Article View: comp.dcom.modems.cable
Article #263Re: "@Home Subscribers Angered By New Policies"
From: Phil Koenig
Date: Mon, 08 Mar 1999 00:00
Date: Mon, 08 Mar 1999 00:00
43 lines
2980 bytes
2980 bytes
In article <36E38934.A8944E9E@ecis.com>, jthomas@ecis.com writes... > 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. It's already being done. Most of the responsible ISPs that serve DSL customers have some kind of bandwidth limit or surcharge. Another method is charging more for more IP addresses.. but that is a very unreliable model for a variety of reasons. Tis a pity having to deal with customers who want something for nothing, and pretending you're giving it to them. (and then deal with their complaints when their mega-oversubscribed ISP accounts don't download fast enough for them) However, I like the current model, where such charges originate at the ISP, rather than the ILEC or CLEC. If someone wants to deal w/ a fly-by-night/oversubscribed-up- the-yin-yang ISP, which *might* give them decent performance only at 4am when noone's on.. they should have that ability.. just as I have the ability to deal with a provider that is more oriented to assuring their customers a reliable connection with predictable bandwidth. (at a higher price) Cable of course is a bit different, since you don't have a choice of who your ISP is. Personally I think the cable IP providers would rather deal w/ the occasional complaint from the more sophisticated users, than the major bad press they'd get from the net-neophytes if they announce bandwidth-charges. -- 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
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<MPG.114d387b45a9dd959896b6@news.walltech.com>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!unknown!not-for-mailReferences:
<36d82cdd.72603808@news> <36db5a0c.344542958@news> <MPG.114ca9502d8f0ea9896c5@news3.newscene.com> <abuse-0703991251280001@bovine.ati.com> <36e36027.39055325@news.ncal.verio.com> <abuse-0703992323400001@bovine.ati.com> <36E38934.A8944E9E@ecis.com>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fa874,e4675da7edf5879e X-Google-Attributes: gidfa874,public X-Google-Thread: 113850,e4675da7edf5879e X-Google-Attributes: gid113850,public From: For_Email@ddress.see.below_plea.se (Phil Koenig) Subject: Re: "@Home Subscribers Angered By New Policies" Date: 1999/03/08 Message-ID: <MPG.114d387b45a9dd959896b6@news.walltech.com> X-Deja-AN: 452506600 References: <36d82cdd.72603808@news> <36db5a0c.344542958@news> <MPG.114ca9502d8f0ea9896c5@news3.newscene.com> <abuse-0703991251280001@bovine.ati.com> <36e36027.39055325@news.ncal.verio.com> <abuse-0703992323400001@bovine.ati.com> <36E38934.A8944E9E@ecis.com> X-Trace: news6.ispnews.com 920885409 209.157.70.149 (Mon, 08 Mar 1999 04:30:09 EDT) Organization: Computers & Communications NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 08 Mar 1999 04:30:09 EDT Newsgroups: comp.dcom.modems.cable,ba.internet