Xref: utzoo news.sysadmin:2105 news.admin:4574
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcvax!hp4nl!oce-rd1!fs1-cg!teus
From: teus@fs1-cg.oce.nl (Teus Hagen)
Newsgroups: news.sysadmin,news.admin
Subject: Re: i2ack request for news/email supply connection
Message-ID: <1055@oce-rd1.oce.nl>
Date: 27 Jan 89 12:19:37 GMT
References: <102@i2ack.UUCP> <9198@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> <56046@pyramid.pyramid.com> <483@telly.UUCP> <56529@pyramid.pyramid.com>
Sender: news@oce-rd1.oce.nl
Reply-To: teus@fs1-cg.UUCP (Teus Hagen)
Organization: Oce-Nederland bv, Venlo, the Netherlands
Lines: 48

Some day a friend of me in the US made it possible for me to ship news
articles via a phone connection (the only possibility at that time).
So we got news cheap in Europe. Till his boss discovered the reason
for his big phone bill. He got fired. And news was not that cheap
anymore.

In article <56529@pyramid.pyramid.com> csg@pyramid.pyramid.com (Carl S. Gutekunst) writes:
>
>Actually, EUNet is investigating a number of strategies to reduce costs, both
>within Europe and between Europe and the rest of the world. I know very little
>about it, although certainly TrailBlazers are one of the items on the table.
Yes they are. In some countries they are formally approved, and they
are used there. In some they are not (eg Swiss, Germany, ..).
I know there is substancial work done to lower costs (remember
that costs are related to the amount of data transported, which
has been increased enormously the latter years).
So decission are taken if it is cost effective, to have leased lines,
to buy and install specialized equipement. This cost money. For which
you are not sure that the next year other and better technics will
replace it without paying back the investment costs of earlier
hardware.
>
>It will be interesting to see how eucon's costs *really* work out. I suspect
>not all the different from EUNet. My only real gripe with EUNet is don't think
>they have a billing strategy that fairly considers sites with differing usage
>patterns. Small sites tend to have disproportionately large bills. I much
>prefer the ACSNet implementation, where sites essentially pay their own full
>end-to-end costs. (Yes yes Robert, I know that's not quite right, but close
>enough for the current discussion. I think ACSNet billing is more equitable
>than EUNet billing.)
The accounting scheme which is used by EUnet is still under discussion. 
Their are some drawbacks. The current scheme is very simple, but does
not take into account small sites and the profit part of it. These
type of items are hard. But if one has some good ideas? Please.

Hopefully it is clear that quite some thinking is needed before you
act here. It is just too easy to critize it without giving good
workable alternatives.

I hope Paolo will find some good alternatives to drop the costs. I can
understand EUnet that they refuse to pay costs of someone else.
That is clearly the reason why the refuse to transport Eucon traffic.
Till so far it is better to wait for the proposals of Paolo.

teus hagen
_______________________________
This note does not necessarily represent the position of Oce-Nederland b.v..
Therefore no liability or responsibility for whatever will be accepted.