🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <36e3ee16.75374101@news.ncal.verio.com>, Usenet@NavasGrp.Dublin.CA.US 
writes...
> abuse@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) wrote:
> 
> I respectfully disagree.  While modem connections were of course limited to
> modem speeds, aggregation (some would say overselling) of those connections
> to megabit speeds, combined with megabit traffic from ISDN, frame relay, and
> (fractional) T-1, has been common for many years.  Nothing has really
> changed except the price for and availability of higher speeds, something
> that is long overdue thanks to artificially high pricing of ISDN, frame
> relay, and T-1.  All that has happened is that the free market is finally
> asserting itself.  That may be painful to the dinosaurs, but the world
> really isn't coming to an end.
> 
> >To wit: for years it has been common for companies to connect to a
> >provider via T1, but only pay 56K rates based upon actual data volume
> >transmitted. The T1 provided burst speed, but the agreement was that the
> >sum total of data would not exceed that which could fit in a 56K pipe. If
> >the company went over that amount, it got surcharged for the extra
> >effective bandwidth.
> 
> I presume you are speaking of fractional T-1.  Again, that was just an
> artificial artifact of the lack of free market competition.
> 
> >Now that consumer connections approach (and in some cases exceed) the
> >speed of that T1, those same arrangements will of necessity find their way
> >down to the consumer level.
> 
> Not necessarily.  The real cost of shipping bits around has fallen
> dramatically over the years.  Price did not keep pace thanks to market
> controls.  Now it's catching up in a hurry.

[snip]
> >Are consumers going to want bandwidth charges, or would they prefer
> >restrictions on types of equipment to be served by the connection?
> >"Neither" is not a workable answer.
> 
> Consumers already have bandwidth charges.  You're in effect just arguing
> that the charges are too low.  My counter is that the free market will set
> the price, now that we finally have a measure of free market competition.


This reasoning only works if the upstream providers (ie ISPs) 
are also somehow benefitting from this "free market".

Last I heard, T-1 etc. connections to major backbone providers 
were going UP in price, not down.

If UUnet, Sprint, GTE, etc. and all the rest of the backbone 
cabal continue to charge the same high prices for connecting
to their backbone/customers, why does it make any difference
what the cost of the local loop is?

T-1 bandwidth at <$100/mo. means nothing unless the ISP
"middleman" can get bandwidth out to the outside world at
nearly those rates.  Caching is not a fix-all.  All these
1.5Mbit connections at cheap prices will be really cool for
a few months.. until their providers go bankrupt from 
simple economics.



-- 
Philip J. Koenig         The Electric Kahuna Organization          [see below]
-----------------Computers & Communications for the New Millenium-------------
References to my email address in this message have been modified to foil
address-collection robots.  If you wish to send email, use the following 
address by removing numbers and spaces:  pjkunet64 @  ekahuna27 . c o m