🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <ad0qod$112$2@dns3.cae.ca>, Richard wrote:
> 
> "Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> In article <acghr1$n7g$3@dns3.cae.ca>, Richard wrote:

>> It has little to do with wether it's commerical or non-commerical. It's
>> about the amount of bandwidth being used. If a neigbor started running a
>> free porn site or something sucking all the bandwidth out of the cable
>> modem system in the area I would expect that he get booted off. I should
>> have crawling speeds so he can set up a high bandwidth server?
 
> No, bandwidth is _not_ the issue. We've already been over this. If you
> provide unlimited DSL access on a line capable of 1.2 Mbps downloads, and do
> not specify any quotas ahead of time, then implicitly you're setting the
> quota in the range of 300 GB/month. Approximately the amount you'd get if
> you left your system d/ling at top speed all month long.

> By talking about cable, you're comparing apples and oranges. The difference
> is in the technology.

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.

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? 

> Bell already charges 150% of what other DSL ISP's in the area charge. The
> servces they provide and customer service are grossly inferior. There are
> only two reasons that Sympatico has a customer base at all:

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

> So if I'm reading into this correctly, since Chicago ISPs have already
> screwed you over, you have next to no sympathy for the people up here
> getting screwed over by one of the bigger ISPs right now?

I simply understand why they are doing it. I don't like it, because I 
would like to run some small servers over DSL or cable. So small they
wouldn't bother anyone.

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.