🚀 go-pugleaf

[POSTED TO comp.dcom.modems.cable; PLEASE REPLY THERE]

In <3A87FD80.504F203A@ufl.edu>, "Randy S." <rswitt@ufl.edu> wrote:

>> Another important point is that putting the load on
>> the proxy instead of the transit pipe tends to improve throughput for
>> all subscribers; i.e., not using the proxy can be selfish and
>> counterproductive.
>
>You know, this is a fascinating way of putting this.  I was just reading up on a
>concept in capitalism called the "tragedy of the commons" which eerily seems to
>apply in this case.  The "tragedy of the commons" refers to the situation where
>many small independent entities are using and are reliant on one large but limited
>shared resource.  Usually it is used to refer to situations like shared market
>fishing populations (like Tuna or mackeral) or shared grazing land,etc, but it
>seems equally applicable to shared backbone bandwidth.  Basically, the concept
>claims that this situation is always doomed for failure because the small
>independent entities will always put their own needs and priorities over the needs
>and priorities of the whole, thus putting the entire shared resource at risk (i.e.
>over-fishing, over-grazing).  It seems here that as Lawrence says, it may be
>better for any individual user to NOT be on a cache server for his/her personal
>performance.  But, as John says, it is better for the resource OVERALL if everyone
>uses the cache server.
>
>I don't know if really solves anything (and I am far from an expert on the
>"tragedy of the commons" concept, any economists out there?), but I thought it was
>an interesting parallel.

I agree -- I also thought the "Tragedy of the Commons" applicable --
thanks for making the point.  A good on-line reference for those
interested is <http://dieoff.org/page95.htm>.

-- 
Best regards,
John Navas     <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/>
     CABLE MODEM/DSL GUIDE:  <http://Cable-DSL.home.att.net/>