[155777] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Fair Use Policy
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Benjamin Krueger)
Wed Aug 22 20:51:09 2012
From: Benjamin Krueger <benjamin@seattlefenix.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAAAwwbUbDm7f9bsYEnkhkp4=m2Jk0qNS4cCcJvM77gjjb8zZuQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 17:52:21 -0700
To: Jimmy Hess <mysidia@gmail.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Yeah, totally can't be done. It especially can't be done profitably.
http://fiber.google.com/
=
http://gigaom.com/2012/07/26/the-economics-of-google-fiber-and-what-it-mea=
ns-for-u-s-broadband/
On Aug 22, 2012, at 5:41 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
> On 8/22/12, Bacon Zombie <baconzombie@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I how you are talking about 3G or there is a typo.
>> An ISP with a 5GB cap that is charging the end user more then 5$ =
total
>> {including line rental} a month should not be allow to operate.
>=20
> I don't believe $5 even covers an ISP's typical cost of having a line,
> let alone getting data through it, maintaining, supporting it, and
> providing upstream networking. Last I checked you can't even buy
> dial-up services from national ISPs for that low a price, before the
> per-Hour usage charges, and those require simpler less-costly
> infrastructure to maintain for the ISP.
>=20
> With residential broadband, if there is not a heavy degree of
> oversubscription, the ISP will either go broke, or the cost of
> residential service will be so high that the average person would not
> buy it. "I want my line speed 24x7" is a technical argument, it is
> a numbers game, and the average subscriber does not make that
> argument, or at least, rather, the
> average res. subscriber is not willing to bear the actual cost
> required to actually pay
> what it would cost their ISP to satisfy that for every user trying to
> utilize so much.
>=20
> Why should the end users who transfer less than 1GB a month, with only
> basic web surfing, have to suffer periods of less-than-excellent
> network performance or pay increasing costs to subsidize the purchase
> of additional capacity for users at the same service level expecting
> to use 100GB a month?
>=20
> There is a certain degree of fairness there.
>=20
> Even if the metric is wrong -- the idea of metering bytes
> transferred is broken,
> because it does not positively reinforce the good behavior.
>=20
> It's like trying to reduce congestion during rush hour on the freeway
> by imposing a "40 miles of travel per day" limit on each vehicle
> owner.
>=20
> That gives no benefit for those effected by the limit to adjust what
> time of day they travel those 40 miles, however.
>=20
> A "X=3D10 gigabyte per 4 hours" rolling average limit would make =
more sense.
>=20
>=20
> Where "X" is varied, based on the actual congestion of the network =
between
> other users of the same service level.
>=20
>> And if your infrastructure and handle 25% at a minimum maxing out =
their
>> connect them don't advertise " unlimited " since you can't provide it =
and
>> it is false advertising.
>=20
> There's no such thing as unlimited, period. Even if the provider =
wanted to,
> there will be some physical limits.
>=20
> I agree the use of the word is confusing... when they say unlimited
> what they are
> often indicating is "You are not limited by the provider in the
> number of hours a day you can be connected to the service".
>=20
>> The world would be a better place if ISPs that either throttled, cut =
off or
>> added on extra charges to the end users bill were fined to hell for =
false
>> advertising and repeat offenders were named and shamed on a public =
website.
> [snip]
>=20
> There might be no residential ISPs left
>=20
> --
> -JH
>=20
