🚀 go-pugleaf

John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> writes:

> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/12/free_wi_fi_san_francisco/>
> <snip>
>    Around the world the idea of cities providing a low-bandwidth Wi-Fi
>    service to their residents for free has been considered, promoted,
>    deployed and bankrupted time and time again, but that's not stopping
>    San Franciso -- the city that still wants everyone to wear flowers in
>    its hair, and with a mayor convinced that municipal Wi-Fi should be
>    his legacy.
 
Try <http://www.newsguide.us/technology/networking/Meraki-Extends-Free-The-Net-Project-In-San-Francisco-To-Affordable-Housing-Complexes/>

It seems that no city funds are involved and that the company
providing it intends to sell hardware/software to anyone who
wants to create such a network.

The bad feature I found so far is described at
<http://sf.meraki.com/faq#tech>, which claims that the first
time you use it, you get some sort of "splash screen", which
I guess is a web page, and that you can "click through it" to
go to where you first intended.   If you don't have a browser
or use a browser, it is not clear what happens.

Bill Z. wrote:
> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> writes:
> 
>> <http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/06/12/free_wi_fi_san_francisco/>
>> <snip>
>>    Around the world the idea of cities providing a low-bandwidth Wi-Fi
>>    service to their residents for free has been considered, promoted,
>>    deployed and bankrupted time and time again, but that's not stopping
>>    San Franciso -- the city that still wants everyone to wear flowers in
>>    its hair, and with a mayor convinced that municipal Wi-Fi should be
>>    his legacy.
>  
> Try <http://www.newsguide.us/technology/networking/Meraki-Extends-Free-The-Net-Project-In-San-Francisco-To-Affordable-Housing-Complexes/>
> 
> It seems that no city funds are involved and that the company
> providing it intends to sell hardware/software to anyone who
> wants to create such a network.
> 
> The bad feature I found so far is described at
> <http://sf.meraki.com/faq#tech>, which claims that the first
> time you use it, you get some sort of "splash screen", which
> I guess is a web page, and that you can "click through it" to
> go to where you first intended.   If you don't have a browser
> or use a browser, it is not clear what happens.


You have to do a bit of reading to figure out this network.  The idea is 
for "volunteers" to purchase repeaters for their homes and thus extend 
the network.

Here's some more info on what it actually is

http://www.dailywireless.org/2007/03/05/meraki-rocks-the-casbah/

In ba.internet Roy <aa4re@aa4re.ampr.org> wrote:
: You have to do a bit of reading to figure out this network.  The idea is 
: for "volunteers" to purchase repeaters for their homes and thus extend 
: the network.

And in the process, violate the terms of service of their own Internet
connection.

I guess the talk of bandwidth caps will put the kibosh on this in the long
run anyway.

: Here's some more info on what it actually is

: http://www.dailywireless.org/2007/03/05/meraki-rocks-the-casbah/

-- 
Dane Jasper				Sonic.net, Inc.
(707)522-1000
mailto:dane@sonic.net			http://www.sonic.net/

Key fingerprint =  A5 D6 6E 16 D8 81 BA E9  CB BD A9 77 B3 AF 45 53 

Dane Jasper  <dane@sonic.net> wrote:

>In ba.internet Roy <aa4re@aa4re.ampr.org> wrote:

>: You have to do a bit of reading to figure out this network.  The idea is 
>: for "volunteers" to purchase repeaters for their homes and thus extend 
>: the network.

>And in the process, violate the terms of service of their own Internet
>connection.

I got the impression the city was asking for free rooftop space
and probably power, but not for the resident to supply an
internet connection to the device, which is a repeater.

In any event, this does not seem a real substitute for
the previously-planned deployment which fell through.

Steve

In article <48542aaf$0$17237$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
 Dane Jasper <dane@sonic.net> wrote:

> I guess the talk of bandwidth caps will put the kibosh on this in the long
> run anyway.

Indeed. Bandwidth caps will put the damper on many things the Internet 
promised and may take away some things we take for granted now. I 
suspect that one day, we'll look fondly back on unlimited dial-up 
Internet service.

-- 
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400

Dane Jasper <dane@sonic.net> writes:

> In ba.internet Roy <aa4re@aa4re.ampr.org> wrote:
> : You have to do a bit of reading to figure out this network.  The idea is 
> : for "volunteers" to purchase repeaters for their homes and thus extend 
> : the network.
> 
> And in the process, violate the terms of service of their own Internet
> connection.

The articles on it claimed that wasn't a problem due to the ISPs the
company making the repeaters uses.

On Sat, 14 Jun 2008 13:55:38 -0700, John Higdon
<HisRoyalRadioHigness@kome.com> wrote in
<HisRoyalRadioHigness-6E2B47.13553714062008@news.announcetech.com>:

>In article <48542aaf$0$17237$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
> Dane Jasper <dane@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>> I guess the talk of bandwidth caps will put the kibosh on this in the long
>> run anyway.
>
>Indeed. Bandwidth caps will put the damper on many things the Internet 
>promised and may take away some things we take for granted now. I 
>suspect that one day, we'll look fondly back on unlimited dial-up 
>Internet service.

I seriously doubt that.  The "caps" being considered are in the GIGAbyte
range of broadband, not the MEGAbyte range of dialup.  Like most people
I'm not even close to that level of transfer.  

I'm not sure what you mean by "things the Internet promised" -- do you?
-- but I don't see any real risk to anything other than massive
audio/video downloading, which is NOT what the Internet was built for.

The real issue isn't "caps" -- it's the insanity of flat rate pricing,
where normal users wind up subsidizing bandwidth hogs.  It's long since
time for metered usage.

-- 
Best regards,   FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas      FAQ for Wi-Fi:  <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
           Wi-Fi How To:  <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems:  <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>

In article <819i545fe2h55o2p71gfhoul5ois99ut4l@4ax.com>,
 John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> I seriously doubt that.  The "caps" being considered are in the GIGAbyte
> range of broadband, not the MEGAbyte range of dialup.  Like most people
> I'm not even close to that level of transfer.  

And if you don't need it, no one does. I understand.

> I'm not sure what you mean by "things the Internet promised" -- do you?
> -- but I don't see any real risk to anything other than massive
> audio/video downloading, which is NOT what the Internet was built for.

Could you direct me to a reference which outlines "what the Internet was 
built for"? I had always mistakenly assumed that it was a dumb network 
whose usage was limited only by the imagination of those utilizing it.

> The real issue isn't "caps" -- it's the insanity of flat rate pricing,
> where normal users wind up subsidizing bandwidth hogs.  It's long since
> time for metered usage.

I respectfully disagree.

-- 
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400

On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:46:05 -0700, John Higdon
<HisRoyalRadioHigness@kome.com> wrote in
<HisRoyalRadioHigness-5BE3A3.09460518062008@news.announcetech.com>:

>In article <819i545fe2h55o2p71gfhoul5ois99ut4l@4ax.com>,
> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> I seriously doubt that.  The "caps" being considered are in the GIGAbyte
>> range of broadband, not the MEGAbyte range of dialup.  Like most people
>> I'm not even close to that level of transfer.  
>
>And if you don't need it, no one does. I understand.

What part of "most people" was unclear?  ;)

>> I'm not sure what you mean by "things the Internet promised" -- do you?
>> -- but I don't see any real risk to anything other than massive
>> audio/video downloading, which is NOT what the Internet was built for.
>
>Could you direct me to a reference which outlines "what the Internet was 
>built for"? I had always mistakenly assumed that it was a dumb network 
>whose usage was limited only by the imagination of those utilizing it.

There are ample references to the fact that multicasting wasn't a
consideration in the original design of TCP/IP, on which the Internet is
based, as I'm sure you know.

>> The real issue isn't "caps" -- it's the insanity of flat rate pricing,
>> where normal users wind up subsidizing bandwidth hogs.  It's long since
>> time for metered usage.
>
>I respectfully disagree.

I take it then that you're one of those profiting from subsidies by the
rest of us.  ;)

-- 
Best regards,   FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas      FAQ for Wi-Fi:  <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
           Wi-Fi How To:  <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems:  <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>

John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> I seriously doubt that.  The "caps" being considered are in the GIGAbyte
> range of broadband, not the MEGAbyte range of dialup.  Like most people
> I'm not even close to that level of transfer.  

Just out of curiosity what sort of level of transfer are you
seeing from your usage?  

I see 100 megabytes since this morning, from one computer
engaging in mild web usage.   I do not know what I could
do to reliably get under a 5 gig monthly cap.  All I am running
is putty and Internet Explorer.  5 gigs/month seems way low to me.

Steve

In article <g3cbt4$j0k$1@blue.rahul.net>,
 spope33@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote:

> I see 100 megabytes since this morning, from one computer
> engaging in mild web usage.   I do not know what I could
> do to reliably get under a 5 gig monthly cap.  All I am running
> is putty and Internet Explorer.  5 gigs/month seems way low to me.

Of course it's low. A single web page with all of its 
graphical/video/whirly-twirly bling can amount to many megabytes. My 
EVDO app gives a usage report. I only use the service when out of town 
to basically stay in touch. 

The week I spent at the NAB convention in April racked up over 2 GB of 
usage. That's using the computer in the hotel room in the morning and 
late in the evening since I didn't take it with me to the convention 
center. It was all from web activity (mainly checking on orders and 
products I was investigating at the convention), email, Usenet, and some 
home network administration. That's it.

Cap primary connections at 5GB/month? A lot of people are going to be 
hurting, big time.

-- 
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400

In article 
<HisRoyalRadioHigness-70941C.18541818062008@news.announcetech.com>,
 John Higdon <HisRoyalRadioHigness@kome.com> wrote:

> In article <g3cbt4$j0k$1@blue.rahul.net>,
>  spope33@speedymail.org (Steve Pope) wrote:
> 
> > I see 100 megabytes since this morning, from one computer
> > engaging in mild web usage.   I do not know what I could
> > do to reliably get under a 5 gig monthly cap.  All I am running
> > is putty and Internet Explorer.  5 gigs/month seems way low to me.
> 
> Of course it's low. A single web page with all of its 
> graphical/video/whirly-twirly bling can amount to many megabytes. My 
> EVDO app gives a usage report. I only use the service when out of town 
> to basically stay in touch. 
> 
> The week I spent at the NAB convention in April racked up over 2 GB of 
> usage. That's using the computer in the hotel room in the morning and 
> late in the evening since I didn't take it with me to the convention 
> center. It was all from web activity (mainly checking on orders and 
> products I was investigating at the convention), email, Usenet, and some 
> home network administration. That's it.
> 
> Cap primary connections at 5GB/month? A lot of people are going to be 
> hurting, big time.

It's a bit like charging cellphone users for incoming calls. I can't 
tell who "Private Call" is; I can answer it, and it may be a junk call, 
or it may be a family member trying to get in touch with me urgently.

Likewise, many sites cannot be navigated without accepting lots of audio 
and video. There is no disincentive to them, except (maybe) lost 
customers, but there's no way I can force Amazon not to have lots of 
graphics that eat up bandwidth. This is not just retail sites; many B2B 
sites are laden with Flash content.

I maintain that the thing that makes the Internet what the vast majority 
want is the freely available use of bandwidth to access data on a whim. 
Break that, and we're back to the state of data telecommunications in 
the days of per-minute metering--only used sparingly, and not by most.

Steve

-- 
steve <at> w0x0f <dot> com
"Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of
arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to
skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, chip shot in the other, body thoroughly
used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO what a ride!"
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

John Navas wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:46:05 -0700, John Higdon
> <HisRoyalRadioHigness@kome.com> wrote in
> <HisRoyalRadioHigness-5BE3A3.09460518062008@news.announcetech.com>:
> 
>> In article <819i545fe2h55o2p71gfhoul5ois99ut4l@4ax.com>,
>> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I seriously doubt that.  The "caps" being considered are in the GIGAbyte
>>> range of broadband, not the MEGAbyte range of dialup.  Like most people
>>> I'm not even close to that level of transfer.  
>> And if you don't need it, no one does. I understand.
> 
> What part of "most people" was unclear?  ;)

The part where you produced some evidence that "most people" only 
generated hundreds of megs of monthly traffic?  :-)

>>> I'm not sure what you mean by "things the Internet promised" -- do you?
>>> -- but I don't see any real risk to anything other than massive
>>> audio/video downloading, which is NOT what the Internet was built for.
>> Could you direct me to a reference which outlines "what the Internet was 
>> built for"? I had always mistakenly assumed that it was a dumb network 
>> whose usage was limited only by the imagination of those utilizing it.
> 
> There are ample references to the fact that multicasting wasn't a
> consideration in the original design of TCP/IP, on which the Internet is
> based, as I'm sure you know.

I'm unclear as to how this answers the question.

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.

-- 
Dane Jasper				Sonic.net, Inc.
(707)522-1000
mailto:dane@sonic.net			http://www.sonic.net/

Key fingerprint =  A5 D6 6E 16 D8 81 BA E9  CB BD A9 77 B3 AF 45 53 

: > And in the process, violate the terms of service of their own Internet
: > connection.

: The articles on it claimed that wasn't a problem due to the ISPs the
: company making the repeaters uses.

Can you give a reference to that?  All I've seen so far is them helping
people "Free" (steal) their existing connection to their cable or DSL
provider.

-- 
Dane Jasper				Sonic.net, Inc.
(707)522-1000
mailto:dane@sonic.net			http://www.sonic.net/

Key fingerprint =  A5 D6 6E 16 D8 81 BA E9  CB BD A9 77 B3 AF 45 53 

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 01:14:12 +0000 (UTC), spope33@speedymail.org (Steve
Pope) wrote in <g3cbt4$j0k$1@blue.rahul.net>:

>John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> I seriously doubt that.  The "caps" being considered are in the GIGAbyte
>> range of broadband, not the MEGAbyte range of dialup.  Like most people
>> I'm not even close to that level of transfer.  
>
>Just out of curiosity what sort of level of transfer are you
>seeing from your usage?  

Excluding work I do for clients, my monthly usage is currently in the
range of 2-3 gigabytes.  To be fair, the ad blocker in my browser cuts
out quite a bit of traffic, but I doubt it's more than another gigabyte.
I could easily live with a 5 gigabyte cap.

-- 
Best regards,   FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas      FAQ for Wi-Fi:  <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
           Wi-Fi How To:  <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems:  <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 08:52:55 +0100, Mark McIntyre
<markmcintyre@TROUSERSspamcop.net> wrote in
<rfo6k.188957$6i4.132499@en-nntp-03.dc1.easynews.com>:

>John Navas wrote:
>> On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:46:05 -0700, John Higdon
>> <HisRoyalRadioHigness@kome.com> wrote in
>> <HisRoyalRadioHigness-5BE3A3.09460518062008@news.announcetech.com>:
>> 
>>> In article <819i545fe2h55o2p71gfhoul5ois99ut4l@4ax.com>,
>>> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I seriously doubt that.  The "caps" being considered are in the GIGAbyte
>>>> range of broadband, not the MEGAbyte range of dialup.  Like most people
>>>> I'm not even close to that level of transfer.  
>>> And if you don't need it, no one does. I understand.
>> 
>> What part of "most people" was unclear?  ;)
>
>The part where you produced some evidence that "most people" only 
>generated hundreds of megs of monthly traffic?  :-)

The evidence is readily available, as I'm sure you know.  :-)

>>>> I'm not sure what you mean by "things the Internet promised" -- do you?
>>>> -- but I don't see any real risk to anything other than massive
>>>> audio/video downloading, which is NOT what the Internet was built for.
>>> Could you direct me to a reference which outlines "what the Internet was 
>>> built for"? I had always mistakenly assumed that it was a dumb network 
>>> whose usage was limited only by the imagination of those utilizing it.
>> 
>> There are ample references to the fact that multicasting wasn't a
>> consideration in the original design of TCP/IP, on which the Internet is
>> based, as I'm sure you know.
>
>I'm unclear as to how this answers the question.

Why am I not surprised.

-- 
Best regards,   FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas      FAQ for Wi-Fi:  <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
           Wi-Fi How To:  <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems:  <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>

John Navas wrote:

> On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 08:52:55 +0100, Mark McIntyre
> <markmcintyre@TROUSERSspamcop.net> wrote in
> <rfo6k.188957$6i4.132499@en-nntp-03.dc1.easynews.com>:
> 
> > John Navas wrote:
> >> On Wed, 18 Jun 2008 09:46:05 -0700, John Higdon
> >> <HisRoyalRadioHigness@kome.com> wrote in
> >> <HisRoyalRadioHigness-5BE3A3.09460518062008@news.announcetech.com>:
> >> 
> >>> In article <819i545fe2h55o2p71gfhoul5ois99ut4l@4ax.com>,
> >>> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> > > > 
> >>>> I seriously doubt that.  The "caps" being considered are in the
> GIGAbyte >>>> range of broadband, not the MEGAbyte range of dialup.
> Like most people >>>> I'm not even close to that level of transfer.  
> >>> And if you don't need it, no one does. I understand.
> >> 
> >> What part of "most people" was unclear?  ;)
> > 
> > The part where you produced some evidence that "most people" only 
> > generated hundreds of megs of monthly traffic?  :-)
> 
> The evidence is readily available, as I'm sure you know.  :-)
> 
> >>>> I'm not sure what you mean by "things the Internet promised" --
> do you?  >>>> -- but I don't see any real risk to anything other than
> massive >>>> audio/video downloading, which is NOT what the Internet
> was built for.  >>> Could you direct me to a reference which outlines
> "what the Internet was >>> built for"? I had always mistakenly
> assumed that it was a dumb network >>> whose usage was limited only
> by the imagination of those utilizing it.  >> 
> >> There are ample references to the fact that multicasting wasn't a
> >> consideration in the original design of TCP/IP, on which the
> Internet is >> based, as I'm sure you know.
> > 
> > I'm unclear as to how this answers the question.
> 
> Why am I not surprised.

The usual John Navas "blow-off". Why am I not surprised.

-- 
Cliff

John Navas wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 08:52:55 +0100, Mark McIntyre
> <markmcintyre@TROUSERSspamcop.net> wrote in
> <rfo6k.188957$6i4.132499@en-nntp-03.dc1.easynews.com>:
>> John Navas wrote:

>>> What part of "most people" was unclear?  ;)
>> The part where you produced some evidence that "most people" only 
>> generated hundreds of megs of monthly traffic?  :-)
> 
> The evidence is readily available, as I'm sure you know.  :-)

Thats neither an answer to the question, nor true.

>>>>> I'm not sure what you mean by "things the Internet promised" -- do you?
>>>>> -- but I don't see any real risk to anything other than massive
>>>>> audio/video downloading, which is NOT what the Internet was built for.
>>>> Could you direct me to a reference which outlines "what the Internet was 
>>>> built for"? I had always mistakenly assumed that it was a dumb network 
>>>> whose usage was limited only by the imagination of those utilizing it.
>>> There are ample references to the fact that multicasting wasn't a
>>> consideration in the original design of TCP/IP, on which the Internet is
>>> based, as I'm sure you know.
>> I'm unclear as to how this answers the question.
> 
> Why am I not surprised.

At a guess, because you are incapable of detecting irony?

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

-- 
steve <at> w0x0f <dot> com
"Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of
arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to
skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, chip shot in the other, body thoroughly
used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO what a ride!"
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

In article <nospam-F69FB4.19270718062008@blackdragon.nntpserver.com>,
 Steve Fenwick <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> I maintain that the thing that makes the Internet what the vast majority 
> want is the freely available use of bandwidth to access data on a whim. 
> Break that, and we're back to the state of data telecommunications in 
> the days of per-minute metering--only used sparingly, and not by most.

I couldn't have put it better. How long did we suffer with the likes of 
CompuServe, et al...services which went absolutely nowhere if compared 
to the Internet? If you have to think for one second about the cost of 
searching or getting a piece of information, then the premiere feature 
of the Internet is defeated. 

The pricing structure of telephony has even reached a point where people 
don't give a second thought to making a transcontinental call. Would we 
now make people hesitate to simply check their email because they are 
nearing their "cap"?

The Internet could be killed very easily by putting a usage-sensitive 
tall gate on it.

-- 
John Higdon
+1 408 ANdrews 6-4400

>Likewise, many sites cannot be navigated without accepting lots of audio 
>and video. There is no disincentive to them, except (maybe) lost 
>customers, but there's no way I can force Amazon not to have lots of 
>graphics that eat up bandwidth. This is not just retail sites; many B2B 
>sites are laden with Flash content.

At least you can turn off flash.  It may impair your ability
to use some sites though.

Steve

In article 
<HisRoyalRadioHigness-3B5F69.09545621062008@news.announcetech.com>,
 John Higdon <HisRoyalRadioHigness@kome.com> wrote:

> > I maintain that the thing that makes the Internet what the vast majority 
> > want is the freely available use of bandwidth to access data on a whim. 
> > Break that, and we're back to the state of data telecommunications in 
> > the days of per-minute metering--only used sparingly, and not by most.
> 
> I couldn't have put it better . . . . If you have to think for one second about the cost of 
> searching or getting a piece of information, then the premiere feature 
> of the Internet is defeated. 
> 
> The pricing structure of telephony has even reached a point where people 
> don't give a second thought to making a transcontinental call. Would we 
> now make people hesitate to simply check their email because they are 
> nearing their "cap"?
> 
> The Internet could be killed very easily by putting a usage-sensitive 
> tall gate on it.

I fully agreement with your sentiments here, but I'd suggest there's a 
bit more to the situation.  Your transatlantic call ties up a few kHz of 
bandwidth, between your and exactly one recipient.  Its real cost, 
however you want to assess it, is indeed very nearly "too small to 
measure, or bill for".  

But if you were able to hook something electronic and automated to that 
same port and have it start exchanging GHz bandwidth signals with very 
large numbers of external recipients, the real costs would at some point 
become not just significant but eventually unsupportable.

Ultimately there has to be a way of paying for the Internet, and somehow 
this will have to have some connection to amount of use.  Obviously 
there are destructive and constructive ways to do this, efficient and 
inefficient ways, fair and unfair ways, and so on.  The problem is to 
find ways that will be reasonably fair, acceptably efficient, and 
adequately constructive for all parties involved in Internet operation 
and in Internet use.  

Leaving Disney, Comcast, and AT&T in charge of finding such a solution 
is, of course, not likely to produce any very acceptable result.

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.

In alt.internet.wireless Steve Pope <spope33@speedymail.org> wrote:
>>Likewise, many sites cannot be navigated without accepting lots of audio 
>>and video. There is no disincentive to them, except (maybe) lost 
>>customers, but there's no way I can force Amazon not to have lots of 
>>graphics that eat up bandwidth. This is not just retail sites; many B2B 
>>sites are laden with Flash content.
> 
> At least you can turn off flash.  It may impair your ability
> to use some sites though.
> 
> Steve

But turning it off makes most sites more usable, even with a broadband
link.

	Jerry

Steve Fenwick <nospam@nospam.invalid> writes:

> In article 
> <HisRoyalRadioHigness-70941C.18541818062008@news.announcetech.com>,
>  John Higdon <HisRoyalRadioHigness@kome.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> It's a bit like charging cellphone users for incoming calls. I can't 
> tell who "Private Call" is; I can answer it, and it may be a junk call, 
> or it may be a family member trying to get in touch with me urgently.

I've never used the browser on a cell phone owned by anyone for that
reason. Using Cingular, now AT&T as an example, I once checked out a
phone at one of their stores.  The browser did not allow you to pick a
home page - it had to be the company's home page - and if you did not
get an "all you can eat" plan, they'd charge you a penny a kilobyte
(it isn't clear if this includes TCP/IP headers, but my guess is that
it does).  The home page seemed to be about 10 kilobytes in size, so
it would cost you $.10 to just get started.  Worse, if you clicked on
a link and then went back, it would reload the page for another 10
cents.  What you got was no where near 10 K of text, and there was no
way of displaying the HTML source.  I had a vaguely unsettling feeling
that there was some funny going on, like padding the text with a lot
of comments to drive up the cost.  The charges were high enough that
they'd have to be making obscene profits, so I'd suspect the
worse. The suspicion of rip-off profit margins is based on the
assumption that they have to make a profit on voice or at least break
even, so you can estimate a "fair" price for data based on bitrate and
charges for voice calls.


-- 
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB

Jerry Peters <jerry@example.invalid> writes:

> In alt.internet.wireless Steve Pope <spope33@speedymail.org> wrote:
> >>Likewise, many sites cannot be navigated without accepting lots of audio 
> >>and video. There is no disincentive to them, except (maybe) lost 
> >>customers, but there's no way I can force Amazon not to have lots of 
> >>graphics that eat up bandwidth. This is not just retail sites; many B2B 
> >>sites are laden with Flash content.
> > 
> > At least you can turn off flash.  It may impair your ability
> > to use some sites though.
> > 
> > Steve
> 
> But turning it off makes most sites more usable, even with a broadband
> link.

... which is one reason I don't have flash on my system - too many web
sites abuse it.



-- 
My real name backwards: nemuaZ lliB