Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: Fair Use Policy
From: Sean Harlow <sean () seanharlow info>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 17:17:14 -0400

On Aug 22, 2012, at 17:06, Bacon Zombie wrote:

An ISP with a 5GB cap that is charging the end user more then 5$ total
{including line rental} a month should not be allow to operate.

I agree entirely.  The US is not exactly known for great broadband access, particularly where I live in the midwest 
(unless one is in a lucky pocket with FiOS, Google Fiber, or the like), yet I could easily host 200 512kbit/sec 
subscribers off my residential cable connection without even thinking about caps much less throttling on top of caps.  
It'd be oversubscribed, sure, but most users don't max out the line regularly so I don't think I'd have a problem.  My 
mobile phone is through Sprint, known for being the slowest of the national 3G carriers, yet I can exceed 1mbit/sec in 
the middle of a corn field miles from anything resembling civilization and again do not have any monthly cap.

A 5GB cap on 512kbit/sec service could be blown through in under a single day.  That's absurd.  If a 256k user maxed 
out their line all month, they'd have transferred just short of 80GB.  Why in the world would it make sense to limit 
someone to 1/16th of that just for the "privilege" of double speed which is still so slow it's beaten by any 3G service?

Wired internet providers should not even be thinking about caps below the 250GB/mo point.  Neither of these example 
speeds can even reach that level, so if you feel the need to cap you are doing it wrong and should rethink your 
business model.  Wireless carriers get a bit more leeway due to spectrum limitations, but even there a 5GB cap is 
barely reasonable for an entry level offering.
---
Sean Harlow
sean () seanharlow info



  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]
AlienVault