LinuxSA Mailing list archives

  From: Jason Tan <jason@rebel.rebel.net.au>
  To  : Richard Russell <richardrussell@mail.com>
  Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 10:36:22 +1030 (CST)

RE: AOL? or best ISP

On Tue, 23 Jan 2001, Richard Russell wrote:

> 
> > I suspect it would be fair to say that the that cached and local traffic
> > is very very very low cost.
> 
> except for the cost of the equipment to cache this effectively...

Yes which is why I say very very low cost, not free.
There is also the cost of configuring and maintinag it, updating
redirectors etc etc.

However for a big isp, the bytes coming out of it are very very very
cheap.

If they werent cheaper ISPs would not in most cases be caching.
Most dont do it for speed, they do it for profit.

> 
> > So by all means charge for the bytes that cost you(in fact of coure you
> > should charge exactly how you want, it is your business), but uless
> > you differentiate between bytes that actually cost you and bytes that
> > dont, then you are not simply charging the customer for the bytes that you
> > are charged on.
> > You are likely charging on way more than that  form the last time I
> > checked your price list(the installfest).
> >
> > Some ISPs recognise this and charge these bytes at different rates or do
> > not count them against the bytes yioyu are charged against.
> > This seems reasonable and equitable to the ISP and the user.
> 
> but how understandable is it to the average user? Could you imagine trying
> to explain to users the concept of caching, and that if they go to
> www.a.popular.site.com, some of the stuff will be cached, and some won't,

Yes.
There are accoutns out there right now which have this conept.
I bleive they have cgi scripts so the user can see if they will be charged
for this url or not, though I suspect not mamny peopel use them, except
perhaps when dowwnloaindg big lumps of software(eg isos).

> and they won't be able to tell what's what, and that it's possible that if
> they are the first people at the ISP to access a 10Mb file, they will be
> charged 18c/Mb for it, but if someone else had already got to it, they would
> get charged only 2c/Mb... I think for the average user, and even for most of
> us, it would be preferable for the ISP to cache and reduce the average cost
> per Mb to say 15c/Mb through this caching... etc...

Of course you dont ahve to explainit in details.
Just mention it.
If people want to know you refer them to a webpage, or explain it to them.

Alternately you could just charge a lower price for all bytes, based on
the average efficeny of your cache.


Or do lots of oteh rhtings.
The real pointis that the internode guys keep telling about all the
expense, which soudns very reaosnable and is, but they are not mentioning
the techiniques they can and almost certianly do use to decrease actual
bytes downloaded.

Ie I dont think they are presenting a very accurate picture.

Lots of peopel here woudl kow this, whether they woudl recall it or not
while reading the email, who knows.

I  just think that if a pricture is rpesented it shoudl represent the
whole picture, to soem extnet, and not just the bits that are convenient
for your argument.


> > <snip we love/hate Internode>
> 
> IMHO, it would be good to stop talking about Internode now... I think the
> Internode guys have done well responding to criticisms and questions, and
> taking this any further would be completely unproductive. I think we have
> established that Internode aims to be good and fast before it aims to be
> cheap, and that there are other ISPs around offering different combinations
> of good, fast and cheap... I think we have also established that some ISPs

Yes but every time that someone mentions one of these ISPs that use a
dffrent combination to gpood and fast, that person gets a interndoe person
telling them why this is nto good, or how this is unsustainable, which is
blatantly not true in many cases.

And when someone does poke holes in or ask quesitons about  the
statements made, which lead to areas which may not be so favourable they
ignore it.

I find this a bit sad and somewhat annoying.

> are profitable and some are not (and Internode claimed to be in the former
> category), and the sustainability of an ISP matters to some consumers and
> not to others. There are many other things that we have established, so
> unless there is something new to establish, let's leave it be, or at least
> remember that this is LinuxSA, not InternodeSA :)
> 

Jason

-- 
LinuxSA WWW: http://www.linuxsa.org.au/  IRC: #linuxsa on irc.linux.org.au
To unsubscribe from the LinuxSA list:
  mail linuxsa-request@linuxsa.org.au with "unsubscribe" as the subject