|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical RE: SlashDot: "Comcast Gunning for NAT Users"
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" <[email protected]> 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: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]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" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Thus spake "Steven J. Sobol" <[email protected]> > > > > 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 |