[ILUG] Slightly OT. The which ISP Question!
thomasb at gmail.com
Mon Feb 20 14:40:08 GMT 2006
On 2/20/06, Justin Mason <jm at jmason.org> wrote:
> 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!
The customer is going to pay for it either way. Either directly, or
indirectly. Most abusive traffic will come accross those transit
connections I mentioned earlier.
Virus/worm traffic doesn't represent a very high percentage of traffic anyway,
> Well, to be honest I'd consider traffic shaping -- especially of
> high-bandwidth-use protocols like filesharing -- more acceptable than
Netsource (used to) have a policy where high users were "traffic
shaped" - there was no charge for going over the AUP, but you could
find yourself competing with other high level users for bandwidth.
More information about the ILUG