FW: ISPs slowing P2P traffic...

Mark Radabaugh mark at amplex.net
Wed Jan 16 06:06:43 UTC 2008


Joe Greco wrote:
>> As long as you fairly disclose to your end-users what limitations and 
>> restrictions exist on your network, I don't see the problem.
>>     
>
> You've set out a qualification that generally doesn't exist.  For example,
> this discussion included someone from a WISP, Amplex, I believe, that 
> listed certain conditions of use on their web site, and yet it seems like
> they're un{willing,able} (not assigning blame/fault/etc here) to deliver
> that level of service, and using their inability as a way to justify
> possibly rate shaping P2P traffic above and beyond what they indicate on 
> their own documents.
>   
Actually you misrepresent what I said versus what you said.   It's 
getting a little old.


I responded to the original question by Deepak Jain over why anyone 
cared about P2P traffic rather then just using a hard limit with the 
reasons why a Wireless ISP would want to shape P2P traffic.


You then took it upon yourself to post sections of our website to Nanog 
and claim that your service was much superior because you happen to run 
Metro Ethernet.  


Our website pretty clearly spells out our practices and they are MUCH 
more transparent than any other provider I know of.    Can we do EXACTLY 
what we say on our website if EVERY client wants to run P2P at the full 
upload rate?  No - but we can do it for the ones who care at this 
point.    At the moment the only people who seem to care about this are 
holier than thou network engineers and content providers looking for 
ways to avoid their own distribution costs.   Neither one of them is 
paying me a dime.


Mark




More information about the NANOG mailing list