RE: SlashDot: "Comcast Gunning for NAT Users"

["W.D.McKinney" <deem () wdm com>]

Did you *really* get the gist of my post ? I own a communications company
that oversells capacity. I have bought transit for most every employer I have
worked for in the past as well, and I have worked for more than one flavour of LEC/ISP.
Not a good discussion if you live an a different planet though :-) 
(Yes Stephen, I have Cisco in it also.)

/Dee

"Sameer R. Manek" <manek () ecst csuchico edu> wrote:
> What planet have you been employed on? Almost every communications company
> oversells capacity, to do otherwise would suggest they are selling the
> service at a loss.
>
> When you buy unlimited dialup, they don't put aside a modem with your
> name-tag on it. They let you compete again all the other uses who use that
> POP. The ISP knows that only X% of their users will be dialing in at any
> given time, so they only have to have capacity for N+1 users.
>
> When you buy transit from a provider, they almost always have a committed
> information rate clause, which is usually significantly less then the
> capacity of the line you are buying from them. There is a reason why
> dedicated dialup costs more then service that is sold as "unlimited". Your
> business model has to account that a some users will use more then you
> expected them to, but most will use the expected amount, even though you
> sold them more then they needed.
>
> Even the phone company does this that's why there is a "fast busy" or the
> recording of the nice lady who informs you "all circuits are currently
> busy".
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-nanog () merit edu [mailto:owner-nanog () merit edu]On Behalf Of
> > W.D.McKinney
> > Hmmm, smells like a little of vendor knows more than the customer again.
> > I love it when hardware vendors tell service providers how to
> > make money/run the business.
> >
> > /Dee
> >
> >
> > "Stephen Sprunk" <ssprunk () cisco com> wrote:
> > > Thus spake "Steven J. Sobol" <sjsobol () JustThe net>
> > > > On Thu, 31 Jan 2002, Greg Pendergrass wrote:
> > > > > It doesn't make sense that an ISP should complain that customers use
> > > 100% of
> > > > > what they pay for.
> > > >
> > > > So you think that dialup users should be allowed to stay
> > online 24/7 for
> > > > $20/month on an account advertised as unlimited?
> > >
> > > If the ISP sells "unlimited" access, then customers have every
> > right to use
> > > it without limit.
> > >
> > > If the ISP places restrictions on what access is allowed and/or
> > how long,
> > > then it is no longer an unlimited service, and it would be
> > fraud to market
> > > it as such.
> > >
> > > ISPs count on customers not using all of what is sold to them;
> > if they turn
> > > out to be wrong, that is a part of the risk they took.
> > >
> > > S