At 11:00 AM 08/24/1998 -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
... Except, John, that you ignore the fact that you have basically required anyone who wants to put a high-bandwidth server on your network to accept other people writing a blank check for them, regardless of the legitimacy of the hits they receive.
Owen,
Clarify... right now, many organizations with high-speed connections to the Internet pay based on usage (including traffic sent). Doesn't anyone on a usage-sensitive leased-line connection pay based on the traffic regardless of the "legitimacy" of the hits received? Isn't this why we all hunt down SMURFers?
/John
To some extent that's true. However, as a counter-point, consider such sites as sunsite, wustl, smc.vnet.net, etc. I doubt those sites would continue to exist in a solely bandwidth sensitive pay-as-you-go world. I think they count on flat rate connectivity to be able to continue to exist. I don't think the elimination of those sites (and many others like them) would benefit the net. Do you? Owen
At 12:12 PM 08/24/1998 -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
... To some extent that's true. However, as a counter-point, consider such sites as sunsite, wustl, smc.vnet.net, etc. I doubt those sites would continue to exist in a solely bandwidth sensitive pay-as-you-go world. I think they count on flat rate connectivity to be able to continue to exist. I don't think the elimination of those sites (and many others like them) would benefit the net. Do you?
I'm not certain that they represent a true public service, as opposed to simply interesting content. Interesting content can probably pay its own way, even at retail prices. For example, the incremental cost to send 10MB of data is only about 50 cents using normal retail rates [1]. Are you saying that whatever you're downloading isn't worth paying that? (or watching the appropriate number of web ads, as I currently do to download palm pilot apps, pc freeware, and today's weather gif?) /John [1] Retail T1 transit from major backbone, fully utilized, $2400 monthly, presuming cost recovery over 4 peak hours of 20 business days = $30 per peak hour; each hour good for about 600 MB -> 5 cents / MB )
On Mon, 24 Aug 1998, John Curran wrote:
At 12:12 PM 08/24/1998 -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
... To some extent that's true. However, as a counter-point, consider such sites as sunsite, wustl, smc.vnet.net, etc. I doubt those sites would continue to exist in a solely bandwidth sensitive pay-as-you-go world. I think they count on flat rate connectivity to be able to continue to exist. I don't think the elimination of those sites (and many others like them) would benefit the net. Do you?
I'm not certain that they represent a true public service, as opposed to simply interesting content. Interesting content can probably pay its own way, even at retail prices. For example, the incremental cost to send 10MB of data is only about 50 cents using normal retail rates [1]. Are you saying that whatever you're downloading isn't worth paying that? (or watching the appropriate number of web ads, as I currently do to download palm pilot apps, pc freeware, and today's weather gif?)
Are you saying that someone should be forced to pay for the privilege of offering something for free to your customers? Things that your customers, who I number among are requesting? /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ Patrick Greenwell (800) 299-1288 v Systems Administrator (925) 377-1212 v NameSecure (925) 377-1414 f \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
participants (3)
-
John Curran -
owen＠DeLong.SJ.CA.US -
Patrick Greenwell