🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <O8TZ6bEUlhS8EwqL@atomor.demon.co.uk>, Tony Morgan wrote:
> In article <a2cv5r$10lj4c$1@ID-106624.news.dfncis.de>, michael lefevre 
> <michael.news@michaellefevre.com> writes
>>i don't see
>>that would have a huge impact on routing, name servers and all the rest
>>of that stuff...
> 
> Let me try to explain it a slightly different way...
> 
> Giving you some example figures,  the  cost of all that investment (or 
> at least servicing the capital required) plus the ongoing running cost 
> is (say) �10,000 per month (note we're not talking about disk costs).
> 
> If an ISP's infrastructure supports 1000 subscribers with 10M disk 
> space, each paying �10 per month then the ISP will break even 
> financially. Increase each subscriber's webspace allocation to 20M then 
> there will be a requirement for more bandwidth (there's a direct 
> correlation between diskspace allocation and required bandwidth).
[snip stuff following from more bandwidth]

the point i was trying to make was that if the bandwidth limits didn't
increase, then all that stuff wouldn't necessarily follow...

some providers go as far as to offer "unlimited" disk space for their
hosting... they make that viable by having bandwidth limits - in theory,
people could upload silly amounts of stuff, but there wouldn't much point
because nobody could get it down again...

in fact, compared to Demon (including Demon's commercial space), most
hosting providers offer more diskspace compared to the bandwidth limits,
so it is the bandwidth that is the limiting factor...

-- 
michael