> On Oct 10, 2021, at 13:21 , Mark Tinka <mark@tinka.africa> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10/10/21 22:13, Michael Thomas wrote:
>
>> Isn't that what Erlang numbers are all about? My suspicion is that after
>> about 100Mbs most people wouldn't notice the difference in most cases. My
>> ISP is about 25Mbs on a good day (DSL) and it serves our needs fine and have
>> never run into bandwidth constraints. Maybe if we were streaming 4k all of
>> the time it might be different, but frankly the difference for 4k isn't all
>> that big. It's sort of like phone screen resolution: at some point it just
>> doesn't matter and becomes marketing hype.
>>
>
> The ISP looking to charge BigContent for increased link saturation isn't
> looking at the individual 100Mbps links they have sold to their downstream
> customers.
>
> They are looking at the aggregate Gbps or Tbps of traffic that BigContent is
> seeking to deliver across their network, for "no $$".
Which is the kind of ignorant view of the situation that creates this problem
in the first place.
It’s not for “no $$”, it’s for all the $$ they got from all those 100Mbps links
that they are delivering those Tbps of traffic to.
If the aggregate $$ they are collecting is insufficient, then they have priced
their service incorrectly and should either re-evaluate,
or go bankrupt and sell to someone that knows how to run a business.
Owen
