On 6/6/23, Undescribed Horrific Abuse, One Victim & Survivor of Many <gmk...@gmail.com> wrote: >> As to constant bandwidth/covertraffic, that is expensive even today. For >> constant bandwidth to get a 5 second response time for a smallish say >> 3MB web page you need to have 3 MB of covertraffic every 5 seconds, or >> 50GB per day, per link. Ouch. > > I thought about this a little bit, and the concern doesn't add up to me. > > As a consumer and participant in small businesses, I've only ever seen > bandwidth that is metered per availability, not per use. The price is > the same whether I use it or not.
I thought about this a little further and memories are filling in where there used to be plans where a set transfer cap would become exhausted and replenish at the end of the month, like mobile plans have nowadays. Still, it's clear the problem is slowly being engaged in non-tor alternatives. [when anonymity is truly needed, it's life and death. snail-mail response times don't matter in such situations, and it's a huge demand for some that does indeed continue] > The amount of bandwidth available to a set of people who stream videos > with or without filling the downtime with cover traffic is exactly the > same. > > A low-end consumer link that provides 1MB/s bandwidth does indeed > provide 84GB of transfer every day. > > The idea of constant bandwidth could of course be extended to manage > changing bandwidth conditions without providing for timing > correlation, so long as the use of the bandwidth is unrelated to the > actual requests, it could have any arbitrary shape to fit within > availability. >
