keyboard5684
join:2001-08-01
Youngsville, PA
 ·Teliax VOIP
 ·WestPAnet Inc.
 ·WestPAnet Inc. CA..
| reply to spewak
Re: Ain't gonna happen!
This is actually pretty easy. Just not counting local network traffic as part of the metered portion.
Really easy to do. Having worked for a provider that did it we had to take out phone traffic, internal network traffic (like email and stuff) and other local services. Simple as adding an exception in the management hardware.
So I think that this is just a way to "fire up" the anit-cap people. get em a little more angry, because the problem does exist but was solved 5 years ago.
The problems I really see are getting my Ipod and other peripherals to work. That concerns me more than CAPS! |
|
Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO | IF the point of the caps is to prevent local congestion(which is what they have suggested), then this would just prove that local congestion is not the issue. |
|
keyboard5684
join:2001-08-01
Youngsville, PA
·Teliax VOIP
·WestPAnet Inc.
·WestPAnet Inc. CA..
| No, since most of the traffic is headed out bound, through the bottleneck points which are usually there peers. There links to the net.
Congestion on cable nodes is easy to fix, just split it, done all the time. So if they claim congestion is the cable node itself then they are lying. I am pretty sure the problem is to the net, not locally. |
|
wentlanc
You Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH
| Funny, when anyone points out that peering bandwidth is cheap and plentiful, we are told that the issues is access from the node to the headend. Now we find that that the opposite is true. I'd just like to see an agreeing argument on this issue. And I'll say it again, if they can exclude their own bandwidth, then they are being anti-competitive. Plain and simple...
cw |
|
