I'm not sure my argument is the same as theirs but actually that's my point. Currently, I cant allow certain applications such as PTP due to lack of network and billing inefficiencies. In my scenario, you would be able to run any application but there will be a cost associated with it. As far as the ILEC's - as long as they take public funds I feel we have a right to their networks. I dont feel we have the same right with CableCo's. AFAIK, TW doesn't have to allow me to have access but they do for a price.
-RickG Not as much late night climbing these days as continue to add redundancies. Thanks! On Tue, Mar 29, 2011 at 11:57 PM, Faisal Imtiaz <[email protected]>wrote: > Rick, > Be-careful when going down this road... this is slippery slopes... > > This is the exact argument used by the ILEC's / and Cable Co's to keep > folks like you and me to connect to their networks. > > The one attribute of the Internet has been 'no one is going to mess with > the apps running on it'... that is the primary sole attribute of the > Internet that has made it what it is... > > There is noting wrong with they way you look at your network, but if > everyone looked at their network in this manner, we all would not be in > business... > > Just pointing out that there is a sensible middle ground in this debate, > but be very careful as you start to define terms and conditions.. What you > do for your customers is exactly what the Upstream providers can do for us > who are downstream and their customers.. > > :) > > Regards.. Hope you are doing well and not climbing towers late at night . > > Faisal Imtiaz > > > > On 3/29/2011 11:15 PM, RickG wrote: > > 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 <[email protected]>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 <[email protected] > >> 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 <%2B1%20617%20795%202701> >> >> >> >> >> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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/ >> > > > > -- > -RickG > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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/ > -- -RickG
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/
