[ILUG] Slightly OT. The which ISP Question!

[Thomas Bridge]

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
> capping.

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.

Thomas
--
Thomas Bridge
CCIE  #14108