🚀 go-pugleaf

BUMBLEBEE BUZZ:

  "If you can't understand simple economics then I'm sorry."

  Notwithstanding your snotty tone, an increased disk space
allotment does not bear a one-to-one relationship to increased
total transfer, nor to increased total bandwidth demand. Few
people indeed will frantically explore every single available
page of a site as fast as they can possibly navigate the site,
for instance.

  A small site with a very popular page which has a few small
(in disk size) images out of the many larger images available
elsewhere on the small site, may place about as much monthly
load on the servers of an ISP, and on the bandwidth limitations
placed on the ISP by its upstream provider, as a larger site
with many less-popular pages with many images on each. It's
a non-trivial matter to make credible predictions about the
relationship between raw disk space consumption and the
resultant demands on ISP resources.

  Perhaps you should retake basic psychology, or retake the
even earlier classes through which you appear to have slept.

  Geometrically Sneering Engineer

Tony Morgan <Tony@atomor.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:<O8TZ6bEUlhS8EwqL@atomor.demon.co.uk>...
> 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). More 
> bandwidth (twice as much) will require more bandwidth (twice as much) 
> into the Internet. There will be impact on the performance of the 
> firewalls, routers and so on (in fact all parts of the infrastructure), 
> so more investment to support the increased load will have to be 
> financed - more investment - an increase in the cost of servicing the 
> capital investment and the cost of maintenance. The revenue hasn't 
> increased - so the ISP will lose money. Ergo, the ISP would be 
> business-foolish to give away more bandwidth willy-nilly.
> 
> I would have thought that you could have worked this out for yourself. I 
> would also have though that it is obvious that equating the cost of 
> (say) doubling the amount of webspace entitlement with the cost of a 
> disk at your local PC World lacks understanding of the issues - issues 
> that I have tried to illustrate. If you can't understand simple 
> economics then I'm sorry. Its called business. But please don't bitch 
> when someone tries to explain it.