🚀 go-pugleaf

"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:59ZI8.136787$Po6.299115@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...

> I understand the difference. However at some point, even DSL users must
> share. The difference is that a bunch of cable users share the same small
> line, each DSL user has his own small line. But all the DSL users in the
> same area on the same provider take bandwidth from the same feed to the
> provider. This is the same, regardless if it's cable, dialup, or DSL.

Agreed.

> The question is what do when the flat rate times all the customers
> doesn't cover the bandwidth being used up? That the average consumption
> has out-grown the price being charged? What if analysis shows that say
> 5% of the customers are skewing the average upwards beyond the profitable
> level?

That's not my problem. Videotron, who provides cable internet access around
here has a 5+1 GB monthly limit and they charge more than twice Bell for
extra bandwidth usage. They probably also charge more than Bell does now if
you don't sign to a 12-month deal with Videotron and subscribe to cable TV.
_But_ that's been their policy from day one. If you start with a ridiculous
policy from the get-go GREAT, best of luck to you. Honestly, I have no
problems with that. My problem lies with Bell's decision to go from
unlimited access to super-restricted access the same month that they decide
to bump their fees up to the point where they charge 150% of equivalent
services. That's just bad business ethics.

> Why don't the heavy consumers of bandwidth just go elsewhere then?

Lots will. But as messages to this NG reveal, some didn't even know of the
existance of alternatives and honestly, it wouldn't surprise me that some
who don't check their @sympatico.ca e-mail accounts won't even know about
the change until they get their first bill after the change.

> I wouldn't think of running high bandwidth servers on a home service.
> However, it is people who do push the limits, taking as much as they can
> consume that results in the blanket no-server policies providers here
> have. Even the hosting service I have my MUD running on forbids heavy
> bandwidth consumption on the orders that are being discussed here. Of
> course I can run small servers over the cable modem, nobody would notice,
> but it's still a violation of the service agreement.

Okay, I don't know if you were aware, but let me put some numbers to these
terms like "heavy consumption." Bell caps uploads at 160 Kbps. Downloads are
capped at 1.2 Mbps or 960 Kbps depending on whether you have a new(er) or
obsolete (Nortel) modem. While consuming significant amounts of bandwidth
are possible when leeching files, I don't see how someone is going to make
that huge a dent in the ISP's capabilities running an ftpd or an httpd on a
line that has a maximum throughput of 16 KB/s. Others will put a bigger dent
in the downward stream by listening to hi-fidelity streaming audio.

Richard

clarification: Kbps = kilobits per second, KB/s = kilobytes per second.