Hi Crossy,
Thanks a lot for your cogent and thoughtful post. WRT Napster, I was merely using it as an example of a service that clearly spontaneously arose when suitable bandwidth proved to be available and has largely been a use of the Net that no one anticipated 24 months ago, nor has anyone figured out how to charge for successfully. Anecdotally, I've heard figures that as much as 1/4 of Internet traffic at a time, before the recent court rulings, was Napster related. It has been such a "bandwidth hog" that many universities in the US have had to limit its use by dorm residents, because the Napster traffic was overwelming the capacity of campus networks.
On to your question: Why do you think that a "bandwidth hog" application is "parasitic" on the resources of the SP ?
Perhaps parasitic is a strong word that seems inappropriate to your ear. Maybe "freeloader" works better. About the same difference to me, but I thought parasitic was a bit more bombastic, and I love to write for effect. See, you took the bait! <vbg> At any rate, the whole culture surrounding Napster is about getting something for nothing. Now, that ought to be OK for fresh air and sunshine, but in the case of bandwidth, infrastructure ultimately must be paid for by the consumers of this commodity, and my point was that the Napster community certainly is not paying for its fair share of the use of network elements. Nuf sed on that matter. On to meatier meter musings.......
I used to live in the Bay Area. In an odd fit of curiousity, I happened to look at the obituary column in the local paper one day. (Trust me, I'm not morbid, or a scamster on widows or orphans) There was the strangest obit of an electrical engineer who'd done a lot of work on the Bay Area Rapid Transit, or BART. His words were quoted there that the cost to create the automated ticketing system for BART was so outrageous that it would have been cheaper to simply let passengers ride free for the first three years that the subway was in service. <g> He was a practical man after my own heart. This is to say, I agree that metering bits on the Net is a horrible idea, one that I am repulsed by. And I can sympathize with you regarding the PTTs per-minute charges which, in aggregate in Europe have pushed the roll out of the Internet back literally by years.
Re: Goralski - I am very impressed that you would wade through a technical book like that. I've got a couple of fiber optic texts on my shelf and I swore I'd read them last winter. I find they are handy references, but that I hardly have the patience or interest to read them cover to cover. Now I know who to bounce my xDSL questions off of. Hope you're ready for that. <bg>
Thanks for the stats on your cable modem connection. Here at Bend Cable, Bend, OR, USA we have 1.5Mbps down and 240Kbps up. I recently was doing some H.323 videoconferencing with a friend in Montreal, Canada. His cable modem was provided by Videotron and it was 1Mbps x 120Kbps (in round figures). So, I'm availing myself of quite a bit more bandwidth than Chello provides for about $45 per month. I fully expect that with all the industry buzz about price hikes, that I'll be faced with a higher rate soon. Hopefully not as severe as the 40% increase in the cost of electricity we are expecting on October 1. Seems that electing a President over here with a lot of connections to the energy industry isn't exactly working out to the advantage of the public. Funny how that works.
Thanks for your post, I appreciate your insights. :)
Best, Ray |
