[ILUG] Slightly OT. The which ISP Question!
jm at jmason.org
Mon Feb 20 14:24:07 GMT 2006
John Lyons writes:
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 11:05:17AM +0000, Justin Mason wrote:
> > Are capping ISPs taking action to not count the abusive traffic against
> > their caps? I doubt it.
> What criteria would they use to mark traffic as "abusive" ? How would
> they do it ? How would they pay for it ? More importantly, would you
> want them to do it ?
That hasn't exactly made the case for capping *easier*, you know.
If an ISP allows third parties to increase a customer's bills without
their consent, then the customer is getting screwed. Just because an ISP
doesn't have a way to measure the abusive traffic, doesn't mean that it's
therefore OK to let the customer pay for it, as a result!
> > For what it's worth, Magnet's 150GB cap sounds pretty reasonable -- but I
> > would still go for an uncapped scheme in preference. This is simply
> > because I don't want to support the practice of capping with my customer
> > euros, if I'm given a choice.
> Most of the "no cap" service providers run "fair usage" policy (Smart
> certainly do for instance). If you're using up a 150GB cap on a
> residential package you're generally well outside the realm of "fair
> usage". ISP's with completely uncapped services usually end up with
> 1% of their customers using 50% of their bandwidth, this simply isn't
> tenable in the long term.
> The UK has seen a lot of this in the last year or two with originally
> uncapped services changing over to capped and the influx of heavy
> traffic shaping measures.
Well, to be honest I'd consider traffic shaping -- especially of
high-bandwidth-use protocols like filesharing -- more acceptable than
More information about the ILUG