Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.sys.powerpc:34830 comp.sys.intel:32369 comp.unix.bsd:16274 comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit:8219 comp.unix.sys5.r4:9355 comp.unix.misc:16216 Newsgroups: comp.sys.powerpc,comp.sys.intel,comp.unix.bsd,comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,comp.unix.sys5.r4,comp.unix.misc,comp.os.linux.de Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au!munnari.oz.au!constellation!romulus.ucs.uoknor.edu!ns1.nodak.edu!netnews.nwnet.net!oracle.pnl.gov!osi-east2.es.net!doevm!paladin.american.edu!zombie.ncsc.mil!news.duke.edu!news.mathworks.com!uunet!sixhub!davidsen From: davidsen@sixhub.tmr.com (Bill Davidsen) Subject: Re: flat rates for Internet/phone (Re: X on dial-in) Reply-To: davidsen@tmr.com (bill davidsen) Organization: TMR Associates, Schenectady NY Date: Wed, 22 Feb 1995 22:11:03 GMT Message-ID: <D4F9MH.FLC@sixhub.tmr.com> References: <3f44s2$jqm@maverick.maverick.tad.eds.com> <D3s19v.4M7@pe1chl.ampr.org> <D3sMnw.8vE@proteon.com> <TMB.95Feb20042733@netc Lines: 77 In article <TMB.95Feb20042733@netcom6.netcom.com>, Thomas Breuel <tmb@netcom6.netcom.com> wrote: | I think that flat rate service has been one of the greatest injuries | to the Internet. If you pay a flat monthly rate, you pay that rate | regardless of whether you make little use of the network (reading mail | and news) or pull over a copy of X11 and the a.b.p.e archives, and run | some Internet real-time voice program. | | Why is this bad? Because it genuinely costs more to provide you | with more bandwidth for Internet extravaganzas. If Internet providers | give one flat rate to everybody, those who make little use of the | network, in effect, subsidize the heavy users heavily. I think you have totally confused bandwidth and volume. It has no impact on you if I have a 28k line, 56k line or T1, as long as I don't use it. That's bandwidth. If I pull the X source vs. just mail, that's volume. The truth is that virtually everyone is charging me for bandwidth rather than volume, because that's what cost hardware money. I would love to go to volume pricing, I'd have a T3 line so fast you wouldn't believe it. My little ftp sessions would be really fast. unfortunately the actual hardware cost of T3 is higher than 56k, so no one would be dumb enough to sell connections by volume (or at least by volume alone). | | A related problem is that I can't get good service on the Internet | even if I am willing to pay more: since bandwidth doesn't cost | anything, the only limit to how much bandwidth a user is willing to | consume is his time and patience. Hoardes of recreational users seem | to be content with low-quality, semi-interactive service for audio, | video, and hypertext. But this means that some of those uses of the | Internet that it was intended for originally, long distance | collaboration via mechanisms like telnet have become intolerably | slow. As I said, bandwidth cost a great deal, volume doesn't cost. And most providers have enough bandwidth, because that's what they're really selling. If you have slow connections, blame your provider, or the provider at the other end. | It is, unfortunately, true that telephone companies that have a | monopoly have a tendency to overcharge consumers relative to their | costs. It would be the PUC's responsibility to take care of this. The PUC doesn't do diddly in most area, except knock down every rate increase by 10% or so, after the provider marks it up. | | Fortunately, in the long run, prospects aren't so bad. Flat rates | aren't really a problem for very local communications, and long | distance data communications seems to be highly competitive so that | rates will probably sooner or later reflect costs accurately. The rates based on bandwidth reflect the costs of hardware now. What you suggest is a case where people who generate the same cost (bandwidth) don't pay the same price because they use diferent volumes. | | Note that several long-distance data carriers have already begun | to charge, in effect, on a volume basis, giving discounts to | customers that do not have high sustained data rates. If you mean frame relay, that's a whole other type of service. PSI offers (or did) a 56k/T1 service, where you paid something like 150% of 56k cost for a T1 if your monthly average bandwidth was <56k, and full T1 price if you had low volume. The fact that other carriers have not all jumped on doing this indicates to me that it only makes sense for a limited market. The market is woking nicely, and carriers who have overloaded trunks tend to lose customers to those who offer better service. Think of it as evolution in action. -- TMR Associates, Inc +1 518 370-5654 | It's not how many you HIT that counts We do SCO and Linux, V.4 on Intel, C, | but how many you MISSED sysadmin, internet gateways, device |_________ davidsen@tmr.com ___________ drivers, Email, and "UNIX stuff". Also project reviews and hand holding.