Hello Fellow NANOG'ers,
I was just thinking about this - tell me if it sounds reasonable? The
company that I work for developed a piece of technology which, through
rate-limit statements, allow customers to buy/sell bandwidth "on
demand". Now, I was thinking: "Why can't we take this technology
Yes, but part of the software is a billing component which tells you
*exactly* how much bandwidth you've used and what the total cost of the
bandwidth is. You can also set a budget limit in the application which
would not allow the bandwidth purchased to exceed $x.
-- Jonathan
J.J.Bailey wrote
On Fri, 14 May 2004 17:22:03 EDT, "Jonathan M. Slivko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Personally, I would like to see a senario where everyone just pays for
> what they use - it would be a much better system for allowing people who
>
> Questions? Comments? Suggestions?
Who pays for a DDoS attac
To answer your question, in our colo evironment, incomming traffic is
free and not measured for billing purposes (but I assume this will be
different on the ISP platform).
As far as being slashdotted, if it does happen - then your agent from
our application will watch - and adhere to - the budg
In an application where you pay-as-you-go with hard limits, the site
stops responding under the slashdotted activity. The limit protects the
ISP and the customer from a dispute, and the customer decides whether to
rethink their hard limits or the popularity of their content.
DJ
Jonathan M. S
Woops Almost forgot to answer the most important question:
> And the biggie for you is: How do you handle these issues on a low
margin? ;)
Well, to answer that question, it really doesn't take that much work for
us, as we would only be licensing our technology to the ISP, we wouldn't
be th
Agreed.
-- Jonathan
Deepak Jain wrote:
In an application where you pay-as-you-go with hard limits, the site
stops responding under the slashdotted activity. The limit protects the
ISP and the customer from a dispute, and the customer decides whether to
rethink their hard limits or the popularit
Well - you could, to save costs, put a T3 (or multiple T3's) into a
specific area that you want to serve and then distribute it from there
via Ethernet. This is what we're currently doing with a
residential/commercial building.
-- Jonathan
Daniel Senie wrote:
At 05:22 PM 5/14/2004, you wrote:
Also, you could also take the approach of wiring a whole building for
Internet connectivity through that model, like Intellispace does.
-- Jonathan
Daniel Senie wrote:
At 05:22 PM 5/14/2004, you wrote:
Hello Fellow NANOG'ers,
I was just thinking about this - tell me if it sounds reasonable? T
On Fri, 14 May 2004, Jonathan M. Slivko wrote:
> I was just thinking about this - tell me if it sounds reasonable?
Okay, so basically, I'm in complete sympathy with you, because I would
_like_ the overhead cost of an unutilized local loop to be zero.
Unfortunately, that's not the case i
Bill - I'm not saying dedicate a whole T1 to a single customer, i'm
saying share a T1 or T3 among many customers in a small geographic area,
but let each customer have fair use of the T1/T3.
BTW, we have been doing this for the last 6 years in a colo environment
and more recently a residential/
For an idea to catch on, it often helps for there to be a clear benefit to
doing things the new way rather than the old way (or at least, it needs
some good marketing...).
In this case, it's not clear to me where the benefit is. A lot of the
cost of residential connections is in support, and in
At 06:19 PM 5/14/2004, Jonathan M. Slivko wrote:
Bill - I'm not saying dedicate a whole T1 to a single customer, i'm saying
share a T1 or T3 among many customers in a small geographic area, but let
each customer have fair use of the T1/T3.
BTW, we have been doing this for the last 6 years in a
Steve,
As for your point of the major cost for an ISP would be support. That is
where I beg to differ, in my own experience working for this company on
this project, it has required very little time to do actual support work
to the end-user, provided that the Internet connection actually works.
James,
I'd rather keep paying more for unmetered service rather than pay by the
byte. I can host a popular site for a couple months, download a few cds,
upgrade all of my machines, without having to worry about explaining to
my wife why my monthly bill has doubled or tripled.
For $850 a month, I h
Rob,
What's your cost on managing the bandwidth? You're basically creating
on-demand frame circuits, and balancing them is tricky (actually,
deciding on an oversubscription ratio is easy, dealing with the
customers is the tricky part!) on a low-margin basis. Of course, if
you're a BofH or a sa
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonathan M. Slivko) [Sat 15 May 2004, 01:27 CEST]:
> Actually, our model doesn't allow for oversubscription as it's a
> committed (meaning you have the bandwidth that you purchased guaranteed
> to you), dynamic rate.
Ah, falling into the same trap MAE-East-ATM (and -West-)
George,
We do too - it's just a composite of the 5 minute interval samples taken
at the switch/router.
-- Jonathan
George wrote:
Ok.
We do this..
we charge in 1 month intervals :)
George
Jonathan M. Slivko wrote:
Hello Fellow NANOG'ers,
I was just thinking about this - tell me if it so
At 06:04 PM 5/14/2004, Jonathan M. Slivko wrote:
Well - you could, to save costs, put a T3 (or multiple T3's) into a
specific area that you want to serve and then distribute it from there via
Ethernet. This is what we're currently doing with a residential/commercial
building.
Ah, so you're only
Actually, our model doesn't allow for oversubscription as it's a committed
(meaning you have the bandwidth that you purchased guaranteed to you),
dynamic rate.
That would be impressive, in the residential market. BellSouth is rolling
out their 2Meg DSL here and TWCable already supports 3 meg o
On Fri 14 May 2004 (18:44 -0400), Jonathan M. Slivko wrote:
>
> Steve,
>
> As for your point of the major cost for an ISP would be support. That is
> where I beg to differ, in my own experience working for this company on
> this project, it has required very little time to do actual support wo
On Fri, 14 May 2004, Steve Gibbard wrote:
> In this case, it's not clear to me where the benefit is. A lot of the
> cost of residential connections is in support, and in the cost of the
> physical connection, whether it's used or not. From the ISP's
> perspective, even if the average customer's
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2004-05-14, at 23.34, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Fri, 14 May 2004 17:22:03 EDT, "Jonathan M. Slivko"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>> Personally, I would like to see a senario where everyone just pays for
>> what they use - it would be a muc
Thus spake "Jonathan M. Slivko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Personally, I would like to see a senario where everyone just pays for
> what they use - it would be a much better system for allowing people who
> don't neccessarily need to get on the Internet at high-speed, get on
> high-speed which will not
Thus spake "Jonathan M. Slivko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Personally, I would like to see a senario where everyone just pays for
> what they use - it would be a much better system for allowing people who
> don't neccessarily need to get on the Internet at high-speed, get on
> high-speed which will not
On Mon, 17 May 2004, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> One can take an important lesson from the telcos... When the incremental
> cost of usage was high compared to their fixed costs, usage-based billing
> made sense. However, today incremental costs are negligible but fixed costs
> are high, so logicall
26 matches
Mail list logo
