🚀 go-pugleaf

RetroBBS NetNews Server

Inspired by RockSolid Light RIP Retro Guy

Article View: comp.dcom.modems.cable
Article #263

Re: "@Home Subscribers Angered By New Policies"

#263
From: Phil Koenig
Date: Mon, 08 Mar 1999 00:00
43 lines
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-mail
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>

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