🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <nospam-CCBE21.22403319062008@blackdragon.nntpserver.com>,
 Steve Fenwick <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <485a7e1f$0$17160$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
>  Dane Jasper <dane@sonic.net> wrote:
> 
> > In ba.internet John Higdon <HisRoyalRadioHigness@kome.com> wrote:
> > : Cap primary connections at 5GB/month? A lot of people are going to be 
> > : hurting, big time.
> > 
> > I don't think ANY carriers are talking about caps that low for wireline
> > service.  I've seen numbers between 150 Gigs/mo and 500 Gigs/mo in
> > discussion from different carriers.
> 
> Time Warner is trying that out right now, in Beaumont, Texas:
> 
> <http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jwm8wu3jZWZLcKfIlycqFqFegknwD9126HN8A
> >
> 
> > Time Warner Cable had said in January that it was planning to conduct the 
> > trial in Beaumont, but did not give any details. On Monday, Leddy said its 
> > tiers will range from $29.95 a month for relatively slow service at 768 
> > kilobits per second and a 5-gigabyte monthly cap to $54.90 per month for 
> > fast 
> > downloads at 15 megabits per second and a 40-gigabyte cap. Those prices 
> > cover 
> > the Internet portion of subscription bundles that include video or phone 
> > services. Both downloads and uploads will count toward the monthly cap.
> 
> 
> Steve

ISP are mixing up network criminals with people who are working from 
home or serving their own content.  How's this for a solution that may 
address the problem more accurately:

- A dynamic IP address is capped at 40GB a month.
- A static IP address is $15/month extra and has no bandwidth cap.

This gives legitimate power users exactly what they need, it matches 
revenue to use, and it keeps pirates from hiding behind a dynamic 
address.  Of course the ISPs might have to invest a few more pennies to 
make it work.  Today's last-mile providers are quite complacent with a 
frustrated customer base that has nowhere else to go.

-- 
I will not see your reply if you use Google.