From Slashdot: Comcast goes after NAT users

[JD Runyan]

On Fri, Jan ,  at 07:57:24PM -0600, zscoundrel wrote:
> Saying it over and over again does not make a wrong idea right.
> 
> Bandwidth is measured in number of bits per second and is the product of 
>  the equipment used to to transport the data and time.  Because there 
> is only so much available bandwidth at any given second, what is unused, 
> is wasted.
>
I'm not sure what your argument is.  Bits per second is the the equivilant
of volume/time.  This is flow or capacity.  I have said you pay for capacity.
I have made the argument that you do not consume bandwidth you use it.
Nothing is changed by its use, it is only unavailable to others while it is used.
The main thrust that I have been arguing against is comparing bandwidth to a 
comodity, or even a renewable resource.  It is an infrastructure piece, like
a road or highway.  While a section of highway is used by one, it cannot be used
by another, but once the vehicle has moved down the road, then someone else 
can use the vacated piece of highway.  We pay to have that infrastructure 
available to us.  The cost to the company is the infrastructure.  The cable
company incurs no additional cost if the infrastructure is used heavily, or 
recover cost if it is not used.   Sure customers may complain if there cable
connection runs very slowly all the time, because the network is used 
heavily all of the time.  This is like a highway that needs to be widened, and
yes that is costly.  Moving bits in and of itself is not any more costly than
not moving bits.  I will not pay a company for the amount of data I move.  The
only place that I see this being done, is in expensive commercial web hosting,
and the product they are selling is very different than an internet connection.
The commodity argument is flawed, and I will not back down on that.  If you 
want to pay for your internet by the amount of data you move, go right ahead,
but don't complain when you start getting hit with multiple hundreds of dollars
in bills like the old days of AOL and Compuserves time based charges.
> 
> 
> 
> JD Runyan wrote:
> 
> >On Fri, Jan ,  at 12:36:08PM -0600, Bradley Miller wrote:
> >
> >>Ok -- now step back and look at it this way, you want the bandwidth piped
> >>to your house to be just like water . . . except you want to be able to
> >>have the hydrant open to fill your pool when you want and not pay for it.
> >>Fair?  No.  No matter how you slice and dice it . . . businesses will not
> >>be able to survive without some type of metering and payment for usage.
> >>
> >>
> >I will reiterate, THE USE OF BANDWIDTH DOES NOT CONSUME THE RESOURCE. 
> >Filling your pool uses water that will not be returned the same as it
> >was before it was used.  You LEASE bandwidth not buy it.  Once you 
> >stop paying for it, it is no longer your to use.
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
JD Runyan
		"You can't milk a point."
			David M. Kuehn, Ph.D.