[45380] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: SlashDot: "Comcast Gunning for NAT Users"
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ukyo Kuonji)
Thu Jan 31 18:07:16 2002
From: "Ukyo Kuonji" <kawaii_iinazuke@hotmail.com>
To: nanog@merit.org
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 18:03:32 -0500
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Message-ID: <F313YQUmeJTe00dkZAx000088f2@hotmail.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
>The point is that customers don't pay for 100% of the available bandwidth.
>Customers couldn't afford to pay for guaranteed 100% BW to all desinations
>all the time. Hence, companies determine how much BW a typical user
>is likely to use, build to that, and charge the customers based on how
>much it cost to provide it. When folks use the service atypically, they are
>using resources they didn't pay for.
The company I currently work for pays has a contract that causes us to pay
around $50 / meg. A typical cable customer (by our traffic to customer
count) uses about 5K, on average. If we are paying $50 per meg, should we
be charging this customer $.25 a month for Internet transit? Granted, we
have power and Juniper routers, and OC48s to pay for, but that also should
be very small.
I think that the cable companies are more concerned with you stealing IP
address space, and possible denying service to another customer because of
it.
_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
