, but little guys should be allowed to block: do you really want to send the message to your (potential) customers: hey--my competition will let you run the service you want, I won't. This is an opportunity to actually get ahead of the game and have a leg up on your competition. Here are the facts as I see them (applies to the residential market only): 1. The cost of bandwidth for telcos and MSOs is really extremely low on a per customer basis. The bulk of their cost--and why this is a big issue for them--is the cost of getting that bandwidth to the customer. For these guys, the major cost is in the transport networks: fiber buildout is extremely expensive, transport gear is incredibly expensive, etc. WISPs have ridiculously cheap transport networks and, with enough scale, don't really pay much more for bandwidth. If you get scale, your bandwidth costs also drop. In other words, once you hit a certain scale, your cost of delivering service becomes much less than your competition. 2. You can't compete on price with a telco/mso doing triple play. The economics aren't there. You don't offer video. Your customers want video. They want to be able to watch House and CSI and Dancing with the Stars. This means that even if they keep you for Internet access, they will sign up for television service. They will then, every month, get offers for bundled video + data services (and sometimes voice) for prices that you can't compete with. 3. Your competitors can't compete in price without subsidizing their network buildout with revenue from overpriced, monopolistic telephony and video solutions. If/When the Internet becomes _the_ medium for delivering this, you can adapt to that by...the end of this week. Your competition will take years and years to get
Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
I've been a firm believer in that the last mile can shoot themselves in the foot if they like, but the next company up in the chain must be neutral. Level 3, ATT, Cogent, Verizon, NTT, etc. should not be doing anything on their end for their wholesale markets again, if they have retail end users, do whatever they want. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Matt Larsen - Lists [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 12:03 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC This is not a black or white position - take the time to read the Vuze petition and focus specifically on the last two pages where they outline the goals of what they want to achieve. Then take some time and look at what Comcast did to Bit Torrent - they specifically broke the application. What Vuze is asking for is pretty reasonable - the ability to run their applications without undue interference. If you back Comcast, you are backing the ability for YOUR backbone provider to break the applications you run on their network. The Vuze petition is the position that should be backed, IMHO. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com George Rogato wrote: I'm not buying it. Yes, we as service providers have a right to determine th service level agreements we want to set for the price we decide. A consumer has always believed that they have an unlimited do anything they want with our connection mentality. We on the other hand have always had terms of service that nullify the anything you want unlimited mentality. If we are in disagreement with Comcast's position, then what are we really saying? We would be saying, anything goes, we have no control, we can't rate limit. The free market system, does not tie the hands of the isp, but rather allows us each to set our own service levels and terms of service, and compete based on our own service offerings. To restrict an isp from making a decision, is in no way the free market system, but rather the regulated system. I'm with Comcast on this. I do not want to be regulated. Let me live or die on the way I decide to run my network. Thanks Eje for bringing this to our attention. My recommendation is to back Comcast. George Clint Ricker wrote: Sam and Matt, very well said. To the rest: If you are petitioning the FCC in union with the cable companies and telcos, you are screwing your future and help your competition. You can't win by the rules that they make. The network neutrality battle could potentially change the service provider economics enough in very positive directions for you. This is a politically-charged enough topic that something interesting may actually happen on this :) First of all, get more customers! With enough customers, the oversubscription on bandwidth becomes much better--you can fit thousands and thousands of resi customers in a 100Mb/s pipe without dropping, but about 10-20 in a 5Mb/s pipe. With enough customers, the bandwidth cost per customer comes down to almost nothing. If you need to limit a couple of outlying customers (the ones using 3Mb/s all the time), sure, go ahead. But don't hate bit torrent or any other protocol :) Bit Torrent bandwidth costs _exactly_ the same price as http bandwidth. I really don't agree with a business philosophy that fundamentally sees it as a bad thing if people are actually using your service :). Embrace it and figure out how to make it profitable (hint--spend more time getting new customers and less time trying to shave costs). The bandwidth math is MUCH better with 1,000 customers than a hundred and MUCH better with 10,000 than a 1,000. To everyone thinking that there needs to be network neutrality requirements for big guys, but little guys should be allowed to block: do you really want to send the message to your (potential) customers: hey--my competition will let you run the service you want, I won't. This is an opportunity to actually get ahead of the game and have a leg up on your competition. Here are the facts as I see them (applies to the residential market only): 1. The cost of bandwidth for telcos and MSOs is really extremely low on a per customer basis. The bulk of their cost--and why this is a big issue for them--is the cost of getting that bandwidth to the customer. For these guys, the major cost is in the transport networks: fiber buildout is extremely expensive, transport gear is incredibly expensive, etc. WISPs have ridiculously cheap transport networks and, with enough scale, don't really pay much more for bandwidth. If you get scale, your bandwidth costs also drop. In other words, once you hit a certain scale, your cost of delivering service becomes much less than your competition. 2. You can't compete on price with a telco/mso doing triple play. The economics aren't there. You don't offer video. Your
Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
George, No one is saying that you have to sell $40 10Mb/s pipes at to customers for them to use full tilt 24x7. Restrict on bandwidth, if you choose. Sell metered. Put caps on. Why restrict based on content type? Marlon includes, if I remember, 6GB of data and then charges for overages. If you are _really_ struggling with people abusing your service, put something like this in your TOS. Then, your customers can take their 6GB a month and transfer 6GB of video or 6GB of MP3s or 6GB of email, or 6GB of web traffic, or any combination, or figure out some crazy use for 6GB a month that no one ever dreamed of. You should not care--it doesn't cost you any more or less, regardless as to what they choose to use their 6GB a month for. You said If we are in disagreement with Comcast's position, then what are we really saying? We would be saying, anything goes, we have no control, we can't rate limit. This isn't true. Comcast is NOT rate limiting, they are filtering specific types of content. True, net neutrality is regulation and does tie your hands. Sure. But, it ties your hands in a fashion that is MUCH more favorable to you than you your competition. You can operate a single pipe/service business model profitably (or at least I assume so); your competition can't. Just out of curiosity, what is your sales pitch? In the end--if you engage in all the negative business practices of your competition, have similar (if not more expensive pricing), and invest much less in network deployment on a per-customer basis, what is your value proposition? I'm not meaning that to be rude--I just have seen most of the traditional arguments I used to use to recommend independent ISPs to people disappear over the past few years as margins have grown smaller (with some very positive notable exceptions). If you keep on down this road, aren't you just a smaller version of your competition who ends up being more expensive and less reliable* (albeit with local tech support)? (* This is just a guess, but I'd guess that most independent ISPs have more outages than most of the major players due to different levels of infrastructure investment. Not an indictment of anyone specifically.) I support regulating Internet access towards Net Neutrality for two reasons: 1. I have a broad understanding of the Internet and it's potential--I view it a little broader than just a means of buying stuff on Amazon and Ebay and sending an email or two (hundred). 2. The vast majority of the Internet subscribers out there are tied to fairly monopolistic providers who offer directly competing services to those provided on the Internet. I prefer Internet-based video because I have access to a much larger selection than the 100 or so (mostly identical) channels provided by a standard cable MSO--however, Comcast's fight is DIRECTLY related to my ability to use these services. BTW, I am relatively a light subscriber in terms of bandwidth :). This fight is _not_ about the ability to profitably offer Internet access--it's about the ability to restrict content to sustain aging business models that are threatened by newer technologies. Also, telecom is not free market :). It is, in the end, a utility, and, as such, should be subject to some regulations and restrictions to ensure that it operates under some pretense of public interest. -Clint Ricker Kentnis Technologies On Nov 19, 2007 12:47 PM, George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not buying it. Yes, we as service providers have a right to determine th service level agreements we want to set for the price we decide. A consumer has always believed that they have an unlimited do anything they want with our connection mentality. We on the other hand have always had terms of service that nullify the anything you want unlimited mentality. If we are in disagreement with Comcast's position, then what are we really saying? We would be saying, anything goes, we have no control, we can't rate limit. The free market system, does not tie the hands of the isp, but rather allows us each to set our own service levels and terms of service, and compete based on our own service offerings. To restrict an isp from making a decision, is in no way the free market system, but rather the regulated system. I'm with Comcast on this. I do not want to be regulated. Let me live or die on the way I decide to run my network. Thanks Eje for bringing this to our attention. My recommendation is to back Comcast. George Clint Ricker wrote: Sam and Matt, very well said. To the rest: If you are petitioning the FCC in union with the cable companies and telcos, you are screwing your future and help your competition. You can't win by the rules that they make. The network neutrality battle could potentially change the service provider economics enough in very positive directions for you. This is a politically-charged enough topic that something interesting may
Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
Clint Ricker wrote: No one is saying that you have to sell $40 10Mb/s pipes at to customers for them to use full tilt 24x7. Restrict on bandwidth, if you choose. Sell metered. Put caps on. Why restrict based on content type? Because some content types make customers call and complain, and some don't. My network generally rate-limits or drops most peer-to-peer traffic, because our last-mile wireless gear often throws a fit when confronted with really aggressive P2P software. One customer running Limewire, using its default settings, can bring down a whole access point, annoying twenty or more other customers. Frankly, I don't care what you're downloading, only how you're downloading it. I don't care if it's naughty videos or Linux ISOs, legal or not-so-much; if it degrades other customers' service, it'll get shut off. We're very up-front about this stipulation. When the service problems bad cop is combined with the you didn't know it's probably illegal to download most of that stuff good cop, most customers are very understanding. A few have been asked to find other service providers, and I don't weep overly for them. You should not care--it doesn't cost you any more or less, regardless as to what they choose to use their 6GB a month for. The P2P traffic costs me reputation and goodwill with my customers, so I would argue it's far more expensive than many other types of traffic. David Smith MVN.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] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
The application is very important. If the technology that we had at our disposal would not be hampered by any application then I could care less. Your right the more bits and applications for our customers use the better for us. Unfortunately in most markets the only thing we can provide our customers is superior customer service. At this time we are behind on every other metric, be it bandwidth, latency, etc. We also have a very limited amount of resources to deploy in. Compared to cable that has literally 2ghz plus of spectrum to use we can't even hope to compete on a bang for buck approach. So with that in mind I have to agree that Comcast's is the only way we can survive for last mile delivery. I also agree as for a carrier / wholesale the pipe should be as dumb as possible and just pass bits as fast as it can. My main concern is that as a private business owner I am the only one qualified to say how my network and business should operate. No government agency or bureaucrat could possibly understand my business better then myself. Comcast is no different. Let the free market figure out how to make this work. Anthony Will Broadband Corp. http://www.broadband-mn.com David E. Smith wrote: Clint Ricker wrote: No one is saying that you have to sell $40 10Mb/s pipes at to customers for them to use full tilt 24x7. Restrict on bandwidth, if you choose. Sell metered. Put caps on. Why restrict based on content type? Because some content types make customers call and complain, and some don't. My network generally rate-limits or drops most peer-to-peer traffic, because our last-mile wireless gear often throws a fit when confronted with really aggressive P2P software. One customer running Limewire, using its default settings, can bring down a whole access point, annoying twenty or more other customers. Frankly, I don't care what you're downloading, only how you're downloading it. I don't care if it's naughty videos or Linux ISOs, legal or not-so-much; if it degrades other customers' service, it'll get shut off. We're very up-front about this stipulation. When the service problems bad cop is combined with the you didn't know it's probably illegal to download most of that stuff good cop, most customers are very understanding. A few have been asked to find other service providers, and I don't weep overly for them. You should not care--it doesn't cost you any more or less, regardless as to what they choose to use their 6GB a month for. The P2P traffic costs me reputation and goodwill with my customers, so I would argue it's far more expensive than many other types of traffic. David Smith MVN.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/ 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
Matt, All your points are very good, and I agree with. The issue with Peer to Peer is that the entity controlling what data gets transfered is NOT the person that bought the broadband connection. Most end users aren;t savy enough to even know what impact the peer to peer software would have on there systems, or that it was even happening in the background. So sure the end user has the right to use it for what they want to, but does the open market have the right to use the customer's circuit for what ever they want to? Its sorta like when you get a Large Spam file attachment in your Email box, that crashes an individualls Inbox or Outlook. In the end user's eyes, the providers Breoadband service doesn't work right. When things are automatic and stealth in the background, the consumer is out of the loop, on what goes on with their connection. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: Matt Larsen - Lists [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 10:44 PM Subject: 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
Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
Apples an oranges here. We as providers are paying for dedicated bandwidth, not shared. Shared connections are a different beast altogether, and I really would assume that's what we're talking about when we go rate-limiting ANYTHING. Dedicated connections should be able to do whatever they want. Because they are paying for it, and you are not losing money on 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: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 10:48 AM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC I've been a firm believer in that the last mile can shoot themselves in the foot if they like, but the next company up in the chain must be neutral. Level 3, ATT, Cogent, Verizon, NTT, etc. should not be doing anything on their end for their wholesale markets again, if they have retail end users, do whatever they want. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com - Original Message - From: Matt Larsen - Lists [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 12:03 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC This is not a black or white position - take the time to read the Vuze petition and focus specifically on the last two pages where they outline the goals of what they want to achieve. Then take some time and look at what Comcast did to Bit Torrent - they specifically broke the application. What Vuze is asking for is pretty reasonable - the ability to run their applications without undue interference. If you back Comcast, you are backing the ability for YOUR backbone provider to break the applications you run on their network. The Vuze petition is the position that should be backed, IMHO. Matt Larsen vistabeam.com George Rogato wrote: I'm not buying it. Yes, we as service providers have a right to determine th service level agreements we want to set for the price we decide. A consumer has always believed that they have an unlimited do anything they want with our connection mentality. We on the other hand have always had terms of service that nullify the anything you want unlimited mentality. If we are in disagreement with Comcast's position, then what are we really saying? We would be saying, anything goes, we have no control, we can't rate limit. The free market system, does not tie the hands of the isp, but rather allows us each to set our own service levels and terms of service, and compete based on our own service offerings. To restrict an isp from making a decision, is in no way the free market system, but rather the regulated system. I'm with Comcast on this. I do not want to be regulated. Let me live or die on the way I decide to run my network. Thanks Eje for bringing this to our attention. My recommendation is to back Comcast. George Clint Ricker wrote: Sam and Matt, very well said. To the rest: If you are petitioning the FCC in union with the cable companies and telcos, you are screwing your future and help your competition. You can't win by the rules that they make. The network neutrality battle could potentially change the service provider economics enough in very positive directions for you. This is a politically-charged enough topic that something interesting may actually happen on this :) First of all, get more customers! With enough customers, the oversubscription on bandwidth becomes much better--you can fit thousands and thousands of resi customers in a 100Mb/s pipe without dropping, but about 10-20 in a 5Mb/s pipe. With enough customers, the bandwidth cost per customer comes down to almost nothing. If you need to limit a couple of outlying customers (the ones using 3Mb/s all the time), sure, go ahead. But don't hate bit torrent or any other protocol :) Bit Torrent bandwidth costs _exactly_ the same price as http bandwidth. I really don't agree with a business philosophy that fundamentally sees it as a bad thing if people are actually using your service :). Embrace it and figure out how to make it profitable (hint--spend more time getting new customers and less time trying to shave costs). The bandwidth math is MUCH better with 1,000 customers than a hundred and MUCH better with 10,000 than a 1,000. To everyone thinking that there needs to be network neutrality requirements for big guys, but little guys should be allowed to block: do you really want to send the message to your (potential) customers: hey--my competition will let you run the service you want, I won't. This is an opportunity to actually get ahead of the game and have a leg up on your competition. Here
Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
I may be wrong, but net neutrality when out a couple of months ago. There is no more net neutrality. 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'm not talking about dedicated commercial bandwidth. I'm trying to distinguish it from a consumer broadband connection. A consumer internet connection has always had restrictions. I would like to be able to offer a consumer a connection that allows P2P, and anything else they may want to do. I just want to be able to insure quality of service. In order to do this I have to be able to shape and prioritize bits. If I can't rate limit or prioritize one type of data from the next, then my hands are tied and it's willy nilly anything goes. I do not sell an anything goes connection. Although my service is a consumer based best effort speeds up to, I run a smooth network. The issue we have before us, is are we the operators of our network, or is the government/consumer/application? 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
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
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
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] 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
