nanog mailing list archives

Re: More Sidgemore on per-bit pricing


From: Karl Denninger <karl () Denninger Net>
Date: Sat, 5 Dec 1998 20:14:37 -0600

On Sat, Dec 05, 1998 at 06:07:35PM -0500, Barry Shein wrote:

On December 5, 1998 at 14:28 karl () denninger net (Karl Denninger) wrote:
 > Absent BOTH of those on a worldwide basis and I could never justify
 > recommending to anyone that they accept such a pricing system.

Of course you could, if the per-unit cost were the same, pro-rata, as
paying for the whole thing. So if the choice was between paying
$48K/mo for a DS3 vs $2K/mo for each DS1-equivalent the worst case is
$48K/mo anyhow so may as well take your chances with crooks.

Except that if I don't need a DS-3 often then the possibility of being
billed for it when I wasn't the requestor is a hell of a liability.

Particularly if, as I
predict, it becomes a major way to sell a lot of very high bandwidth
lines (155mb+) to customers who otherwise wouldn't consider so much
bandwidth if they had to pay for all of it all the time.

Again, it depends on the risk factors.

You're right that something has to be done, but I don't particularly
accept that the situation is so untenable. On a service like this a
credit for a bad week with a crook doesn't really drive the provider
under either, particularly if they make some effort to prevent it
(e.g. prosecuting abusers, detecting and blocking abuse quickly, etc.)

I'd guess that one model which might work well is whitelisting: I want
on-demand bandwidth up to, say, 155Mb/s to this short list of sites
(VPN-ish), but only T1 to everyone else to prevent abuse.

Possibly, yes.

--
-- 
Karl Denninger (karl () denninger net) http://www.mcs.net/~karl
I ain't even *authorized* to speak for anyone other than myself, so give
up now on trying to associate my words with any particular organization.



Current thread: