🚀 go-pugleaf

I would be quite happy with bandwith limits. Most web sites come up as fast on my
ISDN line as they do my cable modem. Yeah, downloads are considerably slower, but
still workable. They still charge for Frame Relay based on pipe size-there is no
reason that FR's pricing model can't be applied to DSL and/or cable.

John Higdon wrote:

> In article <36e36027.39055325@news.ncal.verio.com>,
> Usenet@NavasGrp.Dublin.CA.US wrote:
>
> > p.s.  The song being sung by the "heavy-duty players in the provider world"
> > in really no different today from last year, the year before, etc., and in
> > my opinion is mostly wishful thinking and/or trial balloons.
>
> But up to now, it was not a real issue. Relatively slow connections
> provided a natural data flow limitation. With more and more customers
> demanding megabit speeds, the possibility for massive throughput is
> exponentially higher.
>
> 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.
>
> 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. Else what would stop anyone from putting a
> nice Sparc10 at home and serving a mondo website?
>
> 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.
>
> --
> John Higdon  |    P.O. Box 7648   | +1 408 264 4115  |      FAX:
>              | San Jose, CA 95150 | +1 500 FOR-A-MOO |+1 408 264 4407
>          abuse@ati.com            |        http://www.ati.com