=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
This E-mail is Sponsored by: Small Dog Electronics
--> Specializing in New & Factory Refurbished Apple computers <--
Surf to <http://www.smalldog.com> Check out our daily specials!
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
http://www.insanely-great.com/news.php?id=459
Apple posts Mac.com bandwidth rules
By ron carlson, Insanely Great Mac
May 23rd 2002
iTools homepage users, particularly those flogging shareware apps, have experienced
outages recently
After a delay of over week after the policy came into effect,Apple has provided
guidelines on just how much free bandwidth Mac.com homepage users can expect to enjoy.
Here''s a quote from an e-mail from the "iTools Postmaster" circulated to users:
Apple has recently implemented bandwidth limitations on iTools HomePages. If an iTools
user''s website receives more than 500 hits in a six-hour period, the user is limited
to roughly two times their iDisk capacity of data throughput in that six-hour period.
iTools users who have upgraded their iDisk capacity will have additional bandwidth. If
an upgraded user''s website receives FEWER than 500 hits in a six-hour period, the
user is limited to roughly 14 times their iDisk capacity in that six-hour period. If
an upgraded user''s website receives MORE than 500 hits in a six-hour period, the user
is limited to 2.5 times their iDisk capacity in that 6 hour period.
When these limitations are exceeded, that iTools user''s websites will be disabled for
a period of up to, but not greater than, 12 hours. The limits stated here are subject
to change without notice.
A number of users have complained (Macintouch) about these rules. Some have even gone
so far as to claim that Apple is shooting itself in the foot by capping bandwidth.
I''m not quite sure how that logic works, but iTools is designed for individual use
(meaning non-commercial use). The people complaining the loudest in general as those
using their Mac.com homepages to promote and/or sell shareware applications.
Given the above rules and the fact that commercial users aren''t being booted, Apple
appears willing to turn a blind eye to these activities -- within limits.
Yes, Apple should have warned users that they were abusing their privaledges and were
at risk of having their sites (temporarily) blocked. Also, Apple should have posted
guidelines on just how bandwidth users could expect.
I think it''s fair to assume, however, that the blocking of sites was in reaction to a
spike in bandwidth usage. It''s possible Apple didn''t fix a policy on usage because
they didn''t think they''d need one.
Perhaps this is a case of too much faith in the goodness of people and the company''s
ad hoc attempts to rein in the problem.
Post your comments at:
http://www.insanely-great.com/news.php?id=459
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Copyright (c) 2001 Insanely Great Mac. All rights reserved. This article
may not be republished in part or whole without explicit written
permission from IGM Publishing.
Brought to you by Insanely Great Mac <http://www.insanely-great.com/>
To SUBSCRIBE - send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with subject
subscribe macnews
To UNSUBSCRIBE - send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with subject
unsubscribe macnews
Subscription problems/questions please email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
