$quoted_author = "Tom Vest" ;
Occasional rhetorical indulgences notwithstanding, I'm a pragmatist; an ever-rising upper limit that 99% of the population never ever notices is not much of a limit.
Sure it is. By knowing that no-one sharing the backhaul to the DSLAM at my CO can afford to do line rate 24x7 makes me sleep better at night. By using an ISP with sane limits I've never noticed performance degradation, even during peak periods.
However I've rarely (actually, before now, *never*) heard the AU/NZ situation described thusly.... I must be spending too much time with the wrong 2% I guess.
The wrong 2% of what? :-) If you want to see the flat-rate churning horde in all their glory visit whirlpool.net.au, otherwise affectioninatly known as "whingepool" because of the bitching'n'whining every time an ISP goes under or attends ECONOMICS 101 and brings in sustainable limits.
And I've yet to hear how one will be credibly define or sustainably (and legally) maintain such escalating limits.
Simon's post pretty much sums up the kind of maths that justifies them. http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg05636.html Legal? What's legality have to do with this discussion? cheers marty -- "Multiple coffee suppliers feeding into a Redundant Arrangement of Independent Dispensers, to further reduce the chance of uncaffeinated downtime and increase Mean Time To Drowsiness." --Steve VanDevender alt.sysadmin.recovery - <ergtnb$8vb$1@isis.novusordo.net>