, October 22, 2007 12:56 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Look how ComCast deals with P2P
Tom DeReggi wrote:
No offense taken. Its the opinions from all, that allows us to reconsider
a better balanced perspective.
I may have been a bit over the top on my previous statements, but none
the less, I do
Wireless Broadband
- Original Message -
From: Butch Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2007 1:32 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Look how ComCast deals with P2P
On Fri, 19 Oct 2007, Tom DeReggi wrote:
Interesting arcticle
- Original Message -
From: Brian Whigham [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Saturday, October 20, 2007 9:33 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Look how ComCast deals with P2P
On Fri, 2007-10-19 at 13:01 -0500, David E. Smith wrote:
CHUCK PROFITO wrote:
http
://radius.odessaoffice.com/iptrack
laters,
marlon
- Original Message -
From: Travis Johnson
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ; WISPA General List
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 12:56 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Look how ComCast deals with P2P
I would have to agree. They did it to save
PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Look how ComCast deals with P2P
I would have to agree. They did it to save costs, which includes bandwidth,
transport, equipment upgrades, etc. If I run our network wide open (which I do
from 6:00PM to 7:00AM), we see p2p traffic using 25% of our total bandwidth
:46 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Look how ComCast deals with P2P
Marlon,
I'm glad using the metered model works for you... but not in this area,
nor ANY other area where there is cable, DSL, and 2-10 other wireless
providers that do not charge based on usage. Yes, I
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Look how ComCast deals with P2P
Travis,
Did you sit in on Image Stream's conversations about packet limiting? I
am going to have to find out a little more about that myself.
Mac
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007, Mac Dearman wrote:
Did you sit in on Image Stream's conversations about packet
limiting? I am going to have to find out a little more about that
myself.
You are a well connected guy, Maccall in your people and it
shall be done! :-)
--
Butch Evans
Network
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007, CHUCK PROFITO wrote:
Not for the General List
?? I'm confused...what is not for the General List?
--
Butch Evans
Network Engineering and Security Consulting
573-276-2879
http://www.butchevans.com/
My calendar: http://tinyurl.com/y24ad6
Training Partners:
Tom DeReggi wrote:
No offense taken. Its the opinions from all, that allows us to
reconsider a better balanced perspective.
I may have been a bit over the top on my previous statements, but
none the less, I do not agree with Comcast's position on this topic.
It doesn't sit right with me, and
. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 5:51 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Look how ComCast deals with P2P
Scottie Arnett wrote:
Forgot to mention...if BT clients would not come with deafult connections
set at 500 to 1000, I might allow
I'm not sure if we're talking about limiting the connections just for
torrents, or for everything.
If you can limit the connections just for torrents and leave everything
else wide open, that would be great, but if by limiting the connections
for everything, then that is not the solution
On Sat, 20 Oct 2007, George Rogato wrote:
I'm not sure if we're talking about limiting the connections just
for torrents, or for everything.
There are many ways to limit connections. With iptables (and
considerable time and effort), you can put together quite a complex
set of tests to
List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 2:01 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Look how ComCast deals with P2P
CHUCK PROFITO wrote:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20071019/D8SCASQ80.html
Comcast has been doing this for a few months, actually. By most accounts,
the traffic is throttled
.
Luke
- Original Message -
From: Tom DeReggi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 2:17 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Look how ComCast deals with P2P
Interesting arcticle.
My belief is that any ISP has the right to control usage
Scottie Arnett wrote:
Forgot to mention...if BT clients would not come with deafult connections
set at 500 to 1000, I might allow it to. That is where it kills our
equipment...the connections, not the bandwidth.
Concur, and THAT is why I limit p2p traffic on my network.
Frankly, I couldn't
: Friday, October 19, 2007 4:52 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Look how ComCast deals with P2P
Scottie Arnett wrote:
Forgot to mention...if BT clients would not come with deafult
connections set at 500 to 1000, I might allow it to. That is where it
kills our equipment
from a legal standpoint. Explaining it in technical terms (all these
connections kills the tower and annoys other users) is safer, and as a
bonus is completely true. It's actually more effective on many of my
customers, who suddenly realize that the folks being affected by their
selfish p2p
PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Travis Johnson
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 3:56 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Look how ComCast deals with P2P
I would have to agree. They did it to save costs, which includes bandwidth,
transport, equipment upgrades, etc. If I run our
RapidDSL Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
- Original Message -
From: David E. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 5:51 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Look how ComCast deals with P2P
Scottie Arnett wrote:
Forgot
- Fixed Wireless Broadband
- Original Message -
From: David E. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 3:43 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Look how ComCast deals with P2P
On Fri, October 19, 2007 2:24 pm, Tom DeReggi wrote:
Yeah right
Funny this came up today in the paper.
At this last weeks ISPCON, one of the hot finds us wisps were actively
looking for on the tradeshow floor was bandwidth management appliance
that we can use to control encrypted torrents and at the same time give
the user high bandwidth for the other
, 2007 8:30 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Look how ComCast deals with P2P
Funny this came up today in the paper.
At this last weeks ISPCON, one of the hot finds us wisps were actively
looking for on the tradeshow floor was bandwidth management appliance that
we can use to control encrypted torrents
]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 7:15 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Look how ComCast deals with P2P
because we control the majority market, and we won't let you play with
our
clients in a favorable manner.
My mistake, majority Market
On Fri, 19 Oct 2007, Mike Hammett wrote:
Mikrotik can control raw connections as well, but UDP is not
connection based.
Absolutely correct. However, the linux iptables connection tracking
does not care if it is UDP or TCP.
--
Butch Evans
Network Engineering and Security Consulting
Mikrotik just released a new update today with "improved warez/ares p2p
protocol matching".
Travis
Microserv
Matt wrote:
25 ?! You're lucky. If I stop my Mikrotik queues based on all-p2p
matching via firewall mangles, the network
will come to a stop because usage will go to 99%.
.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Travis Johnson
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 3:56 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Look how ComCast deals with P2P
I would have to agree. They did it to save costs, which includes
bandwidth
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 4:12 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Look how ComCast deals with P2P
Scottie Arnett wrote:
In my opinion, if they have something legit to transfer, they can
setup and use ftp. It works faster anyways IMHO.
You've obviously never been on a well
25 ?! You're lucky. If I stop my Mikrotik queues based on all-p2p
matching via firewall mangles, the network
will come to a stop because usage will go to 99%.
I limit p2p down uploads to 1kbps. Sue me.
My experience anymore is Mikrotik cannot do a very good job at
catching it anymore.
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of David E. Smith
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 4:12 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Look how ComCast deals with P2P
Scottie Arnett wrote:
In my opinion, if they have something legit to transfer, they can
setup and use ftp
).
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
- Original Message -
From: Scottie Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 3:56 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Look how ComCast deals with P2P
In my opinion
).
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
- Original Message -
From: Scottie Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Friday, October 19, 2007 3:56 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Look how ComCast deals with P2P
In my opinion
Scottie Arnett wrote:
In my opinion, if they have something legit to transfer, they can setup and
use ftp. It works faster anyways IMHO.
You've obviously never been on a well-seeded torrent. :)
Seriously, plug yourself into your NOC right after a big Linux release
(the new version of
: Friday, October 19, 2007 3:56 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Look how ComCast deals with P2P
I would have to agree. They did it to save costs, which includes
bandwidth, transport, equipment upgrades, etc. If I run our network wide
open (which I do from 6:00PM
On Fri, October 19, 2007 2:24 pm, Tom DeReggi wrote:
Yeah right... It has nothing to do with saving Interconnect dollars.
Comcast's download ratios are already way higher than upload even with
BitTorrent full force, and probably are already getting paid for the
peering relationships if
On Fri, 19 Oct 2007, Tom DeReggi wrote:
What they are doing here is sending a message that if you Buy
Comcast you get performance, if you buy from our competitors, you
Isn't that an ideal public perception? I mean, if I could get
people to understand that one reason my network is better
On Fri, 19 Oct 2007, George Rogato wrote:
A couple names that came up was Imagestream, who says they can
control the amount of connections to help control p2p. Jeff will
step in and correct me if I'm wrong.
You are correct. Mikrotik can do the same. ANY Linux based system
can limit
I would have to agree. They did it to save costs, which includes
bandwidth, transport, equipment upgrades, etc. If I run our network
wide open (which I do from 6:00PM to 7:00AM), we see p2p traffic using
25% of our total bandwidth.
Travis
Microserv
David E. Smith wrote:
On Fri, October
CHUCK PROFITO wrote:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20071019/D8SCASQ80.html
Comcast has been doing this for a few months, actually. By most
accounts, the traffic is throttled at their network edges - i.e. two
Comcast customers can trade files all they want, the throttling only
kicks in
On Fri, 19 Oct 2007, Tom DeReggi wrote:
Interesting arcticle.
Certainly it was. It was well written BS!
My belief is that any ISP has the right to control usage of their
network. But this arcticle was most interesting because it was
addressing what are the ethical ways to accomplish that.
Interesting arcticle.
My belief is that any ISP has the right to control usage of their network.
But this arcticle was most interesting because it was addressing what are
the ethical ways to accomplish that. The last few sentances summarizing of
the arcticle homing in on the issue.
Basically
41 matches
Mail list logo
