Alright I see what you are saying now. To comment on this petition is now our chance of making our voice heard. My fear (I'm very certain of it) is that if ISPs wouldn't be allowed to bandwidth manage this content then the cost for the end users WILL go up. My first reaction to this entire debate about Comcast blocking or heavily throttling was alright let them if people don't like it they can go to another provider all about open market and free enterprise. BUT if Vuze can convince FCC this is not acceptable it would no longer be open market with free enterprise from this standpoint any longer. This would then force the ISPs into a bit cap type model for low priced accounts and high priced unlimited service offerings. The "unlimited" all you can eat buffe that exists in majority of north America I always liked. I never liked the usage based service when I lived in Sweden.
But I wouldn't be opposed to go to a usage based service in general just one thing. The services that we today for most as WISP's does not consider true competition is the cellphone carriers. They have bit limits and on top of it very expensive. Now if the $40 internet service would say get a 10GB bit cap on it with fixed service location why wouldn't a user want to consider getting a $60 service with similar service but mobile. In most rural areas today this is not a problem because speeds are slow on the mobile networks while in large metro areas you can get 1-1.5Mbit download speeds. If it would have to go to a bit cap I would think it would make it more interesting for the cell carriers to expand their highspeed locations because they are now on a more level playing field. Good or bad? For a wisp I would say that be bad. / Eje -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Nash Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 5:52 PM To: WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC Eje, respectfully, you should not say that I'm missing the point. Our success in bandwidth management does not lie in one court case or one solution. There were several issues brought up in this message, and the Vuse case is one of them. Vuze is one of many problems that are coming, and it should be addressed, yes. My opinions on this are not just about P2P apps. If it turns out that we will not be able to block or manage P2P applications, then we must have a way to not lose money on that small percentage of users who want to "hog the road". Let's say that the courts decide that we can't block P2P applications from a legal content provider. How do we not have customers who cost more than they are paying? - TOS to not let your users have a filesharing server (isn't that a big issue...so that you don't have 20 other computers constantly downloading from your customer, using your bandwidth for free?). - Bandwidth caps (generous ones) so that people who do use more pay more. - Dedicated bandwidth connections to allow a customer to do whatever they want, freely, but pay for the privilege & access to do so. This is business. You may not be able to provide to all customers. You may not be able to compete with all providers. But again, in my opinion, you should not have a customer who perpetually costs you more than you charge that customer. Mark Nash UnwiredOnline.Net 350 Holly Street Junction City, OR 97448 http://www.uwol.net 541-998-5555 541-998-5599 fax ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eje Gustafsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'WISPA General List'" <wireless@wispa.org> Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 3:02 PM Subject: RE: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC > Your missing the point. MAYBE if what Vuze is petitioning to FCC becomes > "law" you will no longer be allowed to "manage" your bandwidth in the > fashion I know many WISP's are doing by throttling down or lower the > priority peer to peer applications have on their network. Vuze want to > prohibit you to do this. > > / Eje > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Mark Nash > Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 1:18 PM > To: WISPA General List > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC > > I will go further with this. This comes up so very often. The subject line > is different, but the conversation is the same. We're spinning our wheels, > folks. > > As a provider, we can very affordably have the ability to throttle, and > filter. Do this for your every-day customers. > > Also sell DEDICATED bandwidth. Should our customers NEED this type of > capacity, then they should pay for it. This is a no-brainer. The cost will > > vary per provider, as our upstream provider options are different, but you > CAN charge for dedicated bandwidth. Once your customers know the cost of > your dedicated connections, they can decide just how much they NEED to do > this type of activity. > > So for the people who really want to do whatever they want, they can. If > they are paying for dedicated bandwidth, you can't really care what they're > doing, so long as you know that it's not against your TOS. > > MORE AND MORE OF THESE APPS ARE COMING (IPTV, streaming video TV shows, > YouTube, P2P, Wifi phones), and the small provider is less able to deal with > > it. > > Spend the time and the few dollers to get these systems, policies, and > pricing structures in place. Then don't worry about what's coming down the > pike as far as usage is concerned. > > Charge for bandwidth, charge for access (backhauls, AP, spectrum usage, tech > > support, billing, postage, etc). Have a TOS that deal with this. If you're > > going to lose money (even $.01), don't service that customer. It's ok to > let those ones go. Consider it an easy choice for your business. > > Discuss/talk/learn all you want, but your worries won't be satiated until > you do something about it for your business. > > Mark Nash > UnwiredOnline > 350 Holly Street > Junction City, OR 97448 > http://www.uwol.net > 541-998-5555 > 541-998-5599 fax > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jonathan Schmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "'WISPA General List'" <wireless@wispa.org> > Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 11:00 AM > Subject: RE: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC > > > > The dominant service plan outside the US is, indeed, a byte-cap contract. > > > > Such a contract, or tiers of contracts, permit the product to be delivered > > with appropriate cost with those who want more paying more by quantity not > > speed. > > > > The concept is alien to the US and would be subject to derision by large > > broadband providers in competitive situations yet, it appears, they will > > all > > be forced into this sort of relationship with their customers at some time > > in the near future. > > > > . . . J o n a t h a n > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > 210-893-4007 > > San Antonio, TX > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > > Behalf Of Mark Nash > > Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 12:38 PM > > To: WISPA General List > > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC > > > > In my opinion, a monthly bandwidth cap and throttling during peak hours > > should do fine for the download on these apps. As for the upload, TOS can > > prohibit your customer connections from being a server, thereby > > prohibiting > > the upload, at least in policy. > > > > This comes up all the time, and we know that we should not, but often do, > > lose money on a small number of subscribers. I say that this is > > unacceptable (losing $$ for any subscriber whose connection is working > > properly). > > > > A mixture of throttling, bandwidth caps & extra charges, and TOS should be > > deployed in every single provider's business strategy, ESPECIALLY the > > small > > provider. If you have not addressed this within your business, it should > > be > > done. > > > > In my opinion. > > > > Mark Nash > > UnwiredOnline > > 350 Holly Street > > Junction City, OR 97448 > > http://www.uwol.net > > 541-998-5555 > > 541-998-5599 fax > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Mike Hammett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> > > Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 10:12 AM > > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC > > > > > >>I would think that any application should be allowed to run, with the > >>expectation of reasonable throughput. IE: real time communications or > >>streams should be permitted unregulated within that user's plan, but that > >>general file sharing be allowed to be restricted, yet still having a > >>reasonable capacity. It's up to someone smarter than myself to figure out > >>better wording. > >> > >> > >> ----- > >> Mike Hammett > >> Intelligent Computing Solutions > >> http://www.ics-il.com > >> > >> > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "Eje Gustafsson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> To: "'WISPA General List'" <wireless@wispa.org> > >> Sent: Sunday, November 18, 2007 11:21 AM > >> Subject: [WISPA] Vuze / Comcast / Peer to Peer / FCC > >> > >> > >>>I looked in the mailing list but there seem at least not to been any > >>> discussion about this. If there been my apologies. > >>> > >>> > >>> As some of you might know there is a petition turned over to the FCC > >>> that > >>> relates to net neutrality. Vuze, Inc is a video content provider whom > >>> utilizes bittorrent protocol to deliver their content to the end user. > >>> Due > >>> to the recent articles and discoveries where Comcast seems to either be > >>> blocking peer to peer traffic or as they claim bandwidth manage it (but > >>> according to end users and some tests) to a point where it's impossible > >>> to > >>> get any data through Vuze, Inc have filed a petition asking FCC to rule > >>> about the bandwidth management handling. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> If they get their way and FCC rules in their favor as I see it this > >>> could > > > >>> be > >>> a major problem for anyone in the ISP market especially the small > >>> players. > >>> If you throttle or block peer to peer traffic in any way then this could > >>> potentially have a huge impact on you and your network. > >>> > >>> The reason most ISP's are throttle this traffic is to prevent abuse of > >>> your > >>> network and control the impact these fileshare applications can have on > >>> the > >>> network which can/will cause problems for other customers that try to > >>> use > >>> the internet interactively while the fileshare (ab)user more then likely > >>> is > >>> not even at their computer. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> For many ISPs internet bandwidth can cost them anywhere from $100 to > >>> $1000 > >>> per megabit and many times access is sold for $30-$60 for 512k-1.5Mbit. > >>> So > >>> what could the result be of this petition if you ask me. Considerable > >>> increase of service fees to the customers which might mean that they > >>> leave > >>> for a larger ISP (cable co, phone co) because their cost for access is > >>> generally far less and they can be more competitive. In markets where > >>> you > >>> compete with these carriers I feel that one of the way you can compete > >>> is > >>> by selling similar service level at similar prices but manage the > >>> bandwidth > >>> better to avoid abuse of your network and this way level the market > >>> more. > > > >>> So > >>> read the petition. I urge all WISP's to comment on this petition. > >>> Explain > >>> why you feel not being allowed to manage this traffic would be a bad > >>> thing > >>> and what the economical impact could be. I would love to see the big > >>> guys > > > >>> be > >>> prohibited from bandwidth manage peer to peer traffic but still allow > >>> the > >>> smaller players to continue to manage this traffic. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Personally I think it's wrong to blatantly block it unless your in an > >>> extreme rural area and bandwidth is an extreme problem. Ie some > >>> providers > > > >>> in > >>> for example Alaska are limited to satellite feeds that are not very fast > >>> and > >>> costs an incredible amount or where the highest feed they can get is a > >>> T1 > > > >>> or > >>> two at outrageous price and the infrastructure behind the T1 can not > >>> handle > >>> large amount of traffic. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Below is a link to the Petition filed by Vuze, Inc to FCC. > >>> > >>> > >>> <http://www.vistaprint.com/vp/gateway.aspx?S=5176697856> > >>> > >>> http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf > >>> > > > <http://fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retrieve.cgi?native_or_pdf=pdf&id_docume > >>> nt=6519811711> &id_document=6519811711 > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> / Eje > >>> > >>> WISP-Router, Inc. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- > > ---- > >>> WISPA Wants You! Join today! > >>> http://signup.wispa.org/ > >>> > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- > > ---- > >>> > >>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > >>> > >>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > >>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >>> > >>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- > > ---- > >> WISPA Wants You! Join today! > >> http://signup.wispa.org/ > >> > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- > > ---- > >> > >> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > >> > >> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > >> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >> > >> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- > > ---- > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- > > ---- > > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- > ---- > > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > > http://signup.wispa.org/ > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- > ---- > > > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- > ---- > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- > ---- > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ > WISPA Wants You! Join today! > http://signup.wispa.org/ > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------ > > WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
