Re: [WISPA] Bandwidth Shaping (WAS Article)
It'd probably be easier to use BGP to determine their IP blocks, since they could be all over Limelight's network. - Mike Hammett Intelligent Computing Solutions http://www.ics-il.com -- From: "Travis Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 10:37 PM To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "WISPA General List" Subject: Re: [WISPA] Bandwidth Shaping (WAS Article) > I'm not sure this fixes anything either. Even if you cap people at > 1Mbps, if they are watching a movie, they are using that 1Mbps for 2 > hours constant. My cost on that 1Mbps is $40, the same price I am > selling the service to them for... yet I have all the overhead and > expenses to keep it running. > > I may have to buy a Netflix box or an Xbox-360 just to see what IP > blocks these devices are pulling from, then I will just start throttling > the entire netblock to each service... rather than trying to control > each customer. Allocate 5Mbps to all of Netflix's IP's on my network... > then if people want to get better streaming service, they can pay me to > un-throttle their connection. ;) > > Travis > Microserv > > Brian Webster wrote: >> I like the idea Chuck and others have used in regards to shaping. Give >> them >> a wide open connection for a short burst of time and then throttle them >> back >> to what they are paying for (say a minute or so). This will give them >> awesome performance for things like web pages and speed tests and most >> email, yet when they decide to be hogs using technology that is a >> constant >> demand on the connection, it won't cripple your network. This in >> conjunction >> with bandwidth caps should keep you solvent until the backhaul >> infrastructure in the US gets more robust, more accessible, and cheaper. >> Until then you just need to tell the clients the basic economic truth of >> how >> much constant internet really costs. Comcast and others are starting to >> bit >> cap their services so they must be seeing the same things you are. Show >> the >> customers your bill for your backhaul and ask them if they would like to >> pay >> that each month. Even those on FIOS and other Fiber technologies see >> those >> realities once their internet destination goes outside the private fiber >> circuits. FIOS may be fast but it sure exposes the sites and locations >> that >> don't have huge pipes serving them. >> >> >> >> Thank You, >> Brian Webster >> -Original Message- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Behalf Of Travis Johnson >> Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 11:15 PM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Bandwidth Shaping (WAS Article) >> >> >> Rick, >> >> Just for what it's worth, we are seeing an increase in overall usage as >> well. We have been in the ISP business since 1994. It was only about a >> year >> ago that we went over 100Mbps of incoming traffic during peak time... and >> just today, we peaked at 176Mbps. So in a year's time we increased by 75% >> the amount of bandwidth usage by our customers. Of course we added new >> customers, etc. but that was at the same rate we have been adding >> customers >> for 5+ years. >> >> Solution? There isn't a good one. I remember people saying things like >> "I >> just leave my customers wide open because then they will use what they >> need >> and then get off, so they are online less" and stuff like that. Those >> days >> are long gone. If you give people a 5Mbps connection, they will use >> 5Mbps. >> And now, rather than just doing what they were doing, they will just >> start >> more downloads or movies or TV because they can. >> >> Travis >> Microserv >> >> RickG wrote: >> I have WRAP boards on all towers that provide limited bandwidth >> shaping. I just recently installed a Mikrotik firewall (and love it). >> It's shaping and rules cover all customers. As far as bandwidth hits, >> the previous owner oversold and overmarketed the amount of bandwidth >> in order to gain subscribers (i.e. premium 3Mbps accounts when he only >> had 3Mbps). Since bandwidth is very expensive and difficult to get >> here, this has led to a sluggish network that I am having difficulty >> resolving. Therefore, the customers have been complaining. The good >> news is that after getting very creative, I have overturned some new >&g
Re: [WISPA] Bandwidth Shaping (WAS Article)
Josh, I want to thank you for your posts on this thread. They have been very helpful and enlightening. Do you build the queues at the tower router or at the edge router. I have the Idea that it would be great to build the inbound/download queues at the edge and outbound/upload queue at the tower to help flow across my internal net. Not sure how to make that happen yet or easily manage it but that would be ideal. Any thoughts or comments? Steve Barnes RCWiFi Wireless Internet Service -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Josh Luthman Forgot to mention this - this is crucial. In Wireless ISP LLC's case, they sell 2 megs, 5 megs and 10 megs. There is no point allowing a customer to burst to >2 megs when they pay for 2 megs. This gives them no reason to upgrade to the 5 or 10 package when they're package is satisfactory. My suggestion is to make six simple queues (MikroTik speak, but any packet shaper should be able to accomplish this). Three residential packages for the three sizes of bandwidths and then three more for businesses. Obviously the businesses queues get priority of residential ones so during high usage times (irrelevant of the time of day) the businesses get more reliable service. If a customer complains about the speed, then simply state (the obvious fact that) their bandwidth package obviously doesn't fit their needs and they need to upgrade. If you can do this upgrade while they're on the phone you know you're doing things right! If you want to bend over backwards for the customer you can QoS their traffic (HTTP, DNS first; SMTP, POP, IMAP second, Games third, and matched P2P last). I advise this as a small monthly fee (even if it's $4.95, especially if it not a very turn-key process). Note that I am a technician by heart so it is almost painful to write this. I love bandwidth, but I also like food. I need to keep my doors open to pay for food! Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 Those who don't understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly. --- Henry Spencer On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 11:27 PM, Brian Webster <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > I like the idea Chuck and others have used in regards to shaping. Give them > a wide open connection for a short burst of time and then throttle them > back > to what they are paying for (say a minute or so). This will give them > awesome performance for things like web pages and speed tests and most > email, yet when they decide to be hogs using technology that is a constant > demand on the connection, it won't cripple your network. This in > conjunction > with bandwidth caps should keep you solvent until the backhaul > infrastructure in the US gets more robust, more accessible, and cheaper. > Until then you just need to tell the clients the basic economic truth of > how > much constant internet really costs. Comcast and others are starting to bit > cap their services so they must be seeing the same things you are. Show the > customers your bill for your backhaul and ask them if they would like to > pay > that each month. Even those on FIOS and other Fiber technologies see those > realities once their internet destination goes outside the private fiber > circuits. FIOS may be fast but it sure exposes the sites and locations that > don't have huge pipes serving them. > > > > Thank You, > Brian Webster > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Behalf Of Travis Johnson > Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 11:15 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Bandwidth Shaping (WAS Article) > > > Rick, > > Just for what it's worth, we are seeing an increase in overall usage as > well. We have been in the ISP business since 1994. It was only about a year > ago that we went over 100Mbps of incoming traffic during peak time... and > just today, we peaked at 176Mbps. So in a year's time we increased by 75% > the amount of bandwidth usage by our customers. Of course we added new > customers, etc. but that was at the same rate we have been adding customers > for 5+ years. > > Solution? There isn't a good one. I remember people saying things like "I > just leave my customers wide open because then they will use what they need > and then get off, so they are online less" and stuff like that. Those days > are long gone. If you give people a 5Mbps connection, they will use 5Mbps. > And now, rather than just doing what they were doing, they will just start > more downloads or movies or TV because they can. > > Travis > Microserv > > RickG wrote: > I have WRAP boards on all towers that provide limited bandwidth > shaping. I just
Re: [WISPA] Bandwidth Shaping (WAS Article)
Doing something like that myself. We deliver bandwidth to a apartment complex with students mainly. We charge them good because I know they will use it all. Think my cost today is not quit 200 per mbit so they pay 250 at least per mbit. Then I have another customer that I know will today not use all their bandwidth all the time but needs/wants a symmetric link of 1 to 1.5Mbit they pay about half of what that bandwidth costs (threw in the deal that we can use their was bay to wash our bucket van ;) for free). So today either you need to look at bit caps if you sell very much to cheap or simply charge to cover your costs so if they want to use a constant 5Mbit pipe they will just have to pay the cost and if they don't like it you don't need that particular user as a customer because you can not afford them. We also have one guy that started out as residential customer a big pain in the ass turns out he is making money on doing some for of streaming radio station so when he complained on speed and short down times etc and that it was loosing him money we "upgraded" him to a business acct and he now pay more for his internet feed then what the bandwidth he uses cost me. So we also can make money on him when he makes money. /Eje Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile -Original Message- From: "Josh Luthman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 23:56:12 To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Bandwidth Shaping (WAS Article) I strongly believe that the customer bandwidth packages should be priced based on your (or that area's cost). I think a lot of the discussion has lost that mind set. Much of the debate here is thinking about 10 megs country wide broadband statement, 384k here or 2meg there. In my area a 2 meg package is easily sellable and profitable. It compares with cable/DSL is the populated areas we don't cover to get the enticement of those customers that are in our area. In Nowhere, Idaho (pardon the lack of imaginative creativity) the options are could be 1 meg DSL, dialup and the local WISP packages of 512k and 1meg. This particular WISP will not be selling 5 or 10 meg connections in the next couple of years or likely even ever. Not every town gets a 100 story skyscraper with a floor for a data center and oodles of fiber passsing through. How can one offer the same service when the technological progression of this example and Nowhere are a decade apart? In cable's case of DOCSIS 3 and HD channels - how many homes are capable of getting that 50 meg connection Comcast boasts? Or the dozens of HD channels? I'm positive those customers in the most rural areas with a country block between houses will receive these new features much later then that of people living in a city with thousands of people in a single block. Every one is in business to do business and make money. It may be one's goal to feed their family or raise enough money to buy their dream house and car or even just to be able to grow the business, sell it, and start the process over. All we can do is our learn what we can and improve our practices with that knowledge. The cable company is not going to upgrade the 10 customers in Nowhere begore the thousand in BigOCity - it only make sense to secure the revenue from those thousand with other options then those 10 that have not other options. A WISP can (should) not sell 3 megs to each customer when the bottleneck is 3 megs. QoS can do great things but it simply can not turn 3 megs into customers*3megs. I am done ranting, thank you for reading! On 12/4/08, RickG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have WRAP boards on all towers that provide limited bandwidth > shaping. I just recently installed a Mikrotik firewall (and love it). > It's shaping and rules cover all customers. As far as bandwidth hits, > the previous owner oversold and overmarketed the amount of bandwidth > in order to gain subscribers (i.e. premium 3Mbps accounts when he only > had 3Mbps). Since bandwidth is very expensive and difficult to get > here, this has led to a sluggish network that I am having difficulty > resolving. Therefore, the customers have been complaining. The good > news is that after getting very creative, I have overturned some new > options but the cost is still a strain on the budget. My biggest > frustration is the never ending question: What will it take? It > appears that more and more people want constant multi-megabit speeds > on demand for less than $50/month. The oversubscription rate on a > $600/month T1 no longer provides for a valid business model. Heck, my > $500/month 5Mbps connection form Time Warner became quickly saturated > once I put it in. I expect my new 11Mbps connection for $600 will do > the same. The interesting part is that I continue to get pressure for > faster speed plans therefore pressure to make the sa
Re: [WISPA] Bandwidth Shaping (WAS Article)
I'm not so sure I would go hunting down the Netflix users and tacking on that fee, but it is an option... Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 Those who don't understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly. --- Henry Spencer On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 1:33 AM, Dennis Burgess - LinkTechs < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 208.111.168.0/24 belongs to limelight. So far this is where all of the > data traces go back to .. FYI ;) > > One thing, this may start something, but, why not send customers a note > with their next bill, netflix subscribers, due to the high usage netflix > puts on the entire network, we will start charging for netflix usage. > This will be 5.99 extra :) or maybe more. Easy enough to do. > > -- > * Dennis Burgess, CCNA, A+, Mikrotik Certified Trainer > Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services* > 314-735-0270 > http://www.linktechs.net <http://www.linktechs.net/> > > */ Link Technologies, Inc is offering LIVE Mikrotik On-Line Training > <http://www.linktechs.net/onlinetraining.asp>/* > > > > Travis Johnson wrote: > > I'm not sure this fixes anything either. Even if you cap people at > > 1Mbps, if they are watching a movie, they are using that 1Mbps for 2 > > hours constant. My cost on that 1Mbps is $40, the same price I am > > selling the service to them for... yet I have all the overhead and > > expenses to keep it running. > > > > I may have to buy a Netflix box or an Xbox-360 just to see what IP > > blocks these devices are pulling from, then I will just start throttling > > the entire netblock to each service... rather than trying to control > > each customer. Allocate 5Mbps to all of Netflix's IP's on my network... > > then if people want to get better streaming service, they can pay me to > > un-throttle their connection. ;) > > > > Travis > > Microserv > > > > Brian Webster wrote: > > > >> I like the idea Chuck and others have used in regards to shaping. Give > them > >> a wide open connection for a short burst of time and then throttle them > back > >> to what they are paying for (say a minute or so). This will give them > >> awesome performance for things like web pages and speed tests and most > >> email, yet when they decide to be hogs using technology that is a > constant > >> demand on the connection, it won't cripple your network. This in > conjunction > >> with bandwidth caps should keep you solvent until the backhaul > >> infrastructure in the US gets more robust, more accessible, and cheaper. > >> Until then you just need to tell the clients the basic economic truth of > how > >> much constant internet really costs. Comcast and others are starting to > bit > >> cap their services so they must be seeing the same things you are. Show > the > >> customers your bill for your backhaul and ask them if they would like to > pay > >> that each month. Even those on FIOS and other Fiber technologies see > those > >> realities once their internet destination goes outside the private fiber > >> circuits. FIOS may be fast but it sure exposes the sites and locations > that > >> don't have huge pipes serving them. > >> > >> > >> > >> Thank You, > >> Brian Webster > >> -Original Message- > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > ]On > >> Behalf Of Travis Johnson > >> Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 11:15 PM > >> To: WISPA General List > >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Bandwidth Shaping (WAS Article) > >> > >> > >> Rick, > >> > >> Just for what it's worth, we are seeing an increase in overall usage > as > >> well. We have been in the ISP business since 1994. It was only about a > year > >> ago that we went over 100Mbps of incoming traffic during peak time... > and > >> just today, we peaked at 176Mbps. So in a year's time we increased by > 75% > >> the amount of bandwidth usage by our customers. Of course we added new > >> customers, etc. but that was at the same rate we have been adding > customers > >> for 5+ years. > >> > >> Solution? There isn't a good one. I remember people saying things like > "I > >> just leave my customers wide open because then they will use what they > need > >> and then get off, so they are online less" and stuff like that. Those > days > >>
Re: [WISPA] Bandwidth Shaping (WAS Article)
208.111.168.0/24 belongs to limelight. So far this is where all of the data traces go back to .. FYI ;) One thing, this may start something, but, why not send customers a note with their next bill, netflix subscribers, due to the high usage netflix puts on the entire network, we will start charging for netflix usage. This will be 5.99 extra :) or maybe more. Easy enough to do. -- * Dennis Burgess, CCNA, A+, Mikrotik Certified Trainer Link Technologies, Inc -- Mikrotik & WISP Support Services* 314-735-0270 http://www.linktechs.net <http://www.linktechs.net/> */ Link Technologies, Inc is offering LIVE Mikrotik On-Line Training <http://www.linktechs.net/onlinetraining.asp>/* Travis Johnson wrote: > I'm not sure this fixes anything either. Even if you cap people at > 1Mbps, if they are watching a movie, they are using that 1Mbps for 2 > hours constant. My cost on that 1Mbps is $40, the same price I am > selling the service to them for... yet I have all the overhead and > expenses to keep it running. > > I may have to buy a Netflix box or an Xbox-360 just to see what IP > blocks these devices are pulling from, then I will just start throttling > the entire netblock to each service... rather than trying to control > each customer. Allocate 5Mbps to all of Netflix's IP's on my network... > then if people want to get better streaming service, they can pay me to > un-throttle their connection. ;) > > Travis > Microserv > > Brian Webster wrote: > >> I like the idea Chuck and others have used in regards to shaping. Give them >> a wide open connection for a short burst of time and then throttle them back >> to what they are paying for (say a minute or so). This will give them >> awesome performance for things like web pages and speed tests and most >> email, yet when they decide to be hogs using technology that is a constant >> demand on the connection, it won't cripple your network. This in conjunction >> with bandwidth caps should keep you solvent until the backhaul >> infrastructure in the US gets more robust, more accessible, and cheaper. >> Until then you just need to tell the clients the basic economic truth of how >> much constant internet really costs. Comcast and others are starting to bit >> cap their services so they must be seeing the same things you are. Show the >> customers your bill for your backhaul and ask them if they would like to pay >> that each month. Even those on FIOS and other Fiber technologies see those >> realities once their internet destination goes outside the private fiber >> circuits. FIOS may be fast but it sure exposes the sites and locations that >> don't have huge pipes serving them. >> >> >> >> Thank You, >> Brian Webster >> -----Original Message- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Behalf Of Travis Johnson >> Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 11:15 PM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Bandwidth Shaping (WAS Article) >> >> >> Rick, >> >> Just for what it's worth, we are seeing an increase in overall usage as >> well. We have been in the ISP business since 1994. It was only about a year >> ago that we went over 100Mbps of incoming traffic during peak time... and >> just today, we peaked at 176Mbps. So in a year's time we increased by 75% >> the amount of bandwidth usage by our customers. Of course we added new >> customers, etc. but that was at the same rate we have been adding customers >> for 5+ years. >> >> Solution? There isn't a good one. I remember people saying things like "I >> just leave my customers wide open because then they will use what they need >> and then get off, so they are online less" and stuff like that. Those days >> are long gone. If you give people a 5Mbps connection, they will use 5Mbps. >> And now, rather than just doing what they were doing, they will just start >> more downloads or movies or TV because they can. >> >> Travis >> Microserv >> >> RickG wrote: >> I have WRAP boards on all towers that provide limited bandwidth >> shaping. I just recently installed a Mikrotik firewall (and love it). >> It's shaping and rules cover all customers. As far as bandwidth hits, >> the previous owner oversold and overmarketed the amount of bandwidth >> in order to gain subscribers (i.e. premium 3Mbps accounts when he only >> had 3Mbps). Since bandwidth is very expensive and difficult to get >> here, this has led to a sluggish network that I am having difficulty >> resolving. Ther
Re: [WISPA] Bandwidth Shaping (WAS Article)
Forgot to mention this - this is crucial. In Wireless ISP LLC's case, they sell 2 megs, 5 megs and 10 megs. There is no point allowing a customer to burst to >2 megs when they pay for 2 megs. This gives them no reason to upgrade to the 5 or 10 package when they're package is satisfactory. My suggestion is to make six simple queues (MikroTik speak, but any packet shaper should be able to accomplish this). Three residential packages for the three sizes of bandwidths and then three more for businesses. Obviously the businesses queues get priority of residential ones so during high usage times (irrelevant of the time of day) the businesses get more reliable service. If a customer complains about the speed, then simply state (the obvious fact that) their bandwidth package obviously doesn't fit their needs and they need to upgrade. If you can do this upgrade while they're on the phone you know you're doing things right! If you want to bend over backwards for the customer you can QoS their traffic (HTTP, DNS first; SMTP, POP, IMAP second, Games third, and matched P2P last). I advise this as a small monthly fee (even if it's $4.95, especially if it not a very turn-key process). Note that I am a technician by heart so it is almost painful to write this. I love bandwidth, but I also like food. I need to keep my doors open to pay for food! Josh Luthman Office: 937-552-2340 Direct: 937-552-2343 1100 Wayne St Suite 1337 Troy, OH 45373 Those who don't understand UNIX are condemned to reinvent it, poorly. --- Henry Spencer On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 11:27 PM, Brian Webster <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > wrote: > I like the idea Chuck and others have used in regards to shaping. Give them > a wide open connection for a short burst of time and then throttle them > back > to what they are paying for (say a minute or so). This will give them > awesome performance for things like web pages and speed tests and most > email, yet when they decide to be hogs using technology that is a constant > demand on the connection, it won't cripple your network. This in > conjunction > with bandwidth caps should keep you solvent until the backhaul > infrastructure in the US gets more robust, more accessible, and cheaper. > Until then you just need to tell the clients the basic economic truth of > how > much constant internet really costs. Comcast and others are starting to bit > cap their services so they must be seeing the same things you are. Show the > customers your bill for your backhaul and ask them if they would like to > pay > that each month. Even those on FIOS and other Fiber technologies see those > realities once their internet destination goes outside the private fiber > circuits. FIOS may be fast but it sure exposes the sites and locations that > don't have huge pipes serving them. > > > > Thank You, > Brian Webster > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Behalf Of Travis Johnson > Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 11:15 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Bandwidth Shaping (WAS Article) > > > Rick, > > Just for what it's worth, we are seeing an increase in overall usage as > well. We have been in the ISP business since 1994. It was only about a year > ago that we went over 100Mbps of incoming traffic during peak time... and > just today, we peaked at 176Mbps. So in a year's time we increased by 75% > the amount of bandwidth usage by our customers. Of course we added new > customers, etc. but that was at the same rate we have been adding customers > for 5+ years. > > Solution? There isn't a good one. I remember people saying things like "I > just leave my customers wide open because then they will use what they need > and then get off, so they are online less" and stuff like that. Those days > are long gone. If you give people a 5Mbps connection, they will use 5Mbps. > And now, rather than just doing what they were doing, they will just start > more downloads or movies or TV because they can. > > Travis > Microserv > > RickG wrote: > I have WRAP boards on all towers that provide limited bandwidth > shaping. I just recently installed a Mikrotik firewall (and love it). > It's shaping and rules cover all customers. As far as bandwidth hits, > the previous owner oversold and overmarketed the amount of bandwidth > in order to gain subscribers (i.e. premium 3Mbps accounts when he only > had 3Mbps). Since bandwidth is very expensive and difficult to get > here, this has led to a sluggish network that I am having difficulty > resolving. Therefore, the customers have been complaining. The good > news is that after getting very creative, I have overturned some new > options but the cos
Re: [WISPA] Bandwidth Shaping (WAS Article)
I agree, you just need to be as good as or better than the competition. And in many places the competition is still dialup. - Original Message - From: "Josh Luthman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "WISPA General List" Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 9:56 PM Subject: Re: [WISPA] Bandwidth Shaping (WAS Article) >I strongly believe that the customer bandwidth packages should be > priced based on your (or that area's cost). I think a lot of the > discussion has lost that mind set. > > Much of the debate here is thinking about 10 megs country wide > broadband statement, 384k here or 2meg there. In my area a 2 meg > package is easily sellable and profitable. It compares with cable/DSL > is the populated areas we don't cover to get the enticement of those > customers that are in our area. In Nowhere, Idaho (pardon the lack of > imaginative creativity) the options are could be 1 meg DSL, dialup and > the local WISP packages of 512k and 1meg. This particular WISP will > not be selling 5 or 10 meg connections in the next couple of years or > likely even ever. > > Not every town gets a 100 story skyscraper with a floor for a data > center and oodles of fiber passsing through. How can one offer the > same service when the technological progression of this example and > Nowhere are a decade apart? > > In cable's case of DOCSIS 3 and HD channels - how many homes are > capable of getting that 50 meg connection Comcast boasts? Or the > dozens of HD channels? I'm positive those customers in the most rural > areas with a country block between houses will receive these new > features much later then that of people living in a city with > thousands of people in a single block. Every one is in business to do > business and make money. It may be one's goal to feed their family or > raise enough money to buy their dream house and car or even just to be > able to grow the business, sell it, and start the process over. > > All we can do is our learn what we can and improve our practices with > that knowledge. The cable company is not going to upgrade the 10 > customers in Nowhere begore the thousand in BigOCity - it only make > sense to secure the revenue from those thousand with other options > then those 10 that have not other options. A WISP can (should) not > sell 3 megs to each customer when the bottleneck is 3 megs. QoS can > do great things but it simply can not turn 3 megs into > customers*3megs. > > I am done ranting, thank you for reading! > > On 12/4/08, RickG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I have WRAP boards on all towers that provide limited bandwidth >> shaping. I just recently installed a Mikrotik firewall (and love it). >> It's shaping and rules cover all customers. As far as bandwidth hits, >> the previous owner oversold and overmarketed the amount of bandwidth >> in order to gain subscribers (i.e. premium 3Mbps accounts when he only >> had 3Mbps). Since bandwidth is very expensive and difficult to get >> here, this has led to a sluggish network that I am having difficulty >> resolving. Therefore, the customers have been complaining. The good >> news is that after getting very creative, I have overturned some new >> options but the cost is still a strain on the budget. My biggest >> frustration is the never ending question: What will it take? It >> appears that more and more people want constant multi-megabit speeds >> on demand for less than $50/month. The oversubscription rate on a >> $600/month T1 no longer provides for a valid business model. Heck, my >> $500/month 5Mbps connection form Time Warner became quickly saturated >> once I put it in. I expect my new 11Mbps connection for $600 will do >> the same. The interesting part is that I continue to get pressure for >> faster speed plans therefore pressure to make the same mistake my >> predecessor made - offer plans with speeds that max out my capacity. >> -RickG >> >> On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 12:35 PM, Steve Barnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Rick, (everyone) >>> >>> So from that statement it appears that you are not using any bandwidth >>> limiting ore shaping at your AP or NOC. >>> Question 1. Is that for all Client levels or just your premium service. >>> Question 2. If you don't manage limits, was that always how you've >>> always done it? If not what made you decide to do it this way and what >>> kind of upstream hit did you take. >>> >>> I am considering giving more speed but I am concerned about the >>> additional cost to me for abusers. >>> >>> Steve Barnes >>> RCWiFi Wireles
Re: [WISPA] Bandwidth Shaping (WAS Article)
I strongly believe that the customer bandwidth packages should be priced based on your (or that area's cost). I think a lot of the discussion has lost that mind set. Much of the debate here is thinking about 10 megs country wide broadband statement, 384k here or 2meg there. In my area a 2 meg package is easily sellable and profitable. It compares with cable/DSL is the populated areas we don't cover to get the enticement of those customers that are in our area. In Nowhere, Idaho (pardon the lack of imaginative creativity) the options are could be 1 meg DSL, dialup and the local WISP packages of 512k and 1meg. This particular WISP will not be selling 5 or 10 meg connections in the next couple of years or likely even ever. Not every town gets a 100 story skyscraper with a floor for a data center and oodles of fiber passsing through. How can one offer the same service when the technological progression of this example and Nowhere are a decade apart? In cable's case of DOCSIS 3 and HD channels - how many homes are capable of getting that 50 meg connection Comcast boasts? Or the dozens of HD channels? I'm positive those customers in the most rural areas with a country block between houses will receive these new features much later then that of people living in a city with thousands of people in a single block. Every one is in business to do business and make money. It may be one's goal to feed their family or raise enough money to buy their dream house and car or even just to be able to grow the business, sell it, and start the process over. All we can do is our learn what we can and improve our practices with that knowledge. The cable company is not going to upgrade the 10 customers in Nowhere begore the thousand in BigOCity - it only make sense to secure the revenue from those thousand with other options then those 10 that have not other options. A WISP can (should) not sell 3 megs to each customer when the bottleneck is 3 megs. QoS can do great things but it simply can not turn 3 megs into customers*3megs. I am done ranting, thank you for reading! On 12/4/08, RickG <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have WRAP boards on all towers that provide limited bandwidth > shaping. I just recently installed a Mikrotik firewall (and love it). > It's shaping and rules cover all customers. As far as bandwidth hits, > the previous owner oversold and overmarketed the amount of bandwidth > in order to gain subscribers (i.e. premium 3Mbps accounts when he only > had 3Mbps). Since bandwidth is very expensive and difficult to get > here, this has led to a sluggish network that I am having difficulty > resolving. Therefore, the customers have been complaining. The good > news is that after getting very creative, I have overturned some new > options but the cost is still a strain on the budget. My biggest > frustration is the never ending question: What will it take? It > appears that more and more people want constant multi-megabit speeds > on demand for less than $50/month. The oversubscription rate on a > $600/month T1 no longer provides for a valid business model. Heck, my > $500/month 5Mbps connection form Time Warner became quickly saturated > once I put it in. I expect my new 11Mbps connection for $600 will do > the same. The interesting part is that I continue to get pressure for > faster speed plans therefore pressure to make the same mistake my > predecessor made - offer plans with speeds that max out my capacity. > -RickG > > On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 12:35 PM, Steve Barnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Rick, (everyone) >> >> So from that statement it appears that you are not using any bandwidth >> limiting ore shaping at your AP or NOC. >> Question 1. Is that for all Client levels or just your premium service. >> Question 2. If you don't manage limits, was that always how you've >> always done it? If not what made you decide to do it this way and what >> kind of upstream hit did you take. >> >> I am considering giving more speed but I am concerned about the >> additional cost to me for abusers. >> >> Steve Barnes >> RCWiFi Wireless Internet Service >> >> -Original Message- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On >> Behalf Of RickG >> Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 11:04 AM >> To: WISPA General List >> Subject: Re: [WISPA] Article >> >> Every SHOULD know that most connections are "shared bandwidth". The >> keyword is SHOULD. But, peole only hear what they want to and everyone >> I talk to that isnt a techie thinks they get the speed they bought for >> $50 or less all the time! The marketing gurus have screwed up again >> just like the "unlimited use" policy fiasco. So, I always try to >> educate my users but they percieve this as my issue and that my >> service is inferiro with cable or dsl. Of course, thats what feeds the >> marketing hype with the speed in the first place. So, what to do? >> -RickG >> >> On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 1:41 AM, Jack Unger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> De
Re: [WISPA] Bandwidth Shaping (WAS Article)
That is a reasonable thing to do. As soon as people start to use video streaming as a mass adoption, not just early adopters, the streaming movie services will turn to crap, and network operators will do just what you are proposing. Not because they want to be controlling content, but it can not be supported economically given today's backhauls. You won't be the only one doing the capping. I don't see this as an issue of net neutrality, but a problem of infrastructure. I think NetFlix and Blockbuster are going to be in for a reality shock when they realize all people with broadband don't really have an all you can eat, as much as you want, for as long as you want, connection. Right now with backhaul capacity being what it is, video is best left to networks that were built for it. Fiber, coax, over the air broadcasts, and satellite. Not a data network that never promised full time constant capacity. The content providers may not like that statement and may cry foul, but it's the current state of the infrastructure, not protective business practices. Thank You, Brian Webster -Original Message- From: Travis Johnson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 11:37 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Bandwidth Shaping (WAS Article) I'm not sure this fixes anything either. Even if you cap people at 1Mbps, if they are watching a movie, they are using that 1Mbps for 2 hours constant. My cost on that 1Mbps is $40, the same price I am selling the service to them for... yet I have all the overhead and expenses to keep it running. I may have to buy a Netflix box or an Xbox-360 just to see what IP blocks these devices are pulling from, then I will just start throttling the entire netblock to each service... rather than trying to control each customer. Allocate 5Mbps to all of Netflix's IP's on my network... then if people want to get better streaming service, they can pay me to un-throttle their connection. ;) Travis Microserv Brian Webster wrote: > I like the idea Chuck and others have used in regards to shaping. Give them > a wide open connection for a short burst of time and then throttle them back > to what they are paying for (say a minute or so). This will give them > awesome performance for things like web pages and speed tests and most > email, yet when they decide to be hogs using technology that is a constant > demand on the connection, it won't cripple your network. This in conjunction > with bandwidth caps should keep you solvent until the backhaul > infrastructure in the US gets more robust, more accessible, and cheaper. > Until then you just need to tell the clients the basic economic truth of how > much constant internet really costs. Comcast and others are starting to bit > cap their services so they must be seeing the same things you are. Show the > customers your bill for your backhaul and ask them if they would like to pay > that each month. Even those on FIOS and other Fiber technologies see those > realities once their internet destination goes outside the private fiber > circuits. FIOS may be fast but it sure exposes the sites and locations that > don't have huge pipes serving them. > > > > Thank You, > Brian Webster > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Behalf Of Travis Johnson > Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 11:15 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Bandwidth Shaping (WAS Article) > > > Rick, > > Just for what it's worth, we are seeing an increase in overall usage as > well. We have been in the ISP business since 1994. It was only about a year > ago that we went over 100Mbps of incoming traffic during peak time... and > just today, we peaked at 176Mbps. So in a year's time we increased by 75% > the amount of bandwidth usage by our customers. Of course we added new > customers, etc. but that was at the same rate we have been adding customers > for 5+ years. > > Solution? There isn't a good one. I remember people saying things like "I > just leave my customers wide open because then they will use what they need > and then get off, so they are online less" and stuff like that. Those days > are long gone. If you give people a 5Mbps connection, they will use 5Mbps. > And now, rather than just doing what they were doing, they will just start > more downloads or movies or TV because they can. > > Travis > Microserv > > RickG wrote: > I have WRAP boards on all towers that provide limited bandwidth > shaping. I just recently installed a Mikrotik firewall (and love it). > It's shaping and rules cover all customers. As far as bandwidth hits, > the previous owner oversold and overmarketed the amount of bandwidt
Re: [WISPA] Bandwidth Shaping (WAS Article)
I'm not sure this fixes anything either. Even if you cap people at 1Mbps, if they are watching a movie, they are using that 1Mbps for 2 hours constant. My cost on that 1Mbps is $40, the same price I am selling the service to them for... yet I have all the overhead and expenses to keep it running. I may have to buy a Netflix box or an Xbox-360 just to see what IP blocks these devices are pulling from, then I will just start throttling the entire netblock to each service... rather than trying to control each customer. Allocate 5Mbps to all of Netflix's IP's on my network... then if people want to get better streaming service, they can pay me to un-throttle their connection. ;) Travis Microserv Brian Webster wrote: > I like the idea Chuck and others have used in regards to shaping. Give them > a wide open connection for a short burst of time and then throttle them back > to what they are paying for (say a minute or so). This will give them > awesome performance for things like web pages and speed tests and most > email, yet when they decide to be hogs using technology that is a constant > demand on the connection, it won't cripple your network. This in conjunction > with bandwidth caps should keep you solvent until the backhaul > infrastructure in the US gets more robust, more accessible, and cheaper. > Until then you just need to tell the clients the basic economic truth of how > much constant internet really costs. Comcast and others are starting to bit > cap their services so they must be seeing the same things you are. Show the > customers your bill for your backhaul and ask them if they would like to pay > that each month. Even those on FIOS and other Fiber technologies see those > realities once their internet destination goes outside the private fiber > circuits. FIOS may be fast but it sure exposes the sites and locations that > don't have huge pipes serving them. > > > > Thank You, > Brian Webster > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Behalf Of Travis Johnson > Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 11:15 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Bandwidth Shaping (WAS Article) > > > Rick, > > Just for what it's worth, we are seeing an increase in overall usage as > well. We have been in the ISP business since 1994. It was only about a year > ago that we went over 100Mbps of incoming traffic during peak time... and > just today, we peaked at 176Mbps. So in a year's time we increased by 75% > the amount of bandwidth usage by our customers. Of course we added new > customers, etc. but that was at the same rate we have been adding customers > for 5+ years. > > Solution? There isn't a good one. I remember people saying things like "I > just leave my customers wide open because then they will use what they need > and then get off, so they are online less" and stuff like that. Those days > are long gone. If you give people a 5Mbps connection, they will use 5Mbps. > And now, rather than just doing what they were doing, they will just start > more downloads or movies or TV because they can. > > Travis > Microserv > > RickG wrote: > I have WRAP boards on all towers that provide limited bandwidth > shaping. I just recently installed a Mikrotik firewall (and love it). > It's shaping and rules cover all customers. As far as bandwidth hits, > the previous owner oversold and overmarketed the amount of bandwidth > in order to gain subscribers (i.e. premium 3Mbps accounts when he only > had 3Mbps). Since bandwidth is very expensive and difficult to get > here, this has led to a sluggish network that I am having difficulty > resolving. Therefore, the customers have been complaining. The good > news is that after getting very creative, I have overturned some new > options but the cost is still a strain on the budget. My biggest > frustration is the never ending question: What will it take? It > appears that more and more people want constant multi-megabit speeds > on demand for less than $50/month. The oversubscription rate on a > $600/month T1 no longer provides for a valid business model. Heck, my > $500/month 5Mbps connection form Time Warner became quickly saturated > once I put it in. I expect my new 11Mbps connection for $600 will do > the same. The interesting part is that I continue to get pressure for > faster speed plans therefore pressure to make the same mistake my > predecessor made - offer plans with speeds that max out my capacity. > -RickG > > On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 12:35 PM, Steve Barnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Rick, (everyone) > > So from that statement it appears that you are not using any bandwidth > limiting ore shaping at
Re: [WISPA] Bandwidth Shaping (WAS Article)
I like the idea Chuck and others have used in regards to shaping. Give them a wide open connection for a short burst of time and then throttle them back to what they are paying for (say a minute or so). This will give them awesome performance for things like web pages and speed tests and most email, yet when they decide to be hogs using technology that is a constant demand on the connection, it won't cripple your network. This in conjunction with bandwidth caps should keep you solvent until the backhaul infrastructure in the US gets more robust, more accessible, and cheaper. Until then you just need to tell the clients the basic economic truth of how much constant internet really costs. Comcast and others are starting to bit cap their services so they must be seeing the same things you are. Show the customers your bill for your backhaul and ask them if they would like to pay that each month. Even those on FIOS and other Fiber technologies see those realities once their internet destination goes outside the private fiber circuits. FIOS may be fast but it sure exposes the sites and locations that don't have huge pipes serving them. Thank You, Brian Webster -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Travis Johnson Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 11:15 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Bandwidth Shaping (WAS Article) Rick, Just for what it's worth, we are seeing an increase in overall usage as well. We have been in the ISP business since 1994. It was only about a year ago that we went over 100Mbps of incoming traffic during peak time... and just today, we peaked at 176Mbps. So in a year's time we increased by 75% the amount of bandwidth usage by our customers. Of course we added new customers, etc. but that was at the same rate we have been adding customers for 5+ years. Solution? There isn't a good one. I remember people saying things like "I just leave my customers wide open because then they will use what they need and then get off, so they are online less" and stuff like that. Those days are long gone. If you give people a 5Mbps connection, they will use 5Mbps. And now, rather than just doing what they were doing, they will just start more downloads or movies or TV because they can. Travis Microserv RickG wrote: I have WRAP boards on all towers that provide limited bandwidth shaping. I just recently installed a Mikrotik firewall (and love it). It's shaping and rules cover all customers. As far as bandwidth hits, the previous owner oversold and overmarketed the amount of bandwidth in order to gain subscribers (i.e. premium 3Mbps accounts when he only had 3Mbps). Since bandwidth is very expensive and difficult to get here, this has led to a sluggish network that I am having difficulty resolving. Therefore, the customers have been complaining. The good news is that after getting very creative, I have overturned some new options but the cost is still a strain on the budget. My biggest frustration is the never ending question: What will it take? It appears that more and more people want constant multi-megabit speeds on demand for less than $50/month. The oversubscription rate on a $600/month T1 no longer provides for a valid business model. Heck, my $500/month 5Mbps connection form Time Warner became quickly saturated once I put it in. I expect my new 11Mbps connection for $600 will do the same. The interesting part is that I continue to get pressure for faster speed plans therefore pressure to make the same mistake my predecessor made - offer plans with speeds that max out my capacity. -RickG On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 12:35 PM, Steve Barnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Rick, (everyone) So from that statement it appears that you are not using any bandwidth limiting ore shaping at your AP or NOC. Question 1. Is that for all Client levels or just your premium service. Question 2. If you don't manage limits, was that always how you've always done it? If not what made you decide to do it this way and what kind of upstream hit did you take. I am considering giving more speed but I am concerned about the additional cost to me for abusers. Steve Barnes RCWiFi Wireless Internet Service -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of RickG Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 11:04 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Article Every SHOULD know that most connections are "shared bandwidth". The keyword is SHOULD. But, peole only hear what they want to and everyone I talk to that isnt a techie thinks they get the speed they bought for $50 or less all the time! The marketing gurus have screwed up again just like the "unlimited use" policy fiasco. So, I always try to educate my users but they percieve this as my issue and that my service is inferiro with cable or dsl. Of course, thats what feeds the marketing
Re: [WISPA] Bandwidth Shaping (WAS Article)
Rick, Just for what it's worth, we are seeing an increase in overall usage as well. We have been in the ISP business since 1994. It was only about a year ago that we went over 100Mbps of incoming traffic during peak time... and just today, we peaked at 176Mbps. So in a year's time we increased by 75% the amount of bandwidth usage by our customers. Of course we added new customers, etc. but that was at the same rate we have been adding customers for 5+ years. Solution? There isn't a good one. I remember people saying things like "I just leave my customers wide open because then they will use what they need and then get off, so they are online less" and stuff like that. Those days are long gone. If you give people a 5Mbps connection, they will use 5Mbps. And now, rather than just doing what they were doing, they will just start more downloads or movies or TV because they can. Travis Microserv RickG wrote: I have WRAP boards on all towers that provide limited bandwidth shaping. I just recently installed a Mikrotik firewall (and love it). It's shaping and rules cover all customers. As far as bandwidth hits, the previous owner oversold and overmarketed the amount of bandwidth in order to gain subscribers (i.e. premium 3Mbps accounts when he only had 3Mbps). Since bandwidth is very expensive and difficult to get here, this has led to a sluggish network that I am having difficulty resolving. Therefore, the customers have been complaining. The good news is that after getting very creative, I have overturned some new options but the cost is still a strain on the budget. My biggest frustration is the never ending question: What will it take? It appears that more and more people want constant multi-megabit speeds on demand for less than $50/month. The oversubscription rate on a $600/month T1 no longer provides for a valid business model. Heck, my $500/month 5Mbps connection form Time Warner became quickly saturated once I put it in. I expect my new 11Mbps connection for $600 will do the same. The interesting part is that I continue to get pressure for faster speed plans therefore pressure to make the same mistake my predecessor made - offer plans with speeds that max out my capacity. -RickG On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 12:35 PM, Steve Barnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Rick, (everyone) So from that statement it appears that you are not using any bandwidth limiting ore shaping at your AP or NOC. Question 1. Is that for all Client levels or just your premium service. Question 2. If you don't manage limits, was that always how you've always done it? If not what made you decide to do it this way and what kind of upstream hit did you take. I am considering giving more speed but I am concerned about the additional cost to me for abusers. Steve Barnes RCWiFi Wireless Internet Service -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of RickG Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 11:04 AM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Article Every SHOULD know that most connections are "shared bandwidth". The keyword is SHOULD. But, peole only hear what they want to and everyone I talk to that isnt a techie thinks they get the speed they bought for $50 or less all the time! The marketing gurus have screwed up again just like the "unlimited use" policy fiasco. So, I always try to educate my users but they percieve this as my issue and that my service is inferiro with cable or dsl. Of course, thats what feeds the marketing hype with the speed in the first place. So, what to do? -RickG On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 1:41 AM, Jack Unger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Dear Mike, You miss the point and possibly so does Josh. Because an AP can deliver "x" amount of throughput during a speed test between two location does not mean that the same AP can deliver that amount of throughput to all the customers simultaneously. The AP's throughput is shared between all of the end-users. When the AP maxes out, some (possibly all) of those end-users must slow down. Some WISPs do not understand this and thus they end up over-promising throughput and disappointing their customers. WISPs need to understand this or they will fail in this business and give other WISPs a black eye in the process. Nobody is getting beat up here; this has nothing to do with personalities. It has everything to do with the physics of data communications behavior. Everybody needs to understand the true limits of their system. Why is this? Because the "air" is a shared medium. Throughput delivery takes real-world time in intervals we call "time-slots". You can only carry so much throughput during one time-slot. There area only so many time-slots (fractions of a second) in each second. This is why throughput is limited. Only so many users can be on one AP at the same time if they are requ
Re: [WISPA] Bandwidth Shaping (WAS Article)
I have WRAP boards on all towers that provide limited bandwidth shaping. I just recently installed a Mikrotik firewall (and love it). It's shaping and rules cover all customers. As far as bandwidth hits, the previous owner oversold and overmarketed the amount of bandwidth in order to gain subscribers (i.e. premium 3Mbps accounts when he only had 3Mbps). Since bandwidth is very expensive and difficult to get here, this has led to a sluggish network that I am having difficulty resolving. Therefore, the customers have been complaining. The good news is that after getting very creative, I have overturned some new options but the cost is still a strain on the budget. My biggest frustration is the never ending question: What will it take? It appears that more and more people want constant multi-megabit speeds on demand for less than $50/month. The oversubscription rate on a $600/month T1 no longer provides for a valid business model. Heck, my $500/month 5Mbps connection form Time Warner became quickly saturated once I put it in. I expect my new 11Mbps connection for $600 will do the same. The interesting part is that I continue to get pressure for faster speed plans therefore pressure to make the same mistake my predecessor made - offer plans with speeds that max out my capacity. -RickG On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 12:35 PM, Steve Barnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Rick, (everyone) > > So from that statement it appears that you are not using any bandwidth > limiting ore shaping at your AP or NOC. > Question 1. Is that for all Client levels or just your premium service. > Question 2. If you don't manage limits, was that always how you've > always done it? If not what made you decide to do it this way and what > kind of upstream hit did you take. > > I am considering giving more speed but I am concerned about the > additional cost to me for abusers. > > Steve Barnes > RCWiFi Wireless Internet Service > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of RickG > Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 11:04 AM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Article > > Every SHOULD know that most connections are "shared bandwidth". The > keyword is SHOULD. But, peole only hear what they want to and everyone > I talk to that isnt a techie thinks they get the speed they bought for > $50 or less all the time! The marketing gurus have screwed up again > just like the "unlimited use" policy fiasco. So, I always try to > educate my users but they percieve this as my issue and that my > service is inferiro with cable or dsl. Of course, thats what feeds the > marketing hype with the speed in the first place. So, what to do? > -RickG > > On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 1:41 AM, Jack Unger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Dear Mike, >> >> You miss the point and possibly so does Josh. Because an AP can > deliver >> "x" amount of throughput during a speed test between two location does >> not mean that the same AP can deliver that amount of throughput to all >> the customers simultaneously. The AP's throughput is shared between > all >> of the end-users. When the AP maxes out, some (possibly all) of those >> end-users must slow down. Some WISPs do not understand this and thus >> they end up over-promising throughput and disappointing their > customers. >> WISPs need to understand this or they will fail in this business and >> give other WISPs a black eye in the process. Nobody is getting beat up >> here; this has nothing to do with personalities. It has everything to > do >> with the physics of data communications behavior. Everybody needs to >> understand the true limits of their system. >> >> Why is this? Because the "air" is a shared medium. Throughput delivery >> takes real-world time in intervals we call "time-slots". You can only >> carry so much throughput during one time-slot. There area only so many >> time-slots (fractions of a second) in each second. This is why >> throughput is limited. Only so many users can be on one AP at the same >> time if they are requesting a large amount of the available AP >> throughput. A lightly-loaded system may appear to be able to deliver > max >> throughput simultaneously to those few customers but when the AP is >> heavily loaded with users who are vying for a lot of throughput >> simultaneously then most of them will need to slow down because not >> everyone will get all the time slots they need to carry the high >> throughput (ex: video streaming) levels that they are requesting. >> >> Don't make this personal; that simply detracts from the very real >> technical limits that a successful WISP must understand in order to >> succeed and survive. >> >> jack >> >> >> Mike Hammett wrote: >>> I didn't get that at all. >>> >>> It seems as though when anyone on this list suggests going faster > than 2 megabits, they get beat up. Sorry, Charlie, BA-II was outdated > long ago. >>> >>> >>> - >>> Mike Hammett >>> Intelligent Computing Solutions >>> http://www.ics-il
