Agreed. Sharing is good. But, best effort implies that, well, an effort is being made to deliver the traffic, not "we will actively try to stop <insert disliked protocol of the month>" :)
On Nov 20, 2007 12:38 PM, Marlon K. Schafer (509) 982-2181 < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I have always thought that if you buy DEDICATED bandwidth you can do what > you want with it. If you buy a best effort service then you have to be > willing to share.... > > marlon > > 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 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, AT&T, Cogent, Verizon, NTT, etc. should not be doing > > anything on their end for their wholesale markets.... again, if they > have > > retail end 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 / 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 to Bit Torrent - they specifically broke the > >> application. What Vuze is asking for is pretty reasonable - the ability > >> to run their applications without undue interference. > >> If you back Comcast, you are backing the ability for YOUR backbone > >> provider to break the applications you run on their network. The Vuze > >> petition is the position that should be backed, IMHO. > >> > >> Matt Larsen > >> vistabeam.com > >> > >> > >> George Rogato wrote: > >>> 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 terms of service that nullify the > >>> anything you want unlimited mentality. > >>> > >>> If we are in disagreement with Comcast's position, then what are we > >>> really saying? > >>> > >>> We would be saying, "anything goes", we have no control, we can't rate > >>> limit. > >>> > >>> The free market system, does not tie the hands of the isp, but rather > >>> allows us each to set our own service levels and terms of service, and > >>> compete based on our own service offerings. > >>> > >>> To restrict an isp from making a decision, is in no way the free > market > >>> system, but rather the regulated system. > >>> > >>> I'm with Comcast on this. I do not want to be regulated. Let me live > or > >>> die on the way I decide to run my network. > >>> > >>> Thanks Eje for bringing this to our attention. > >>> > >>> My recommendation is to back Comcast. > >>> George > >>> > >>> Clint Ricker wrote: > >>>> 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/ > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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/
