Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC

[Marlon K. Schafer]

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" 
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 
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" 
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'" 
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

Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC

[Marlon K. Schafer]

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'" 
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://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf
 &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] EarthLink Says No More Money for Existing Muni Networks

[Marlon K. Schafer]

WISPA already has a committee dedicated to designing a wholesale program 
that would make this doable.  We just need a big customer to work with.


We can already document that WISPs pass well over 2 million homes.  Lot of 
customer potential there.

marlon

- Original Message - 
From: "Travis Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2007 7:45 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] EarthLink Says No More Money for Existing Muni Networks


Can you imagine trying to partner with 500 WISP's around the country? What 
a nightmare. Different equipment, different troubleshooting, different 
everything. It would never work.


Travis
Microserv

Tom DeReggi wrote:

Like we didn't see it comming :-)

The key statement I saw was... "no more investment, unless a change in 
model", or something like that.
What Earthlinks should be doing is staying focused on help desk support, 
content, and value add, partnering with existing providers that have 
models that work. Meaning partner with successful WISPs, not try and 
become one.



Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - From: "Jack Unger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2007 6:01 PM
Subject: [WISPA] EarthLink Says No More Money for Existing Muni Networks




http://wifinetnews.com/archives/008052.html


--
Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
FCC License # PG-12-25133
Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993
Author of the WISP Handbook - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs"
True Vendor-Neutral Wireless Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting
FCC Part 15 Certification for Manufacturers and Service Providers
Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220  www.ask-wi.com








WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/



WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


--
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 
269.15.5/1085 - Release Date: 10/22/2007 10:35 AM









WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/



WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/






WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/


WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ 





WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/


WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] vlans

[Ryan Langseth]

That should,  now in order to do that you will need to have a separate  
subnet for each AP and the customers off of it (I believe).  Have you  
done any packet sniffing to see if there is a lot of ARP requests?


How many hosts do you have off of that tower?


Ryan


On Nov 18, 2007, at 10:02 PM, Travis Johnson wrote:


Hi,

I will be the first to admit that I know very little about VLANs. I  
understand the concept and even how to configure them (somewhat).  
Currently our entire network is fully routed and switched without  
any VLANs. However, we are starting to see a problem on larger tower  
locations where we have 6-10 AP's all plugged into the same ethernet  
switch, and then into a router before it gets to our backbone. I  
think what we are seeing are ARP broadcast storms, etc. and it  
affects all the AP's on that switch at the same time. Ping times to  
customers and the AP's go up to 1500-2000ms, yet we never see the  
traffic on the router itself.


My question is this: Could I enable VLANs on the switch, and put  
each AP into it's own VLAN and then make the port the router is  
plugged into the "trunk" port? Would this stop the broadcasts from  
affecting other AP's on that switch?


Is there a better solution? What is everyone else doing?

Travis
Microserv



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/





WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/


WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC

[Sam Tetherow]

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/

[WISPA] vlans

[Travis Johnson]

Hi,

I will be the first to admit that I know very little about VLANs. I 
understand the concept and even how to configure them (somewhat). 
Currently our entire network is fully routed and switched without any 
VLANs. However, we are starting to see a problem on larger tower 
locations where we have 6-10 AP's all plugged into the same ethernet 
switch, and then into a router before it gets to our backbone. I think 
what we are seeing are ARP broadcast storms, etc. and it affects all the 
AP's on that switch at the same time. Ping times to customers and the 
AP's go up to 1500-2000ms, yet we never see the traffic on the router 
itself.


My question is this: Could I enable VLANs on the switch, and put each AP 
into it's own VLAN and then make the port the router is plugged into the 
"trunk" port? Would this stop the broadcasts from affecting other AP's 
on that switch?


Is there a better solution? What is everyone else doing?

Travis
Microserv



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/


WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC

[Matt Larsen - Lists]

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

RE: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC

[Eje Gustafsson]

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'" 
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

Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC

[Mark Nash]

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'" 
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'" 
> 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 PROTECTE

RE: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC

[Eje Gustafsson]

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'" 
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" 
> 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]>
>

RE: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC

[Eje Gustafsson]

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'" 
> 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

RE: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC

[Eje Gustafsson]

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" 
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'" 
> 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 T

[WISPA] Multiple no subject no sender email messages

[mdelp]

It appears that shell.mvn.net is trying to send a message, and it has
shown up blank about 20 times so far.

Does anyone else see this?

Mike




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC

[Mark Nash]

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" 
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 
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" 
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'" 
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 t

Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC

[Scottie Arnett]

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 
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 Arnett]

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 
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" 
>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'" 
>> 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

Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC

[Mark Nash]

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'" 
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" 
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'" 
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

Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC

[Anthony Will]

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'" 
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 e

RE: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC

[Jonathan Schmidt]

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" 
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'" 
> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>> Perso

Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC

[Mark Nash]

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" 
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'" 
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://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf
 &id_document=6519811711



/ Eje

WISP-Router, Inc.




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/
---

Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC

[Mike Hammett]

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'" 
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://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf
 &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/

[WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC

[Eje Gustafsson]

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://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf
 &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] PowerStation2 Problem

[Eje Gustafsson]

Some of these issues become resolved using an 18V power supply from our own
experience. It seems that some units have issues on 12V not sure if it's due
to long cable runs, badly crimped cable or just unit issue or possible
problem with the provided power supply. But we seen units like this and
putting an 18V power supply seem to resolve the problem. 

/ Eje

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Blair Davis
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2007 3:51 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] PowerStation2 Problem

Replace the unit.

I've seen 2 like that.

Sam Tetherow wrote:
> If it is the ethernet side I would check the ethernet cabling to make 
> sure you didn't kink it when stringing the wire or got a bad end on it.
>
> Also depending on what you are plugging the ethernet into you may want 
> to turn off auto negotiate or set the rate manually if you have the 
> capability on one end or the other.  I have had RB532 ethernet 
> connections that are crappy unless autonegotiate is off.
>
>Sam Tetherow
>Sandhills Wireless
>
> Andrew Niemantsverdriet wrote:
>> I have a Ubiquiti PowerStaion2 that is having some weird issues. It
>> has a -68 signal and good LOS to the AP however there is packet loss
>> on the link but only from the Ethernet side of it. From the radio side
>> (pinging from the gateway) I see no such loss. The Ethernet drops from
>> 10-30 seconds and then continues on like normal, when this happens I
>> can still ping from the gateway to the radio IP. This is running as a
>> bridge and has ver. 2.9 firmware on it, I upgraded from 2.8 to try to
>> fix the problem in a last ditch effort. Any ideas as to what is going
>> on? The AP is custom linux box and no other problems like this exist
>> on any of the other clients.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>  _
>> /-\ ndrew
>>
>>
>>

 
>>
>> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>> http://signup.wispa.org/
>>

 
>>
>>  
>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>>
>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>>
>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>>
>>   
>
>
>
>

 
>
> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
>

 
>
>
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/





WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/


 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 
WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

RE: [WISPA] PacWireless Sector

[Eje Gustafsson]

This sector is available with what they call a scissor bracket. You can see
the scissor bracket in their spec sheet
http://www.pacwireless.com/products/pawsa24.pdf
Gives you attachment point at the top and bottom with a hinged bracket on
the top for easy downtilt and it comes with degree markings on it. 

If you look at the antenna plots
http://www.pacwireless.com/products/sector_plots.shtml 
You can see that at the 120 degree mark your down about 4.5dB from max gain.
There are a lot of people out there that use this antenna as a 120deg
antenna or even in some cases I know WISP's that use it as a 180deg antenna
where you're down about 8dB from max gain. 

/ Eje

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Travis Johnson
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2007 9:44 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] PacWireless Sector

Sorry, I forgot when I was looking I needed a 120 degree h-pol sector. 
And I don't really like their antenna config (bottom stand-off style 
mounting) for a sector. It works great for an omni, but sectors should 
mount in the middle directly behind the antenna if possible.

Travis
Microserv

Mike Hammett wrote:
> http://www.pacwireless.com/products/sector.shtml
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
>   - Original Message - 
>   From: Travis Johnson 
>   To: WISPA General List 
>   Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2007 5:46 PM
>   Subject: Re: [WISPA] PacWireless Sector
>
>
>   No, PacWireless doesn't sell a h-pol 2.4ghz sector. I checked before I
bought the Tranzeo.
>
>   Travis
>   Microserv
>
>   Ryan Langseth wrote: 
> I think Tranzeo H. Sectors are Pac Wireless Antennas?  We have also had
> good luck with Tranzeo Sectors,  although the towers where we have them
> deployed are 100% Tranzeo (AP radio, antenna, and CPE).
>
> Ryan
>
> On Sat, 2007-11-17 at 16:34 -0700, Travis Johnson wrote:
>   Hi,
>
> We have used a LOT of PacWireless 2.4ghz horizontal omni's and they work 
> great. I have never used any PacWireless 2.4ghz sectors, but we do have 
> some Tranzeo 2.4ghz sectors (horizontal) that work good and are
affordable.
>
> Travis
> Microserv
>
> Mike Hammett wrote:
> I'm looking (again) at putting up another tower.  The tower I have now
is 5 GHz with two sectors of PacWireless and MTI.  The MTI ones are
outperforming the PacWireless ones, but I have never really looked into it.
It could be because I bought a 5.4 GHz band antenna so I could do 5.3 or 5.7
with little loss.
>
> Anyway
>
> Looking at 2.4 GHz sectors for the new tower.  The PacWireless ones are
less than a third of the MTI.  That's a big difference.  Should I really
expect that kind of performance difference?  I would love to use all
high-end equipment, but I'm still on a shoe-string budget.
>
>
> -
> Mike Hammett
> Intelligent Computing Solutions
> http://www.ics-il.com
>
>
>
>


> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
>


>  
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>
>   
>


> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
>


>  
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
> 
>
>
>


> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
>


>  
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>
>   
>
>

--
>
>
>
>
>


>   WISPA Wants You! Join today!
>   http://signup.wispa.org/
>


>
>   WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
>   Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
>   http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless
>
>   Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
>
>
>


> WISPA Wants You! Join today!
> http://signup.wispa.org/
>


>  
> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org
>
> Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
> ht

Re: [WISPA] PacWireless Sector

[Mike Hammett]

They do have mounts for the top and bottom, but no middle.  My MTI's mount 
at the top and bottom as well.



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com


- Original Message - 
From: "Travis Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2007 9:44 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] PacWireless Sector


Sorry, I forgot when I was looking I needed a 120 degree h-pol sector. And 
I don't really like their antenna config (bottom stand-off style mounting) 
for a sector. It works great for an omni, but sectors should mount in the 
middle directly behind the antenna if possible.


Travis
Microserv

Mike Hammett wrote:

http://www.pacwireless.com/products/sector.shtml


-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com


  - Original Message - 
  From: Travis Johnson To: WISPA General List Sent: Saturday, November 
17, 2007 5:46 PM

  Subject: Re: [WISPA] PacWireless Sector


  No, PacWireless doesn't sell a h-pol 2.4ghz sector. I checked before I 
bought the Tranzeo.


  Travis
  Microserv

  Ryan Langseth wrote: I think Tranzeo H. Sectors are Pac Wireless 
Antennas?  We have also had

good luck with Tranzeo Sectors,  although the towers where we have them
deployed are 100% Tranzeo (AP radio, antenna, and CPE).

Ryan

On Sat, 2007-11-17 at 16:34 -0700, Travis Johnson wrote:
  Hi,

We have used a LOT of PacWireless 2.4ghz horizontal omni's and they work 
great. I have never used any PacWireless 2.4ghz sectors, but we do have 
some Tranzeo 2.4ghz sectors (horizontal) that work good and are 
affordable.


Travis
Microserv

Mike Hammett wrote:
I'm looking (again) at putting up another tower.  The tower I have 
now is 5 GHz with two sectors of PacWireless and MTI.  The MTI ones are 
outperforming the PacWireless ones, but I have never really looked into 
it.  It could be because I bought a 5.4 GHz band antenna so I could do 
5.3 or 5.7 with little loss.


Anyway

Looking at 2.4 GHz sectors for the new tower.  The PacWireless ones are 
less than a third of the MTI.  That's a big difference.  Should I really 
expect that kind of performance difference?  I would love to use all 
high-end equipment, but I'm still on a shoe-string budget.



-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


  

WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



--




  

  WISPA Wants You! Join today!
  http://signup.wispa.org/
  

   WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

  Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
  http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

  Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/

 WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/







WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/


WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/






WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/


WISPA Wirel

Re: [WISPA] EarthLink Says No More Money for Existing Muni Networks

[Anthony Will]

Your right but I would be willing to bet almost every wisp on here 
wouldn't turn down the opportunity to leverage the Earthlink brand and 
could likely offload some servers such as email and web hosting, offer 
the package virus scanner / firewall junk software etc. There are many 
ways a partnership like this could work to everyones benefit.  I would 
get in bed with them just for the opportunity to get at there customer 
database. 


Anthony Will
Broadband Corp.
www.broadband-mn.com

Travis Johnson wrote:
Can you imagine trying to partner with 500 WISP's around the country? 
What a nightmare. Different equipment, different troubleshooting, 
different everything. It would never work.


Travis
Microserv

Tom DeReggi wrote:

Like we didn't see it comming :-)

The key statement I saw was... "no more investment, unless a change 
in model", or something like that.
What Earthlinks should be doing is staying focused on help desk 
support, content, and value add, partnering with existing providers 
that have models that work. Meaning partner with successful WISPs, 
not try and become one.



Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


- Original Message - From: "Jack Unger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" 
Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2007 6:01 PM
Subject: [WISPA] EarthLink Says No More Money for Existing Muni Networks




http://wifinetnews.com/archives/008052.html


--
Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
FCC License # PG-12-25133
Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993
Author of the WISP Handbook - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs"
True Vendor-Neutral Wireless Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting
FCC Part 15 Certification for Manufacturers and Service Providers
Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220  www.ask-wi.com






 


WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/
 



WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/


--
Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.488 / Virus Database: 
269.15.5/1085 - Release Date: 10/22/2007 10:35 AM







 


WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/
 



WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/





 


WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/
 



WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/



--
Anthony Will
Broadband Corp.
http://broadband-mn.com




WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/


WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/