Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!decwrl!ucbvax!corwin.ccs.northeastern.EDU!mckee From: mckee@corwin.ccs.northeastern.EDU (George McKee) Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip Subject: Re: Whither chargeback policies? Message-ID: <8804272341.AA06154@corwin.CCS.Northeastern.EDU> Date: 27 Apr 88 23:41:16 GMT Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The Internet Lines: 60 Alternative-Subject: "what price broadcasts?" Dennis Perry writes: >... >The resourse you use to get to the system, telecommunications, may in >fact be dedicated to you, but there were limited number of users >who could effectively use the ports available to get to the supercomputers. >Now, you could sign on and use the facility at any rate you chose, i.e. >usage rate is not the same as bandwidth. Typing characters at 20 word >per minute is not the same as transmitting each character at 56 kbit/s. >Those who only type text could get by with 2400 to 4800 b/sec service, >while those who generated lots of graphics to a textronix would much >prefer a 9.6 kbit/s service or higher (we had some that ran substantially >higher, I don't remember now how high). >... >dennis When I think about network service, this statement is more like the mental model I have than the other one that seems to be implicit in much of this discussion. The fact that mail is perhaps the most visible form of network use leads people think about billing in terms of per-message (i.e. per-packet) charges, just like the post office or the telephone company. An alternative model that I think is just as valid is cable television, where you pay (in advance, even) for a guarantee of a certain amount of bandwidth. Subscribers are offered different levels of service, and it is provided whether your TV is on or not. Few people watch HBO 24 hours a day, but that's what you pay for. I'd guess that there's at least as much internet traffic generated by "broadcast" lists such as this one, as there is traffic generated by individual-to-individual messages, though I have no idea how the relevant data could be collected. In a research-oriented community, the free flow of information is widely acknowledged to be essential for productivity. It seems to me that bandwidth limits would be much less painful to run up against than would usage limits. I wouldn't like to be in the middle of transferring some important file and suddenly get hit by a "sorry: packet quota exceeded" message. Or to be told that I've exceeded my network budget with a whole month left in the fiscal year. Bandwidth limits could avoid this kind of trouble because the costs are fixed in advance. Of course, there would have to be ways of limiting bandwith (and other forms of net access, as well) by software rather than hardware, so that senior researchers could obtain the bandwith to transfer their supercomputer output, while undergraduates or other peons who happen to have signons on the same machine/subnet could be restricted to a harmless trickle, but this should be preferable to flooding the network with accounting packets. If this alternative has already been considered and rejected, I apologize. I'd appreciate knowing the reasons, though, if someone could point to an article where this is discussed. - George McKee Software Coordinator College of Computer Science Northeastern University, Boston 02115 CSnet: mckee@Corwin.CCS.Northeastern.EDU Phone: (617) 437-5204 Usenet: the signal/noise ration here is already too low...