|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000 01:52:31 -0400 (EDT) From: John Fraizer <nanog@EnterZone.Net> To: Andrew Bangs <andrewb@demon.net> Cc: nanog@merit.edu In-Reply-To: <20001019183603.P98213@finch-staff-1.demon.net> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0010210148140.7109-100000@Overkill.EnterZone.Net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu On Thu, 19 Oct 2000, Andrew Bangs wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 19, 2000 at 12:28:04PM -0400, Daniel Senie wrote: > > > > It might be worth thinking about the problem from the other end. From a > > web site owner's perspective, caching is a major annoyance. Here are the > > arguments you may encounter from a web site owner or web developer: > > Agreed. It's an annoyance. It could be considered a cost of doing > business... > I find it strange that you used the "cost of doing business" arguement. You see, the website owner IS WILLING to pay for his content to be delivered. It seems that there are a lot of providers out there who are unwilling to pay the toll for that content to enter their network and be delivered to their customer -- the person who is paying them to do just that -- pass 1's and 0's from endpoint to endpoint, WITHOUT TAMPERING WITH THEM!!! --- John Fraizer EnterZone, Inc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |