Re: Lessons from the AU model

[Martin Barry <marty () supine com>]

$quoted_author = "Tom Vest" ;
> Occasional rhetorical indulgences notwithstanding, I'm a pragmatist; an 
> ever-rising upper limit that 99% of the population never ever notices is 
> not much of a limit. 

Sure it is. By knowing that no-one sharing the backhaul to the DSLAM at my
CO can afford to do line rate 24x7 makes me sleep better at night. By using
an ISP with sane limits I've never noticed performance degradation, even
during peak periods.


> However I've rarely (actually, before now, *never*) heard the AU/NZ
> situation described thusly.... I must be spending too much time with the
> wrong 2% I guess. 

The wrong 2% of what?  :-)

If you want to see the flat-rate churning horde in all their glory visit
whirlpool.net.au, otherwise affectioninatly known as "whingepool" because of
the bitching'n'whining every time an ISP goes under or attends ECONOMICS 101
and brings in sustainable limits.


> And I've yet to hear how one will be credibly define or sustainably (and
> legally) maintain such escalating limits.

Simon's post pretty much sums up the kind of maths that justifies them.

http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg05636.html

Legal? What's legality have to do with this discussion? 

cheers
marty

-- 
"Multiple coffee suppliers feeding into a Redundant Arrangement of Independent
Dispensers, to further reduce the chance of uncaffeinated downtime and increase
Mean Time To Drowsiness." --Steve VanDevender

alt.sysadmin.recovery - <ergtnb$8vb$1 () isis novusordo net>