>If you've designed your network to any degree of sanity, that 1MB of traffic >transmitted over BitTorrent is the same as 1MB of traffic transmitted over >HTTP.
I disagree. The pps/connections that http traffic creates is NOTHING compared to bittorrent! If you want to test it, put you up two AP's of the exact same, and run 1 Mbit of each over that link and see how it affects your browsing experience of 10 other people on each AP. I have seen dial-up users connected at 26kbit with virii that transmitted a high amount of pps/connections bring down a T1 to its knees! Scottie ---------- Original Message ---------------------------------- From: Clint Ricker <[email protected]> Reply-To: WISPA General List <[email protected]> Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 10:09:45 -0400 >Err, I don't think this summary is accurate. The focus is on net neutrality >for applications, regardless of protocol. Considering how often the FCC has >referenced VOIP, including Skype (which does use P2P technology), in these >discussions, on and off the record, the FCC isn't looking just to make sure >that both CNN and Fox News get speedy delivery times. They are looking to >make sure that over the top services of all sorts are viable and aren't >blocked by the service provider for competitive reasons. > >This really shouldn't be a problem for service providers. For the past >several years, the FCC has been publicizing the standpoint that they are not >going to allow discrimination on an application. They have never said that >you can't shape on a _per user_ basis. > >If you've designed your network to any degree of sanity, that 1MB of traffic >transmitted over BitTorrent is the same as 1MB of traffic transmitted over >HTTP. If that isn't the case, then stop buying Linksys routers at WalMart >and step up to real gear. Set bandwidth caps. Block your heaviest users. > > >Bit Torrent isn't your enemy and doesn't cost you any more money than HTTP. >Heavy users cost you money, regardless as to whether they are using bit >torrent, hulu, usenet, or whatever. > >-Clint Ricker > > > > >On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Curtis Maurand <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> I think you're all jumping to conclusions. There will be >> modifications. You will probably find that you'll be able to limit >> outgoing bittorrent and block spam from botnetted machines, block >> illegal activity, etc. How do you determine illegal bittorrent >> (uploading of copyrighted content, etc.) from legal (uploading of GNU >> licensed open source)? There lies the big question. >> >> I think they're saying things like Time-Warner can't prioritize CNN >> (which is owned by Time, Inc.) over MSNBC or Youtube over hulu, etc. I >> still say they should allow you to prioritize VOIP over everything else. >> IMHO >> >> --Curtis >> >> >> Jerry Richardson wrote: >> > I can't agree more. >> > >> > "Blocking" (0 bits passed) is constitutionally wrong IMO. Since I can no >> longer distinguish legal traffic from illegal traffic I have to allow it >> all. >> > >> > Shaping/Throttling/Caps is not only 100% within my rights, but as an ISP >> is prudent and a critical part of my business model and I would win that >> fight in court every time. >> > >> > We stopped selling residential service two years ago - they use more, pay >> less, and need the most support - however it's clear that this has hampered >> growth. >> > >> > I am planning to implement metered billing on our network. The plan is to >> determine the traffic utilization of 95% of our customers in each service >> tier and set that as the baseline. Moving forward light users will pay less >> and heavy users will pay more. It's the only way I can think of to survive >> and be fair. >> > >> > Jerry Richardson >> > airCloud Communications. >> > >> > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On >> Behalf Of Jack Unger >> > Sent: Monday, September 21, 2009 9:08 AM >> > To: WISPA General List >> > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality >> > >> > Hi John, >> > >> > I appreciate hearing your thoughts and I believe that I understand the >> ISP concerns that new regulations may force ISPs to pass large or unlimited >> amounts of traffic to the detriment of 1) other ISP customers and 2) the >> financial well-being of the ISP. >> > >> > Again the two main Network Neutrality (NN) issues are 1) Bandwidth and 2) >> Content. >> > >> > Bandwidth should already be managed by all ISPs and no one (not the >> Government and not a competitor) should be able to force an ISP to deliver >> more bandwidth to a customer than the amount that the customer contracted >> for. If I want to stream an HDTV presentation but I only contracted for 256 >> k of bandwidth then I have no right to complain if the HDTV movie doesn't >> stream smoothly. >> > >> > Content is where I believe that the free speech issue is relevant. There >> area two (or perhaps more) sides of "free speech". >> > >> > 1. THE POLITICAL SIDE - There is the political side and this is the side >> that I am concerned with when I say that protecting free speech is vital. >> When Democrats are in power, I don't want them to have the right to keep >> Republicans from using the Internet to discuss ideas that oppose the >> Democrats. When Republicans are in power, I don't want them to have the >> right to keep Democrats from using the Internet to discuss ideas that oppose >> the Republicans. When either Democrats or Republicans are in power, I don't >> want either of them to have the right to keep independent voices from >> organizing or using the Internet to discuss independent ideas. This is what >> I mean by protecting and preserving the right to "free speech". >> > >> > 2. THE COMMERCIAL SIDE - Currently, we live in a commercialized (possibly >> an over-commercialized) world. When many journalists write about Network >> Neutrality they could care less about protecting the political side of "free >> speech". All they focus on is the commercial side of Content - for example >> <"Service and Content Provider A" is blocking the services of "Content >> Provider B">. To me, this is a "Restraint of Trade" issue rather than a >> political "Free Speech" issue but it still falls under the heading of >> "Content" and is therefore addressed by NN. >> > >> > Should NN address the commercial side of "Content"?? Yes, I think it's >> appropriate that it does. Should one Content and Service provider be allowed >> to prohibit or unfairly delay the services of another Content provider who >> is using their network?? No, I don't think so. Every service provider should >> be required to carry the content of every other content or service provider >> equally, without restriction AS LONG AS THE CONTRACTED BANDWIDTH LIMITS ARE >> NOT EXCEEDED. If I contract for 256k of bandwidth do I have a right to ask >> my ISP to stream HDTV movies to me without delay? No, I do NOT because I am >> asking to consume more bandwidth then I have contracted to pay for and the >> ISP must slow my stream down to be able to manage their total bandwidth so >> they can deliver the contracted amount of bandwidth to all their customers. >> This is "reasonable network management" and it's perfectly proper. >> > >> > Sorry for the long-winded explanation but I felt that it was necessary to >> distinguish between the political "Free Speech" Content issue and the >> "Commercial" Content issue. >> > >> > Because I don't claim to be an expert on Net Neutrality, I'm open to >> hearing constructive and thoughtful comments from others who can help me >> further refine my current opinions. >> > >> > Again, thanks for your post. >> > >> > jack >> > >> > >> > John Vogel wrote: >> > >> > Jack, >> > >> > >> > >> > I do agree that you have been fairly clear, and I wasn't so much >> > >> > addressing you as being the one conflating the two issues. >> > >> > I think you have a good understanding of the two issues, and are >> > >> > reasonable in how you are addressing them. I am somewhat concerned that >> > >> > free speech was at the forefront of your endorsement of the FCC's >> > >> > upcoming proposal re Net Neutrality. As I said before, I don't think >> > >> > free speech is really the issue, either from the standpoint of the ISPs, >> > >> > nor of those who have been arguing for Net Neutrality, although some >> > >> > argue for NN primarily on the basis of free speech, which is where I >> > >> > think the issues have been conflated. >> > >> > >> > >> > The most visible cases I can recall that caught the attention of the >> > >> > News Media as well as the FCC were trade issues, rather than free speech >> > >> > issues. A phone company disallowing VoIP on their data networks, Cable >> > >> > companies disallowing IPTV on from possibly competing TV companies, etc. >> > >> > are trade issues. P2P is harder to portray as a trade issue. (Are there >> > >> > any ISPs who would block P2P to protect their own music business?) But.. >> > >> > P2P is still not really a free speech issue, although it is sometimes >> > >> > presented as such. >> > >> > >> > >> > The FCC proposes to regulate ISPs to ensure that they do not >> > >> > inhibit/impair the "*free flow of information AND CERTAIN APPLICATIONS" >> > >> > (quoted from the AP story, emphasis mine). We do have constitutional >> > >> > guarantees regarding free speech, and the Federal government is charged >> > >> > with regulating Interstate commerce, but there is no constitutional >> > >> > right to pass IP packets in any amount, frequency, volume, or direction >> > >> > you may choose, over anybody's IP network which you may choose. >> > >> > Advocating that you do under the free speech clause is inappropriate >> > >> > IMNSHO. :) >> > >> > >> > >> > As far as my network goes, and I suspect that most ISP's would be >> > >> > similar, I don't care if you use FTP, HTTP, TELNET, SSH, or Real Audio >> > >> > 40kps stream to receive the speech populary known as "I have a dream" by >> > >> > Martin Luther King. I might have an issue if you decide to download the >> > >> > HDTV version, and then do likewise for every political speech made since >> > >> > then. But... that has nothing to do with free speech. But, if the FCC >> > >> > decides that I must allow you to stream the HDTV video file, and that I >> > >> > cannot as an ISP interfere with that stream in a manner that makes it >> > >> > uncomfortable for you to view (constant buffering) under the guise of >> > >> > free speech guarantees, I have a big problem with that. >> > >> > >> > >> > I also have a problem with a certain application that is designed to >> > >> > consume every available network resource in an effort to gain an >> > >> > advantage over other users of the network in file download times. Again, >> > >> > not speech related, but often portrayed as a free speech issue. >> > >> > >> > >> > Jack, I know you know the difference, and this isn't really directed at >> > >> > you. But you were the one who brought the free speech issue into it >> AFAICT. >> > >> > >> > >> > John >> > >> > * >> > >> > Jack Unger wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > Hi John, >> > >> > >> > >> > Yes, there are two issues at play however I don't believe I have >> > >> > conflated them. I think I've been quite clear that there is an issue >> > >> > of bandwidth and there is an issue of content. >> > >> > >> > >> > On bandwidth, every ISP (in my opinion) should already be managing >> > >> > bandwidth and limiting bandwidth so that customers get what they >> > >> > contract for and not any more than what they contract for. >> > >> > >> > >> > On content, no ISP (again, in my opinion) should be able to be the >> > >> > "decider" and choose what content they will pass and what content they >> > >> > won't pass. >> > >> > >> > >> > If ISPs practice active bandwidth management then they should not need >> > >> > to practice content management. ISPs should not be able to tell me (or >> > >> > you) what we can or can't send or who we can or can not send it to or >> > >> > receive it from. >> > >> > >> > >> > I think I stated that very clearly. Do you agree? >> > >> > >> > >> > Respectfully, >> > >> > >> > >> > jack >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > John Vogel wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > Free speech itself is not so much the issue, as presented by most who >> > >> > would argue for net neutrality, but rather application/traffic type. If >> > >> > it were not for the change in the way network traffic has evolved, >> > >> > moving from a bursty/intermittent type of traffic to a constant, high >> > >> > bit rate streaming, there would probably not be much of an issue, as >> > >> > most ISPs don't really care so much what you say or view over their >> > >> > networks. Those ISPs who have fallen afoul of the NN advocates have done >> > >> > so primarily because they were attempting to address a particular type >> > >> > of traffic pattern, rather than whatever content may have been >> > >> > transmitted in that traffic pattern. (e.g. bittorrent, lots of >> > >> > connections, constant streaming at high bandwidth utilization) >> > >> > >> > >> > Although I hesitate to use analogies... If I own a public restaurant, I >> > >> > reserve the right to refuse service to anybody who is determined to >> > >> > converse with other patrons in that restaurant by shouting everything >> > >> > they say, Likewise, if they choose to communicate using smoke signals, >> > >> > (cigarette or otherwise) I or the State/City have rules regarding that, >> > >> > and will restrict their speech in that manner. What they are >> > >> > communicating is immaterial. While they DO have a right to free speech, >> > >> > arguing that they should be allowed to communicate that speech via smoke >> > >> > signals, and subsequent complaints about the infringement of their free >> > >> > speech right by restricting the way in which they choose to communicate >> > >> > is somewhat disingenuous. >> > >> > >> > >> > There are really two different issues in play here. Conflating them >> > >> > under the banner of free speech does not address both issues adequately. >> > >> > >> > >> > John >> > >> > >> > >> > Jack Unger wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > The government is actually protecting your freedom to access any >> > >> > Internet content you choose and your freedom to say whatever you want to >> > >> > say. >> > >> > >> > >> > The arguement that you can just move to another ISP is false because, as >> > >> > most WISPs know, many rural citizens don't have ANY ISP or maybe just >> > >> > one wireless ISP to choose from therefore they can't just "move to >> > >> > another ISP if the first ISP doesn't like what they have to say and >> > >> > shuts them off. Further, even if you have more than one ISP, how are you >> > >> > going to get the news or get your opinions out if BOTH ISPs (or ALL >> > >> > ISPs) disagree with your opinion and shut you off. >> > >> > >> > >> > Your arguement is like saying "I enjoy Free Speech" right now but I >> > >> > don't want the government to interfere in order to protect my Free >> > >> > Speech when AT&T doesn't like what I have to say and shuts my Internet >> > >> > service off. If AT&T wants to take your Free Speech away then you are >> > >> > saying to the Government "Hey, let them take it! I'd rather lose my >> > >> > freedom then have you telling AT&T what to do. STOP protecting my Free >> > >> > Speech right now!!!". >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Mike Hammett wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > What I don't like about it is another case of the government telling me >> what to do. More regulations is less freedom. If someone doesn't like the >> way ISP A operates, move to ISP B. If they don't like ISP B, find ISP C, or >> start ISP C, or maybe you shouldn't be doing what you're wanting to in the >> first place. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > ----- >> > >> > Mike Hammett >> > >> > Intelligent Computing Solutions >> > >> > http://www.ics-il.com >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > From: Jack Unger >> > >> > Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 4:38 PM >> > >> > To: WISPA General List >> > >> > Subject: Re: [WISPA] Net Neutrality >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Congress and the FCC would define "reasonable". It's their job to write >> the laws and make the rules. >> > >> > >> > >> > Net neutrality (NN) is about "free speech". NN would prohibit your >> carrier from delaying your packets or shutting off your service because they >> didn't like what you had to say or what web site you wanted to surf or post >> to. NN is "anti-censorship" therefore NN is "pro-freedom". >> > >> > >> > >> > If you write a letter to your local newspaper, the editor can refuse to >> print it. WITHOUT Net Neutrality, your carrier can decide to block your >> packets. Net neutrality is about remaining a free nation. What's not to like >> about that? >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Josh Luthman wrote: >> > >> > Who's definition of unreasonable... >> > >> > >> > >> > On 9/19/09, Jack Unger <[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> > The proposal doesn't say you have to provide unlimited bandwidth. >> > >> > Reasonable network management policies are allowed. >> > >> > >> > >> > Robert West wrote: >> > >> > Another unfunded mandate. If I were to provide net neutral broadband >> the >> > >> > price would be $120 per meg. Maybe my customers would understand if I >> > >> > explained how it's net neutral. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> >> [mailto:[email protected]] On >> > >> > Behalf Of Blair Davis >> > >> > Sent: Saturday, September 19, 2009 2:02 PM >> > >> > To: WISPA General List >> > >> > Subject: [WISPA] Net Neutrality >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > It's back.... >> > >> > >> > >> > http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,552503,00.html?test=latestnews >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > >> > WISPA Wants You! Join today! >> > >> > http://signup.wispa.org/ >> > >> > >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > >> > >> > >> > WISPA Wireless List: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> >> > >> > >> > >> > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >> > >> > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> > >> > >> > >> > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > >> > Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. >> > >> > Author - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs" >> > >> > Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 >> > >> > www.ask-wi.com<http://www.ask-wi.com> 818-227-4220 [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]> >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > >> > WISPA Wants You! Join today! >> > >> > http://signup.wispa.org/ >> > >> > >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > >> > >> > >> > WISPA Wireless List: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> >> > >> > >> > >> > 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: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> >> > >> > >> > >> > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >> > >> > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> > >> > >> > >> > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > >> > Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. >> > >> > Author - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs" >> > >> > Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 >> > >> > www.ask-wi.com<http://www.ask-wi.com> 818-227-4220 [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]> >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > >> > WISPA Wants You! Join today! >> > >> > http://signup.wispa.org/ >> > >> > >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > >> > >> > >> > WISPA Wireless List: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> >> > >> > >> > >> > 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: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> >> > >> > >> > >> > Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >> > >> > http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless >> > >> > >> > >> > Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > >> > Jack Unger - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc. >> > >> > Author - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs" >> > >> > Serving the Broadband Wireless Industry Since 1993 >> > >> > www.ask-wi.com<http://www.ask-wi.com> 818-227-4220 [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]> >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > WISPA Wants You! Join today! >> > http://signup.wispa.org/ >> > >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> > >> > WISPA Wireless List: [email protected] >> > >> > 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: [email protected] >> >> 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: [email protected] > >Subscribe/Unsubscribe: >http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless > >Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ >--- >[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus] > > Wireless High Speed Broadband service from Info-Ed, Inc. as low as $30.00/mth. Check out www.info-ed.com/wireless.html for information. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wants You! Join today! http://signup.wispa.org/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WISPA Wireless List: [email protected] Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
