nanog mailing list archives
Re: State Super-DMCA Too True
From: "Dave Howe" <DaveHowe () gmx co uk>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2003 00:04:31 +0100
I am not sure I am following the argument here. as far as I can make out 1. Many (all!) providers underprovision (aka oversell) their bandwidth, expecting peak utilisations to be approximately the provisioned amount because experience has shown that actual usage is only a percentage of theoretical purchased bandwidth 2. If "power users" use even half the bandwidth they were *sold*, then that has to be made up from low-bandwidth users to maintain an average in line with actual provisioning; the price charged is actually based on the provisioning, not actual usage or sold bandwidth, and is therefore profitable only if the actual usage matches statistically 3. most power users eat bandwidth from a single machine downloading at the maximum achievable rate and/or running servers; however, some could well do so using multiple machines using NAT, and some otherwise low-bandwidth users could possibly use more bandwidth if running multiple machines behind NAT (based on the idea that low bandwidth users can't possibly use a multi-user OS like linux and dumb terminals) 4. Trying to bandwidth limit users to a fraction of the bandwidth they were theoretically sold (and/or similar schemes like total data transferred caps and excess data usage charges) are politically and techically awkward; customers don't like trying to understand that you sold them a product that you knew in advance you couldn't provide, and tend to look around for lawyers when that happens 5. therefore making the sale or advertisting of NAT devices illegal (and by extension, commercial firewalls such as checkpoint's fw-1 and nat-capable cisco routers) is only reasonable and perfectly defendable. it is the hop from 4 to 5 I am having trouble with....
Current thread:
- Re: State Super-DMCA Too True, (continued)
- Re: State Super-DMCA Too True Alex Lambert (Mar 30)
- Re: State Super-DMCA Too True Niels Bakker (Mar 30)
- Re: State Super-DMCA Too True Larry J. Blunk (Mar 30)
- Re: State Super-DMCA Too True Avleen Vig (Mar 30)
- Re: State Super-DMCA Too True Larry J. Blunk (Mar 30)
- Re: State Super-DMCA Too True Jack Bates (Mar 30)
- Re: State Super-DMCA Too True Larry J. Blunk (Mar 30)
- Re: State Super-DMCA Too True Avleen Vig (Mar 30)
- Re: State Super-DMCA Too True Dan Hollis (Mar 30)
- Remembers, Non-Op Topics Have a Home (was Re: State Super-DMCA Too True) Nathan J. Mehl (Mar 31)
- Re: State Super-DMCA Too True Dave Howe (Mar 30)
- Re: State Super-DMCA Too True Dan Hollis (Mar 30)
- Re: State Super-DMCA Too True Jack Bates (Mar 30)
- Re: State Super-DMCA Too True Dan Hollis (Mar 30)
- Re: State Super-DMCA Too True Bruce Pinsky (Mar 30)
- Re: State Super-DMCA Too True Leo Bicknell (Mar 30)
- Re: State Super-DMCA Too True David Lesher (Mar 30)
- Re: State Super-DMCA Too True William Allen Simpson (Mar 30)
- Re: State Super-DMCA Too True Dan Hollis (Mar 30)
- Re: State Super-DMCA Too True Bruce Pinsky (Mar 30)
- Re: State Super-DMCA Too True Michael Airhart (Mar 30)