|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: More Sidgemore on per-bit pricing
On Sat, Dec 05, 1998 at 06:07:35PM -0500, Barry Shein wrote: > > On December 5, 1998 at 14:28 [email protected] (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 ([email protected]) 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.
|