🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <abuse-0703992323400001@bovine.ati.com>,
	abuse@bovine.ati.com (John Higdon) writes:
 
> But up to now, it was not a real issue. Relatively slow connections
> provided a natural data flow limitation. With more and more customers

"Relatively slow connections" created a "natural" data flow?  So "relatively"
faster connections are unnatural?  What comes from these unnatural data flows?
Obviously the data gods never intended for us to go any faster than 30cps so 
I guess we've been in trouble for a while now ... huh!!

Of course as the backbones and such, speed up maybe the relative "natural"
data flow will return ... pleasing the data gods to no end I'm sure.

> 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.

To wit:  so what?  When these things were "relatively" rare they were sold
a bit differently.  Now they are commodities and sold as such.  It's one of the
side effects of "economics of scale", larger scale lower costs.

> 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? 

Yeah, so "anyone" puts up a mondo website? So what?  The traffic is limited
to a T1, about 1.5Mb/s.  That's what they were sold.  If companies can't 
survive selling T1 access for what they are charging they either fail or they
raise their rates.  You are also assuming that people will be interested in
this "mondo website".  

> Are consumers going to want bandwidth charges, or would they prefer

You don't get it, we are all paying bandwidth charges now. If your complaint
is that the increments aren't what you'd like to see then start your own
service and charge in increments you do like.

> restrictions on types of equipment to be served by the connection?

Types?  Glad to see you support the "free" market. Each provider is going to
allow only certain "types" of equipment to be connected?  So each time I move
I might as well leave that modem behind since the next provider will most
likely have a different "type" they allow?  I can only have a P200 connected
because the provider has that one CPU on their list of "types" they allow?

> "Neither" is not a workable answer.

Being charged for bandwidth/access is a given, so the possibility of a choice 
between one or the other isn't even on the table.

Paul
-- 
Use that connection!! Idle connections are the devil's playground!!
I, the Diabolical Ruler of the Universe, command it, OC-192 to every residence.
I'm a low resistance pure metal, so don't get me started.