Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!mit-eddie!ll-xn!ames!sdcsvax!ucbvax!BU-CS.BU.EDU!bzs From: bzs@BU-CS.BU.EDU (Barry Shein) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip Subject: RCTE Message-ID: <8710060153.AA23231@bu-cs.BU.EDU> Date: Mon, 5-Oct-87 21:53:03 EDT Article-I.D.: bu-cs.8710060153.AA23231 Posted: Mon Oct 5 21:53:03 1987 Date-Received: Fri, 9-Oct-87 00:43:27 EDT References: <871005092028.5.DCP@KOYAANISQATSI.S4CC.Symbolics.COM> Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Distribution: world Organization: The ARPA Internet Lines: 62 From: David C. Plummer >Opening the door to a more unhindered future question: Assuming >"costly" includes money, when will public networking come up with a >deterministic usage fee so that researchers can budget their >communications costs instead of fretting? I imagine most researchers >want to spend money on research and correspond with collegues and know >from the outset how each will cost; having to worry about variable >communications charges that they possibly don't understand or care to >understand is probably an undesired and recurring distraction. I'd like to underscore this point, it's critical. This was the biggest initial design goal which motivated the Cypress network project, fixed and predictable costs from month to month (that is, not based on data flow.) It's critical in more ways than one. When the cost is based on per-packet (or whatever) one can waste money using the network. When it's flat rate one can only waste money by not using the network. The distinction is important. One might argue that this would just encourage irresponsibility, but in reality the former just encourages irresponsibility by those who can bury their costs at the expense of those who cannot. I assume any common denominator of price will be a mere bagatelle to many folks anyhow. There should be other ways to control irresponsibility besides mere chargeback (eg. limiting bandwidth into the network.) I suppose the question is whether one sees the network as infrastructure or a commodity. It also, of course, encourages network access based purely upon political clout within an organization (ie. the managers will limit it to themselves, the rats always guard the cheese...) I suppose whether or not this would be a negative factor is subject to discussion. Predictability is critical within a University context (and, I suspect, other business situations.) I can get statements from any number of bean-counters around here (I collected these verbally during the initial Cypress discussions) that they would far rather commit to (eg) $500 a month than a varying cost of $300-$700 per month which would *probably* average out to $500. Just keeping tabs on whether some change in behavior has jumped that to $1000/mo involves staff time better placed at the vendor's end (at which point they could raise their flat fees which, I assume, would reflect average usages rather than simply my singularities, they have more to work with to respond to the situation other than simply imposing little rules.) The question of course arises "what about a small organization that truly believes they would benefit from per-quantum charges and feel they are subsidizing the heavier users?" Well, for one thing other adjustments could be made but more importantly one has to be able to show that the economy of scale is working in general and, as I believe, that the per-quantum costs would end up costing the smaller user more (if rates are here, could bulk-rates be far behind? etc.) I suspect a sound financial argument could be made that the small user is benefitting in perhaps less obvious ways (eg. large users would tend to have multiple (separately charged for) connections and provide a stable revenue base which is what it takes to re-tool infrastructure, small users would probably tend to come and go, it's a two-way street.) -Barry Shein, Boston University