State Super-DMCA Too True

Sun Mar 30 15:07:46 UTC 2003

Mike Lyon wrote:
> Ahh! But you see it ain't "all you can eat" or rather, "use as much 
> bandwidth as you want as we don't throttle you at all." I recently signed 
> up for Comcast and had it installed. I get some really nice download 
> speeds, would be surprised if the download has a cap on it. However, 
> upload is definetly throttled, stops at about 250 kbps.
> 
Please see Saphire worm. Then tell me that an ISP doesn't oversell 
services. The fact is, the entire Internet is oversold. If everyone did 
their full capacity, it would crash. DSL is also based on this 
assumption. Most of the providers selling DSL at the cheap rates are 
actually losing money and subsidising it with their other revenues. What 
right do we have to say that one business model is better than another, 
and circumvent the business model? Thus there are laws being made to 
help protect the business models. This is what happens when people take 
advantage of something because they *can*. Personally, I don't like the 
limit by machine approach. On the other hand, I give out private 
addresses and NAT all my users. Real IP addresses cost the same amount 
that I pay for the bandwidth (and it's expensive way out in the sticks). 
We also run at a higher rate than SWBell one town over. Why? They are 
subsidising the costs; we aren't. When it's cheaper to run bandwidth 100 
miles into the country, then we'll lower our rates to reflect based on 
the usage of the users. Since they p2p and feel they will use 100% all 
the time, the price stays high. We don't care how much they complain. 
We're in the profit business, not filing chapter 11 like our competitors.


--
-Jack
"Why can't I have 1.5Mb/s for 39.95?"
"You live in the sticks. 59.95 for 256Kb/s is a fair price."