Fred, I respectfully disagree. First off, applications being run on my network ARE my business. Many apps can have detrimental effect on it and therefore I have a right and responsibility to say what can run on it. Secondly, priority bits simply cost more to provide and tax the network more than non-priority. Everyone expects their high priority apps (video/voice) to be first in line without delays and that's really what all the fuss is about. Meanwhile, we have been focusing on raw usage but that is only a part of the equation. Just billing for monthly overages does not consider daily peak usage times. In fact, in questioning many customers, they would be happy to pay a premium for a high-priority, low latency connection for certain apps. Heck, I can even see premiums for usage based on the time of day but that may be pushing it. This may sound extreme but everyone laughed at me back in 1997 when I bought an Allot box for UBB. BTW:While economic optimization is good, network optimization is better. Over the years, I've seen fast networks and slow networks, I'd pay more any day to be on a fast network.
On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Fred Goldstein <fgoldst...@ionary.com>wrote: > At 3/29/2011 01:20 PM, RickG wrote: > > I still say there needs to be more than just caps. There needs to be a > matrix of billing by priority such as video at .03/meg, file transfer at > .02, email at .01, etc. Heck, perhaps HD can be .05 and SD at .03? (Prices > are just for arguments sake) > > > Well, no, there doesn't. Applications are none of the network's business. > That's one reason why DPI is evil. > > HOWEVER, I am not opposed to appliation-agnostic billing for usage, by > QoS. It is perfectly reasonable for a network to charge for usage that > imposes a cost. And while the teevee fiends are sure, just certain, that > 300 GB/month imposes precisely zero cost on the network, I doubt many WISPs > would agree. Especially rural ones who have to pay for backhaul, or who > have multi-hop networks. > > IP, of course, is one-size-fits-all, with QoS being rare. Hence caps and > overage charges are a way to do cost averaging for the majority (since > people hate billing for usage), while still hitting the heaviest users. > Block pricing (like wireless, having say 10, 50, and 150 GB/month plans, > plus overage) also works. And if you go beyond plain old IP and do have a > QoS-enabled protocol, then lower-loss or delay-limited (or whatever) traffic > should carry a premium. Regardless of what it's used for. Then the > applications could adapt to the pricing. This leads towards economic > optimization. > > On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Bret Clark <bcl...@spectraaccess.com > > wrote: > I know this is Canada, but I can just see some congressman here in the > US one day bitch about not being able to cleaning watch the "Jackass 3" > movie from Netflix and demanding that all service providers get rid of > bandwidth quotas and throttling by introducing a new bill. > > On 03/29/2011 11:26 AM, Matt wrote: > > > http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/03/data-caps-claim-a-victim-netflix-streaming-video.ars > > > > > > -- > Fred Goldstein k1io fgoldstein "at" ionary.com > ionary Consulting http://www.ionary.com/ > +1 617 795 2701 > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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/ > -- -RickG
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/
