Comments on: Bandwidth Policing

By: Jake

Jake — Tue, 27 May 2008 04:59:37 +0000

Ah, that seems like it would hurt your productivity at home. I just found out Verizon is laying fiber to my neighborhood in Portland next year, so maybe by late 2009, I'll be happily paying a lot more for a lot more pipe. I pay for 8 mbs now, but rarely get more than 50% of that, even less over VPN natch.

By: Gary

Gary — Tue, 27 May 2008 03:45:36 +0000

“makes it tough to work from home.”
I've got two kids (6 and 3). THEY make it tough to work from home

By: Jake

Jake — Mon, 26 May 2008 10:49:49 +0000

OK, I get where you're coming from now. I guess if broadband had always been pay per use, then no biggie. But, since it's been “all you can eat” for so many years, I feel annoyed that they want to make me pay per use.

Your plan sounds way too restrictive for me, makes it tough to work from home.

By: Gary

Gary — Mon, 26 May 2008 04:16:08 +0000

Here is Oz, most internet plans are limited/pay per use. I pay for a 1Gb limit per month with usage above that 'shaped' (slowed down to about dialup speeds) or I can buy extra at about $5 per Gb. Some plans offer extra 'off-peak' usage.
The economics can get complicated. I don't have a problem with businesses offering whatever terms they (and consumers) agree to. Slowing users, charging more or otherwise limiting peak use, or charging higher prices so they have a high enough capacity/user ratio and don't have to limit.
Tightening down on illegal (copyright violation) downloads may be generally beneficial, if anyone can work out how to do it.

By: Jake

Jake — Sat, 24 May 2008 03:40:36 +0000

WRT bandwidth, your model may be correct. The problem is that the ISPs want to recoup their sunk costs on infrastructure, and their models don't meet the increasing trends, i.e. bandwidth hogs make them nervous. So, they want to have their collective cake and eat it too by charging the under-users a flat rate and over-users a pay-per-use rate. Makes sense as a business plan, but I don't like that as a consumer.

So, your point is what? If you think I should pay-per-use as a seriel bandwidth consumer, then I assume you are an under-user who would also like to pay-per-use. If you are an over-user, why would you want to pay for use?

I don't really get what lesson you're trying to teach me

WRT to oil, I have an economics degree, and we're both grossly oversimplifying the market forces of oil to make a point. Suffice to say, we could cherry-pick pieces of the whole that prove our points all day long.

By: gary

gary — Sat, 24 May 2008 03:10:51 +0000

“The cost of a barrel of oil has risen $100 dollars in 8 years. Is that due to a 300-400% increase in demand?”
Guess you never studied economics. Simple example of why that logic doesn't hold true. A company produces 10 doses of a life-saving drug for a disease. There are 10 very rich people with the disease. No excess demand, so the company charges the cost of producing the drug (plus some profit). If 11 very rich people suffer from the disease, the 10 doses suddenly become 'scarce'. The drug company can increase its charges ten fold (or even a million fold), until it becomes too expensive and one of those individuals drops out. Even a 10% (or 1%) increase in demand without a corresponding increase in supply means scarcity, and the price will increase until demand is forced to drop.
With petroleum, there's been increasing demand from China and India. There hasn't been a corresponding increase in supply. The price will increase, not in proportion to the increase in demand, but until it reaches a point where demand falls.
Quite simply, the price of gas will go up until it reaches the point where enough people can't afford it.

The same will happen with bandwidth. The price will rise until people stop using it or the extra income pays for more capacity to meet the demand.

By: Jake

Jake — Fri, 23 May 2008 21:01:40 +0000

I live in the real world. Somehow I have a feeling that bandwidth hogs account for less than 10% of the total customers of any given ISP. Therefore, the other 90% under-uses and over-pays. ISPs don't want to go full pay-per-use because it would negatively affect their businesses.

I haven't seen any stats on over-usage and its affect on the connections of everyone else. My sense is there are very few times during a day that over-usage affects the average users.

I don't have a problem with pay-per-use, but it can't be selectively applied. If so, under-users should revolt.

Also, I'm not sure that demand for gas outstrips supply. Supply is controlled by a small number of producers, so it's difficult to measure true supply-demand due to constraints. The cost of a barrel of oil has risen $100 dollars in 8 years. Is that due to a 300-400% increase in demand?

I agree that equality breaks down when applied to limited resources.

By: Gary

Gary — Fri, 23 May 2008 11:20:32 +0000

“A rise in core costs negatively impacts the web worker’s business because it must either absorbed into the business or passed on to customers. Neither is ideal.”
Welcome to the real world. Demand for petrol (or diesel) outstrips supply, so the price goes up to curb demand. Users have to absorb the cost or raise prices.
In fantasy land, you can get unlimited broadband cheaply, or even free. In the real world, some has to pay for cable, routers and other hardware, for men to go out and fix stuff when it breaks. it is perfectly reasonable to expect users to pay for the resources they are using.
“bandwidth policing has been squashed in favor of a more equitable solution.”
Whole schools of political thought have been built on 'equitable' distribution of limited resources. Unfortunately, most break down as people want to be more equal than others.