🚀 go-pugleaf

[POSTED TO ba.internet]
abuse@bovine.ati.com (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.

Tell that to the "heavy-duty players in the provider world" -- they have
been saying it was a "real issue" for years.  ;-)

>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.

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.

>Else what would stop anyone from putting a
>nice Sparc10 at home and serving a mondo website? 

Nothing.  It's just a matter of buying whatever upstream bandwidth you want,
a system that is already in place.  For that matter, even a decent old home
computer can saturate a T-1 -- a SPARC 10 is unnecessary.

>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 kind of debate happens over and over around transitions from controlled
markets to free markets -- there are always lots of naysayers claiming that
greatly lower prices simply aren't possible.  Yet over and over the free
market winds up proving the naysayers wrong.  The free market wildcard is
efficiency.

-- 
Best regards,
John  mailto:Usenet@NavasGrp.Dublin.CA.US  http://www.aimnet.com/~jnavas/
FIGHT EXCESSIVE DOMAIN NAME FEES: <http://www.aimnet.com/~jnavas/namefee.html>