[167347] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Caps (was Re: AT&T UVERSE Native IPv6, a HOWTO)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Jay Ashworth)
Mon Dec 9 11:41:04 2013
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 11:38:04 -0500 (EST)
From: Jay Ashworth <jra@baylink.com>
To: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <52A53F3D.6040007@philkarn.net>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Phil Karn" <karn@philkarn.net>
> On 12/06/2013 05:54 AM, Mark Radabaugh wrote:
> > Currently, without a limit, there is nothing to convince a end user to
> > make any attempt at conserving bandwidth and no revenue to cover the
> > cost of additional equipment to serve high bandwidth customers. By
> > adding a cap or overage charge we can offer higher speed plans.
>
> Why is that?
>
> Just guarantee each user a data rate that depends on how much he pays.
> Charge him by what it costs you to build and maintain that much
> capacity. Lots of mechanisms exist to do this: token bucket, etc.
>
> He gets more than his guaranteed capacity only when others don't use
> theirs. Otherwise he won't. If that's unacceptable to him, then he has
> the choice of paying you more to upgrade your network or waiting for
> others to stop using their guarantees.
>
> It costs you nothing to let people use capacity that would otherwise go
> to waste, and it increases the perceived value of your service. Your
> customers will eventually find themselves depending on that excess
> capacity often enough that at least some will be willing to pay you
> more to guarantee that it'll be there when they really want it.
+10
We've forgotten the Committed Information Rate already?
Cheers,
-- jra
--
Make Election Day a federal holiday: http://wh.gov/lBm94 100k sigs by 12/14
Jay R. Ashworth Baylink jra@baylink.com
Designer The Things I Think RFC 2100
Ashworth & Associates http://baylink.pitas.com 2000 Land Rover DII
St Petersburg FL USA #natog +1 727 647 1274
