Marlon, you are pretty rural :) You probably would have a hard time growing much without heading 500 miles to find a market with more people than cows :). From what I'd guess from your economics, strict bandwidth caps may be a good choice for you--but, for people who either are in or have access to larger markets, more subscribers is a better route for _so_ many reasons and has the nice benefit of making bandwidth much cheaper on a per-subscriber basis--increased oversubscription ratios combined with lower bandwidth costs.
Thanks, -Clint Ricker Kentnis Technologies On Nov 19, 2007 12:20 PM, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > That's easy to say when you are in an area with thousands of potential > customers ;-) > > Marlon > (509) 982-2181 > (408) 907-6910 (Vonage) Consulting services > 42846865 (icq) WISP Operator since > 1999! > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > www.odessaoffice.com/wireless > 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. > > > > > > ----- > > Mike Hammett > > Intelligent Computing Solutions > > http://www.ics-il.com > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Clint Ricker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org> > > Sent: Monday, November 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 that they make. The network > >> neutrality battle could potentially change the service provider > economics > >> enough in very positive directions for you. This is a > >> politically-charged > >> enough topic that something interesting may actually happen on this :) > >> > >> First of all, get more customers! With enough customers, the > >> oversubscription on bandwidth becomes much better--you can fit > thousands > >> and > >> thousands of resi customers in a 100Mb/s pipe without dropping, but > about > >> 10-20 in a 5Mb/s pipe. With enough customers, the bandwidth cost per > >> customer comes down to almost nothing. If you need to limit a couple > of > >> outlying customers (the ones using 3Mb/s all the time), sure, go ahead. > >> But > >> don't hate bit torrent or any other protocol :) Bit Torrent bandwidth > >> costs > >> _exactly_ the same price as http bandwidth. > >> > >> I really don't agree with a business philosophy that fundamentally sees > >> it > >> as a bad thing if people are actually using your service :). Embrace > it > >> and > >> figure out how to make it profitable (hint--spend more time getting new > >> customers and less time trying to shave costs). The bandwidth math is > >> MUCH > >> better with 1,000 customers than a hundred and MUCH better with 10,000 > >> than > >> a 1,000. > >> > >> To everyone thinking that there needs to be "network neutrality" > >> requirements for big guys, but little guys should be allowed to block: > do > >> you really want to send the message to your (potential) customers: > >> hey--my > >> competition will let you run the service you want, I won't. > >> > >> This is an opportunity to actually get ahead of the game and have a leg > >> up > >> on your competition. Here are the facts as I see them (applies to the > >> residential market only): > >> > >> 1. The cost of bandwidth for telcos and MSOs is really extremely low on > a > >> per customer basis. The bulk of their cost--and why this is a big > issue > >> for > >> them--is the cost of getting that bandwidth to the customer. For these > >> guys, the major cost is in the transport networks: fiber buildout is > >> extremely expensive, transport gear is incredibly expensive, etc. > WISPs > >> have ridiculously cheap transport networks and, with enough scale, > don't > >> really pay much more for bandwidth. If you get scale, your bandwidth > >> costs > >> also drop. In other words, once you hit a certain scale, your cost of > >> delivering service becomes much less than your competition. > >> 2. You can't compete on price with a telco/mso doing triple play. The > >> economics aren't there. You don't offer video. Your customers want > >> video. > >> They want to be able to watch House and CSI and Dancing with the Stars. > >> This means that even if they keep you for Internet access, they will > sign > >> up > >> for television service. They will then, every month, get offers for > >> bundled > >> video + data services (and sometimes voice) for prices that you can't > >> compete with. > >> 3. Your competitors can't compete in price without subsidizing their > >> network > >> buildout with revenue from overpriced, monopolistic telephony and video > >> solutions. If/When the Internet becomes _the_ medium for delivering > >> this, > >> you can adapt to that by...the end of this week. Your competition will > >> take > >> years and years to get to this point and fight it every step of the > way. > >>>From a revenue / cost standpoint, they simply cannot survive in such an > >> environment. > >> > >> However, if people use Joost and Vuze and whatall, then they can use > YOUR > >> connection and no longer have a need to get their video services > >> elsewhere. > >> Embrace this. Advertise this. Help your customers find video services > >> online. Make a portal for this. Start mailing your customers (and > your > >> competitor's customers!) and saying "Bob's Internet: includes over > 10,000 > >> video channels for free" and "Bob's three step guide to saving $800 per > >> year: (step 1: get Bob's Internet, step 2: Tell your cable company > >> "bye-bye" > >> step 3: Enjoy 10,000 video channels on Bob's Internet Access). > >> > >> Get your customers thinking: "I can watch CSI and so forth on the > >> Internet". You take a data customer away from a cable company...big > >> deal. > >> You get a community converted to watching their video on the Internet > and > >> the math changes DRASTICALLY in your favor. You are trying to compete > >> using > >> a business model that revolves around a $30-$40 average monthly revenue > >> per > >> customer against providers who have $100-$250 average monthly revenue > per > >> customer. Attack that! They simply can't afford to be profitable on a > >> single pipe / single service model--you can. > >> > >> Remember, the late 90s were a golden era for independent ISPs because > >> they > >> got ahead of the curve. Most of you are, quite bluntly, behind the > curve > >> now. This is an opportunity to get ahead of the curve > >> > >> Comment on this to the FCC--just comment in favor of Network > Neutrality. > >> Believe it or not, you will do MUCH better under this model than your > >> competition because it very much favors your business model and is > >> incredibly harmful to your competitor's business model. If you > question > >> my > >> math, feel free to contact me offl-list--there are some specifics that > >> I'm > >> not willing to discuss in a public forum. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Clint Ricker > >> -Kentnis Technologies > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Nov 18, 2007 10:44 PM, Matt Larsen - Lists <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> My strong feeling is that the free market approach is by far the best > >>> approach to the Network Neutrality/Network Management. If Comcast > wants > >>> to degrade the service to their customers, then that is an opportunity > >>> for the other providers in the market - they are essentially degrading > >>> their own service, especially if they are doing it in a way that > >>> "breaks" specific applications. In markets where there is a monopoly > >>> or duopoly and both providers engage in purposefully breaking > specific > >>> applications, leaving the customer with no choices, the market > condition > >>> is a result of poor regulatory policy - not poor network management. > >>> Competition will take care of that problem. The few remaining > >>> independent ISPs have this as one of the few potential advantages that > >>> they can bring to the table - a truly different type of service, with > >>> the concerns of the provider and the customer in balance and > appropriate > >>> for both parties. The issue that Vuze seems to be taking is that > >>> breaking of applications is unacceptable, but good network management > is > >>> fine, as long as it doesn't discriminate against specific applications > >>> or protocols. > >>> > >>> I do take issue with the characterization of Vuze/BitTorrent as being > a > >>> "parasite" on our networks. They are not forcing the customer to use > >>> them for content - our customers paid for connectivity to the > Internet, > >>> and should be able to use that connectivity for whatever they want to, > >>> in a way that does not degrade the performance of the network. It is > >>> the responsibility of the network operator to deploy the network is a > >>> way to deliver appropriate levels of service, establish clear > >>> definitions of the different levels of service and communicate the > >>> differences to the customers so that they know what they are getting. > I > >>> personally love Vuze, I use it to get my favorite Showtime shows and > >>> also for downloading OS images and software updates. Using it for > these > >>> purposes doesn't harm or degrade my network and is a very appropriate > >>> set of uses for me or any other user on my network. It does help that > I > >>> have optimized the software to use a limited number of connections, > and > >>> have also optimized my network to ensure that no customers are able to > >>> open an excessive number of connections to use it. This not a > >>> violation of "Network Neutrality" or an example of "Intentional > >>> Degradation" to an application. It is optimization. It is also the > >>> responsibility of companies like Vuze to make sure that their software > >>> is optimized for good performance as well - it is in their best > >>> interest. > >>> > >>> Bit Caps are not necessarily the answer, as it introduces levels of > >>> billing complexity and doesn't always represent the best solution. If > >>> there is extra capacity on the network, and the provider's backbone > >>> connection is not subject to bit caps or usage-based billing, then bit > >>> caps are not needed because the economic cost of extra bits is > >>> inconsequential. However, too many have taken this too far, leading > to > >>> the idea that "bits are free", which is total B.S. There is always > an > >>> underlying foundational cost of infrastructure connectivity, and that > >>> cost needs to be taken into consideration. The "free bits" exist in > >>> the netherland of non-peak hours and the interval between a backbone > >>> connection that is too large and one that is saturated. Free bits > >>> represent a place for innovation, and some providers are doing just > >>> that, with open downloads and service level upgrades during off-peak > >>> hours. But not all bits are free. > >>> > >>> In conclusion, I don't think that the Vuze petition is too far off the > >>> mark. Someone SHOULD be raising a stink about what Comcast is doing > - > >>> it goes beyond prudent network management and right into anti-trust > type > >>> behavior. > >>> > >>> Matt Larsen > >>> vistabeam.com > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Anthony Will wrote: > >>> > Here is some food for thought, > >>> > > >>> > We may want to approach this issue with a free market approach. We > >>> > may want to emphasize that the free market can and will self > regulate > >>> > this behavior. If Comcast is discouraging their customers from > >>> > operating this type of software, that creates an opportunity for > >>> > another operator to move into the area that does not. We do have to > >>> > keep in the back of our mind that the main issue for us as wireless > >>> > operators is that P2P solutions create an burden on our systems not > so > >>> > much for bandwidth but on the amount of connections that are created > >>> > by this type of software. One P2P application that goes wild with > >>> > 2000+ connctions can bring an AP to its knees thus effecting 50 - > 200 > >>> > other customers on that same AP. > >>> > We may also want to empathize that his type of "distributed" content > >>> > if allowed to continue likely will lead to bit caps or other types > of > >>> > metered solutions for customers. Vuze and other "content" providers > >>> > are looking to use our infrastructure to implement their business > >>> > plans without paying for that distribution, with the minor exception > >>> > of a one time "seeding" of that contact to the Internet. This is in > >>> > my opinion as close to theft as you can get without crossing the > >>> > line. The only recourse that operators will have is to implement a > >>> > bit cap (by the way this is common in almost every other part of the > >>> > world) in order to fund the increased infrastructure needed to carry > >>> > these content providers products for them. Ultimately the customer > is > >>> > the one that is going to have to pay for this and other > organizations > >>> > bypassing of the reasonable cost for the distribution of THEIR > >>> > content. > >>> > Of course we would also want to put in there the reality that the > vast > >>> > majority of the content provided by P2P is the illegal distribution > of > >>> > copywrited materials. > >>> > > >>> > Looking forward to the discussion, > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> WISPA Wants You! Join today! > >>> http://signup.wispa.org/ > >>> > >>> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> > >>> WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org > >>> > >>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe: > >>> http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >>> > >>> Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ > >>> > >> > >> > >> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> WISPA 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/
