-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Matt
Sent: Sunday, November 25, 2007 2:18 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
What is considered a large number of connections?
How many connections
What is considered a large number of connections?
How many connections is it safe to limit to, without compromising a user's
typical usage.
Would this be an effective way of determining when a class of plan is
being
abused, such as a business using a residential plan, or a small
Matt wrote:
What is considered a large number of connections?
How many connections is it safe to limit to, without compromising a user's
typical usage.
My nephew and I occassionally play BF2142 online. My Linksys DD-WRT
based router had a problem. It had max ports set out 512. When my PC
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Matt
Sent: Monday, November 26, 2007 10:22 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
What is considered a large number of connections?
How many connections
What is considered a large number of connections?
How many connections is it safe to limit to, without compromising a user's
typical usage.
Would this be an effective way of determining when a class of plan is being
abused, such as a business using a residential plan, or a small community
Tetherow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Thursday, November 22, 2007 12:52 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
Which is why I feel that trying to address the issue as a P2P issue is
wrong, the issue is not what the traffic is, it is what
Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of George Rogato
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 6:42 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
Come on, you guys that sell slow broadband generaly don't have too
Nope. I have it with Moto 900 Mhz AP's. Will completely lock it down to where
it takes a minute or longer just to access it by telnet to reboot it. I can
login to Mikrotik and kill all P2P connections and immediately access the 900
Mhz AP after the connections clear.
-- Original
On Fri, 23 Nov 2007, Clint Ricker wrote:
Just out of curiousity, all of you who have AP problems because of
bit torrent: what APs are you using?
It is anything that is 802.11 based (A, B or G) that would have
trouble with this. Any polled system would not have this issue.
--
Butch Evans
If WISPA is going to make an official statement I think it should be
presented as: The ISP needs to be able to manage their internal
network in a manner which allows them to provide a consistent quality of
service to their customers.
If we say p2p applications are bad now we will have to
I don't think he meant completely lock it up. I think he mean that a P2P
sub seeding a torrent causes this. A good torrent is enough to cause
major connectivity issues on 4 meg Canopy 900 AP.
Does your 900 AP have a public IP? There is a known issue with HTTP
requests locking up the
] On
Behalf Of Scottie Arnett
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2007 11:18 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
Nope. I have it with Moto 900 Mhz AP's. Will completely lock it down to
where it takes a minute or longer just to access it by telnet to reboot
it. I can
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Scottie Arnett
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2007 11:18 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
Nope. I have it with Moto 900 Mhz AP's. Will completely lock it down to
where
]
Providing High Speed Broadband
to Rural Central California
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of George Rogato
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 6:42 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 8:51 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
Another thought is
Why wouldn't Vuze have to pay Comcast for using the Comcast network to
support it's business plan.
If they are relying on Comcasts network to store
General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 8:51 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
Another thought is
Why wouldn't Vuze have to pay Comcast for using the Comcast
network to
support it's business plan.
If they are relying on Comcasts network to store
:00 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
You are, in at least some sense, a telecommunications utility--and, just
like there are regulations that ensure certain guidelines in being able to
place telephone calls, watch television, and so forth
: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
Another thought is
Why wouldn't Vuze have to pay Comcast for using the Comcast
network to
support it's business plan.
If they are relying on Comcasts network to store and send files to
it's
customer base, why should they be treated
PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of George Rogato
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 6:42 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
Come on, you guys that sell slow broadband generaly don't have too
much to worry about. It's not like if you got an ap that does 10 megs
, November 21, 2007 7:24 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
Chuck I am connected to fiber. It's right next to my water tank with a
lot of sectors on it to ditribute out to the vrious repeaters, I
sectorized the hell out of my network with tight beam widths
: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 8:51 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
Another thought is
Why wouldn't Vuze have to pay Comcast for using the Comcast
network to
support it's business plan.
If they are relying on Comcasts network to store and send files
to
it's
customer base
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 8:51 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
Another thought is
Why wouldn't Vuze have to pay Comcast for using the Comcast
network to
support it's business plan.
If they are relying on Comcasts network to store and send files
to
it's
customer
Of George Rogato
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 7:24 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
Chuck I am connected to fiber. It's right next to my water tank with a
lot of sectors on it to ditribute out to the vrious repeaters, I
sectorized the hell out
California
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On
Behalf Of George Rogato
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 6:42 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
Come on, you guys that sell "slow" broadban
Central California
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Travis Johnson
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 7:46 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
Hi,
I think some people missed my point
Of Travis Johnson
Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 7:46 PM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
Hi,
I think some people missed my point on this discussion... so I'm going to
re-cap:
We use MT to cap the p2p sharing (during business hours only, because
Which is why I feel that trying to address the issue as a P2P issue is
wrong, the issue is not what the traffic is, it is what the traffic is
doing to your network. If you address that issue, then encryption is
pointless. Limit large connection counts, implement burstable bandwidth,
add a
The Comcast deal has very little to do with traffic prioritization except
for the regulatory liability of ineptness. The Comcast deal, using Sandvine
gear, actually _actively_ disrupts the service by inserting spoofed packets
into the TCP stream, which is a far cry from the best effort philosophy
I completely disagree that the government should have anything to do
with our industry and that it is a given except in matters of
anti-trust, managing a scarce public resource (radio spectrum) or
safety. Anything else hands off. And that also applies to any other
industry.
I could
Another thought is
Why wouldn't Vuze have to pay Comcast for using the Comcast network to
support it's business plan.
If they are relying on Comcasts network to store and send files to it's
customer base, why should they be treated for a free ride instead of
using a hosting provider like
Clint Ricker wrote:
Traffic prioritization is MUCH different than blocking, rate limiting, or,
in the comcast case, actively disrupting service.
What if I want to sell various plans each with specific terms?
To simplify things, I could have a cheap deal, that gave a high
download rate and
On Nov 20, 2007 11:17 AM, George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Clint Ricker wrote:
Traffic prioritization is MUCH different than blocking, rate limiting,
or,
in the comcast case, actively disrupting service.
What if I want to sell various plans each with specific terms?
To simplify
George,
Comcast's customers are the ones paying for access to the Comcast
network. If a Comcast customer wants to use Vuze, he should be able to
because he is ALREADY PAYING FOR THE RIGHT TO USE THE NETWORK.
This idea of content providers being parasites on networks is a total
load of
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
This is not a black or white position - take the time to read the Vuze
petition and focus specifically on the last two pages where they outline
the goals of what they want to achieve. Then take some time and look at
what Comcast did
: Clint Ricker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 10:43 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
Marlon, you are pretty rural :) You probably would have a hard time
growing much without heading 500 miles to find a market
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
At what point? Never. Your taxes (or tolls) go to pay for the right to
use
the road. The state charges extra registration for commercial vehicles,
but
they don't have the right to charge anyone more based on what they use the
road
Is WISPA or Part-15 posting follow up comments on this? Is anyone?
Don't most broadband Internet user agreements have a clause that says
something like no servers? Is bittorrent a server?
Matt
I looked in the mailing list but there seem at least not to been any
discussion about this. If
, 2007 12:03 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
This is not a black or white position - take the time to read the Vuze
petition and focus specifically on the last two pages where they
outline
the goals of what they want to achieve. Then take some time and look
By most every definition bittorrent is a server. Atleast the part of
bittorrent that has the most negative impact on networks. The problem
is mostly in customer education/perception. Most people don't know the
negative impact that running bittorrent can have on a network, and the
probably
Matt wrote:
Don't most broadband Internet user agreements have a clause that says
something like no servers? Is bittorrent a server?
If you want to get really technical, there is no such thing as a server.
:P
There are programs that listen to certain TCP and UDP ports, but that's
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
- Original Message -
From: Mark Nash [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 12:04 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
You're right, Mike. Never. I
-5599 fax
- Original Message -
From: George Rogato [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 8:51 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
Another thought is
Why wouldn't Vuze have to pay Comcast for using
Mark Nash wrote:
This is a good debate.
What you mention here, George, is something that's been on my mind for the
last year or so. As Lingo/Slingbox/Netflix/Vonage/etc/etc/etc make $$$ off
of our connections, where's our cut? The customer is paying for a
connection, yes, but at what point do
Not to pick nits, but you web browser is not listening on port X after
requesting a web page, it is waiting for a reply on a connection that it
established with the web server. In other words I placed the phone call
to the web server and it picked up the phone. The web browser is not
Sure they do. The more gas you use, the more gas TAX you pay.
grin
marlon
- Original Message -
From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 10:24 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
Right, so
]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Tuesday, November 20, 2007 8:51 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
Another thought is
Why wouldn't Vuze have to pay Comcast for using the Comcast network to
support it's business plan.
If they are relying on Comcasts
8:51 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
Another thought is
Why wouldn't Vuze have to pay Comcast for using the Comcast network to
support it's business plan.
If they are relying on Comcasts network to store and send files to it's
customer base, why should
I've never had much luck selling anything other than fast and really
fast connections. When it comes to residential anything more than 2 or
3 plans seems to overwhelm the average user. They want either as fast
as they can afford or they want something pretty cheap because all they
do is
If you look at most TOS or SAs you will see a maximum monthly cap on
traffic. I know that both Cox and Time Warner have it on cable. That
said I don't know of anyone personally that has been penalized for an
overage. I think the clause is there though so that they can take
measures if they
Sam and Matt, very well said.
To the rest: If you are petitioning the FCC in union with the cable
companies and telcos, you are screwing your future and help your
competition. You can't win by the rules that they make. The network
neutrality battle could potentially change the service provider
: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
Sam and Matt, very well said.
To the rest: If you are petitioning the FCC in union with the cable
companies and telcos, you are screwing your future and help your
competition. You can't win by the rules that they make. The network
neutrality battle could
: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
Sam and Matt, very well said.
To the rest: If you are petitioning the FCC in union with the cable
companies and telcos, you are screwing your future and help your
competition. You can't win by the rules that they make. The network
neutrality battle could
www.odessaoffice.com/marlon/cam
- Original Message -
From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 8:48 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
I'm glad someone else has the same philosophy I do
I'm not buying it.
Yes, we as service providers have a right to determine th service level
agreements we want to set for the price we decide.
A consumer has always believed that they have an unlimited do anything
they want with our connection mentality.
We on the other hand have always had
19, 2007 9:48 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
Sam and Matt, very well said.
To the rest: If you are petitioning the FCC in union with the cable
companies and telcos, you are screwing your future and help your
competition. You can't win by the rules
users, do whatever they want.
-
Mike Hammett
Intelligent Computing Solutions
http://www.ics-il.com
- Original Message -
From: Matt Larsen - Lists [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 12:03 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze
George,
No one is saying that you have to sell $40 10Mb/s pipes at to customers for
them to use full tilt 24x7. Restrict on bandwidth, if you choose. Sell
metered. Put caps on. Why restrict based on content type?
Marlon includes, if I remember, 6GB of data and then charges for overages.
If
Clint Ricker wrote:
No one is saying that you have to sell $40 10Mb/s pipes at to customers for
them to use full tilt 24x7. Restrict on bandwidth, if you choose. Sell
metered. Put caps on. Why restrict based on content type?
Because some content types make customers call and complain, and
The application is very important. If the technology that we had at our
disposal would not be hampered by any application then I could care
less. Your right the more bits and applications for our customers use
the better for us. Unfortunately in most markets the only thing we can
provide
, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband
- Original Message -
From: Matt Larsen - Lists [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 10:44 PM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
My strong feeling is that the free
wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2007 10:48 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
I've been a firm believer in that the last mile can shoot themselves in
the
foot if they like, but the next company up in the chain must be neutral.
Level 3, ATT, Cogent, Verizon, NTT
I may be wrong, but net neutrality when out a couple of months ago.
There is no more net neutrality.
WISPA Wants You! Join today!
http://signup.wispa.org/
I'm not talking about dedicated commercial bandwidth. I'm trying to
distinguish it from a consumer broadband connection.
A consumer internet connection has always had restrictions.
I would like to be able to offer a consumer a connection that allows
P2P, and anything else they may want to do.
I 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
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
Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 10:12 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
I would think that any application should be allowed to run, with the
expectation of reasonable throughput. IE: real time
Message -
From: Jonathan Schmidt [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 11:00 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
The dominant service plan outside the US is, indeed, a byte-cap contract.
Such a contract, or tiers
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
-
From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 10:12 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
I would think that any application should be allowed to run, with the
expectation of reasonable throughput. IE: real
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
- Original Message -
From: Mike Hammett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: WISPA General List wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 10:12 AM
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
I would think that any application should be allowed to run, with the
expectation of reasonable
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
] [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
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
- Original Message -
From: Eje Gustafsson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'WISPA General List' wireless@wispa.org
Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 3:02 PM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC
Your missing the point. MAYBE if what Vuze is petitioning to FCC becomes
law you will no longer
:[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
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
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
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
: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
80 matches
Mail list logo
