mailing list archives
RE: Measured Internet good v. "bad" traffic
From: "David Schwartz" <davids () webmaster com>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 14:12:19 -0700
At 02:45 AM 8/28/2003, David Schwartz wrote:
No that wouldnt work, that was be an analogy to non-usage based
eg I buy a 10Mb port from you and you dont charge me extra for
unwanted bandwidth across your network..
The point is that 'usage' is supposed to be 'what you
use', not what
somebody else uses. 'My' traffic is the traffic I want, not the
try to give me that I don't want.
An Internet-connected line is like an 800 phone line. You get connected,
you "advertise" your presence, you have no control over who
calls, you pay
the bill for the incoming calls. That's just *how it is*.
The last time I went looking for more bandwidth from a new provider (5
months ago or so), I talked to five major providers. I told each one that we
would not pay for attack traffic after we notified them of the problem but
were willing to pay a reasonable 'per-incident' fee (say $500). Not one of
these providers had any problem with that. So it's not "how it is".
Re: Measured Internet good v. "bad" traffic Keptin Komrade Dr. BobWrench III esq. (Aug 28)
RE: Measured Internet good v. "bad" traffic JC Dill (Aug 29)
- RE: Measured Internet good v. "bad" traffic David Schwartz (Aug 29)