🚀 go-pugleaf

On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 10:15:18 -0000, ah <splifingate@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.

It's My ISP doing traffic shaping.  Avoid Plusnet.

>>>> 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!

Except for the usenet speed.  Although I could pay more for the gold band.....

-- 
This message has been brought to you by nuclear power.  Please don't tell the neighbours.
http://www.petersparrots.com    http://www.insanevideoclips.com    http://www.petersphotos.com

Confuscious say:  "People who make Confuscious joke speak bad English."