Maybe Verizon should give you 100Mbps for $5 per month? Is that better? Oh, and you can run MTA's and malicious spambots behind it?
My sarcasm is to illustrate a point. US telecoms and broadband access providers go to GREAT measures to provide high speed access at competitive prices. All they ask is that you behave like a user - and "users" dont run mail servers. There is a reason why that 5Mbps of traffic is priced at a unrealistic low price. The reason is your behavior is strictly viewed as an end-user.
Admins who maintain mail servers which handle millions of messages a day can easily comment on the unbelievable amount of spam generated from MTAs behind residential high-speed connections (as much as 20% of total email volume). To say using a DUL blacklist is just an anal admin being an ass is not a fair assessment.
You know its funny. For a long time ISP's did little to no abuse monitoring, and as a result they sort of created alot of the Spam problems. Now that ISP's are curbing abuse via tactics like port 25 blocking, outbound mail filtering, or advertising their dynamic IP space to public DUL lists, instead of being applauded - they are criticized. And to be honest, the people doing the criticizing are in the minority.
-John
On Oct 17, 2007, at 4:37 PM, zuzu wrote:
zuzu wrote:
without citing artificial restrictions, _bandwidth is bandwidth_.
really you're paying purely for Mbps with several "nines" of
availability, that's it.
If bandwidth is bandwidth then Verizon should just give everyone a
100/1000Mbit port and charge them 95th % usage on their circuit based on
a $/Mbit price that is based on how much they will commit to (ranging
from $30-125/Mbit). This is method how hosting companies pay for
transit. If this is how it worked for the consumer it'd be like going
back to paying per minute on the telephone and would reduce peoples time
spent online.
you're assuming that the cost of bandwidth is fixed, when competition
usually correlates to falling prices for all commodities -- bandwidth
included.
the problem with overbooking as a business model is alot like what
airlines have floundered with -- that seats are really commodities,
but the businesses want to fool people with phony differentiations
into thinking they're not, because they don't want to compete purely
on price/performance.
or simply put, "last mile" ISPs dug their own graves with overbooking
(aka underprovisioning) (on the heels of AOL) and now are suffering
because it's unsustainable. this is where I lose my sympathy and
those businesses should fail and better businesses would take their
place.
___________________________________________________________________________