🚀 go-pugleaf

Peter Hucker wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Mar 2008 01:17:12 -0000, Chris Caputo <ccaputo@alt.net> wrote:
> 
>> engineer2 <engineer2@the.lab> writes:
>>> On Wed, 12 Mar 2008 05:25:40 +0000, Chris Caputo wrote:
>>>> Taking into account our lower retention, if we offered $12/month 
>>>> unthrottled, with SSL and 10 streams, would that be reasonable?
>>> 
>>> I've noticed that the number of simultaneous connections (streams?) 
>>> seems to be important to people, but I've never understood the reason.
>> 
>> I imagine the reasons vary.
>> 
>> With multiple connections you can download binaries in one group while 
>> browsing text messages in another, for example.
>> 
>>> Does each one of your simultaneous connections add another increment of
>>> throttled bandwidth?  Other than that, I can't see any advantage.
>> 
>> On our throttled connections, although our terms indicate that bandwidth 
>> is distributed across parallel connections, I haven't found it necessary 
>> to actually implement that and enforce it.  Therefore, on our throttled 
>> offerings, multiple connections will actually increase overall
>> throughput.
>> 
>> In general, with TCP performance testing, I find that a single
>> unthrottled stream is best able to utilize available bandwidth.  Others
>> may disagree or have more scientific input.
> 
> My newsreader downloads using four connections.  I usually get exactly the
> bandwidth I've paid for, not four times that.  Occasionally at non-peak
> times it goes a lot higher, but I assume it's not being limited at those
> times.

That's a reasonably safe assumption, though it could be buffer under-run
compensation.

> 
>>> I've read that even ISP's are considering usage-based accounts (to 
>>> penalize you binaries junkies who download 24/7 from unthrottled NSP's
>>> ;-)
>> 
>> Some ISP's are rumored to be heading in that direction, no doubt.
>> 
>> ISP's frequently buy from backbones using a 95th percentile method of 
>> billing, so bringing usage billing down to the consumer may be tempting 
>> for some business models.
> 
> My ISP has an x GB per month for y amount of cash, plus can choose to pay
> more per GB if you go over the limit, or have it just stop working.

Sweet!
-- 
ah