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
Maintained by the ILUG website team. The aim of Linux.ie is to
support and help commercial and private users of Linux in Ireland. You can
display ILUG news in your own webpages, read backend
information to find out how. Networking services kindly provided by HEAnet, server kindly donated by
Dell. Linux is a trademark of Linus Torvalds,
used with permission. No penguins were harmed in the production or maintenance
of this highly praised website. Looking for the
Indian Linux Users' Group? Try here. If you've read all this and aren't a lawyer: you should be!
