BAWIA Rants

Re: Who pays for the bandwidth
392 by: Adam W. Smith
393 by: Robert Raisch
394 by: Jason Scott
403 by: Jason Scott

how much does bandwidth really cost?
395 by: james hurst
396 by: Adam R. Kurth
397 by: Drew from Zhrodague
398 by: Jason Scott
399 by: Mark
400 by: Peter K. Butler
401 by: james hurst
402 by: Jason Scott

Subject:
Re: [bawia] Who pays for the bandwidth
From:
"Adam W. Smith" <asmith@netspace.org> Date:
Thu, 18 Jul 2002 12:11:39 -0400 (EDT)
To:
Jason Scott <jscott@textfiles.com> CC:
/>bawia@bawia.org

> No it is NOT. Let's try it this way:
>
> I buy my water from Poland Spring. I pay $10 a month for my water cooler
> from them, and $6 for every 6-gallon tank that goes on the water cooler.
> I can tell them to bring me however many bottles, and a truck comes twice
> a month, and drops off the bottles. There's a minimum of at least one
> bottle before they'll come drop off my water. If I tell them to skip a
> week, they do that.

This is a very good analogy in my mind, but partially because it
demonstrates a point that you weren't trying to make.

If you pay $1/gallon for water, fine - use those gallons however you want.
If Poland Spring finds that their costs are over $1/gallon (plus the
monthly base fee spread through all your bottles) then they have three
choices:
0. find a way to give you water for less
1. stop service you and people like you
2. go out of business

Furthermore - this analogy works for typical T1 service today, but not for
typical cable modem service. With T1 service, you pay enough to cover the
cost of the ISP providing you full access to every bit you can get into
or out of that line. With a cable modem or consumer DSL line, you pay
perhaps 1/10 (or less) of the T1 cost, and guess what? You sign a service
contract (at least implicitly - let's put bitching about that process
aside for now). That contract reflects the fact that they're making a
business out of an aggregate service, and one which is statistically
multiplexed to the consumers.

Again, you can pay for your cable modem, and you can probably manage to
stay one step ahead in technology and find a way to break your
personal-use contract by letting folks up and down your block use it. But
eventually, as above - your provider has three choices: improve their
efficiency, refuse to serve you and your ilk, or quit the game.

I want to be clear that I totally support the attitude of trying to
contribute to, and thereby create and foster, a community of sharing
resources and altruistic collaboration. But while you have the right to
make the decision to share your resources (time, expertise, wireless
access gear, bandwith, natural springwater), you should also respect the
right of others to choose NOT to participate in the exercise. And that
includes your ISP, who may not choose to altruistically provide you access
to unlimitted T1 bandwith for $50/month.

I think someone who chooses to give up 10% of their bandwidth, let alone
hours of time & energy putting up a public access point, tweaking
antennas, or even just buying plastic cups for their water service and
then picking them up off the lawn, is totally and fully commendable.

However, if you sign up for individual-use-only service ('cause it's
cheaper, 'cause it's all that's available, whatever) and then distribute
it to friends and passers-by? Well, that's a lot like buying a
copyrighted CD and then ripping copies for friends (or the folks at the
bus stop). Yeah, you can do it. Yeah, you can probably stay a technical
step ahead of the copy-protection (or bandwidth limits). But you're
breaking the contract, and in my world, the end doesn't justify the means.
It's like filling the drinking water tanks from your neighbor's hose.

> FUCK an ISP if they can't sell someone a pipe and pay for it! If they
> give me a line (let's say a T1 since that was quoted) and it is possible
> for me to somehow USE THE LINE I PAID FOR such that they can't survive if
> I use a lot of the pipe, that's not MY PROBLEM. I'm paying for the line,
> I'm USING the LINE, and there you go.

When is a line not a line? The T1 you refer to is a line. It's also
usually a specific SLA from the ISP as to how often that line will be up
and running. If you buy frac-T1, it's a combined SLA/AUP saying that they
only commit to give you certain service. Guess what - the cable modem's
the same. If you can't be bothered to read your contract/AUP, then as far
as I'm concerned you can take the consequences - getting shut down - when
you violate them.

> What, I'm going to restrict my usage because someone else can't send a
> 23-meg PDF attachment from sales to the management department through the
> public internet because they're morons? Have enough bandwidth to handle
> both of us!

No. You're going to restrict your usage because you signed a contract to
that effect, or in any case bought a service with an AUP that says so. If
you don't like it, stop sending in your $50/month. They'll stop sending
you bits. Fair's fair. If you can find another provider at that price,
with an AUP you can live with, great. If not, sorry!

I might feel like it'd be a good thing to give folks waiting for the bus a
chance to call home on Mother's Day. I could generously provide this
service, and yeah, it'd raise the karma level on my block once a year.
But you don't hear me complain when my Long Distance provider wants to
charge me for that, right? I'd like an LD provider who would give me free
calls on Mother's Day. But I haven't found one at any price. Too bad for
me.

So what am I trying to say? I believe in freenets, I believe in
community. But when you contribute, please make sure that you're
contributing in an honest fashion. Hopefully you wouldn't put
license-encumbered code into an open-source project, and hope you (and the
community) wouldn't get caught? Eventually that'll just hurt the
community - more work, more legal entanglements, all of it. In a similar
vein - contribute all the bandwidth you can afford to a freenet. I'll do
the same. But don't contribute bandwidth you haven't paid for, or break a
contract you've signed about how to use that bandwidth.

Fundamentally, this whole situation calls for mutual respect between
different people of differing goals. If you and I want to provide free
best-effort network service, great. If we can find an ISP on appropriate
terms, fantastic. If we can't - them we can lobby existing ISPs, or try
to make a different commercial deal, or start our own with the policies
we'd like to see. What's out there is real, like it or lump it. Or try
to change it. But always respect the other guy's right to try to sell
(or give away) what he wants for the price he chooses. It's what you're
asking of them.

Subject:
RE: [bawia] Who pays for the bandwidth
From:
"Robert Raisch" <info@raisch.com> Date:
Thu, 18 Jul 2002 13:34:23 -0400
To:
"Adam W. Smith" <asmith@netspace.org>, "Jason Scott" <jscott@textfiles.com> CC: <bawia@bawia.org>
Anyone who believes they are purchasing the full, 7x24 T1 from ATTBI for
$50/month really needs to buy a clue.

Current rates for 1.544Mbps of 7x24 managed bandwidth with multiple backbone
connections goes for between $800 and $1500 per month, depending on carrier,
services and peering.

They said that in most cases you could see up to a 50-fold increase in speed
over a 56Kbps modem. They make no guarantees about the actual bandwidth
they provide you, due to the nature of an aggregate service offering.

Subject:
RE: [bawia] Who pays for the bandwidth
From:
Jason Scott <jscott@textfiles.com> Date:
Thu, 18 Jul 2002 14:28:52 -0400 (EDT)
To:
Robert Raisch <info@raisch.com> CC:
"Adam W. Smith" <asmith@netspace.org>, <bawia@bawia.org>
Woah, hey Sparky. No one, me, Adam (whose excellent letter I'll respond to
momentarily) or anyone else was implying that we're talking about
demanding T-1 bandwidth from cable providers. You're being the guy in the
back who souts about the Boston Tea Party while we're over here discussing
the right of americans to protest the WIPO. Totally off track. Sit down.

> Anyone who believes they are purchasing the full, 7x24 T1 from ATTBI for
> $50/month really needs to buy a clue.
>
> Current rates for 1.544Mbps of 7x24 managed bandwidth with multiple backbone
> connections goes for between $800 and $1500 per month, depending on carrier,
> services and peering.
>
> And more to the point, ATTBI never said it was selling you a T1.
>
> They said that in most cases you could see up to a 50-fold increase in speed
> over a 56Kbps modem. They make no guarantees about the actual bandwidth
> they provide you, due to the nature of an aggregate service offering.
>
> /rr
>
>

Subject:
Re: [bawia] Who pays for the bandwidth
From:
Jason Scott <jscott@textfiles.com> Date:
Fri, 19 Jul 2002 01:50:08 -0400 (EDT)
To:
"Adam W. Smith" <asmith@netspace.org> CC: <bawia@bawia.org>
Adam, since you make the same two points over and over again, I'm going to
boil them down. Correct me if I get them wrong:

1. Hooray, Jason wants a freenet, but he shouldn't screw the poor ISPs
and Cable companies he signed a contract with in the process.
2. Giving away bandwidth that Jason signed an SLA for (implicitly or
explicitly) is stealing and you have no love for a thief.

After reading your letter about a dozen times, that appears to be what
you're saying, in a myriad of different ways. Well, variety is the spice
of life. Now, let me make some comments on that.

First of all, I wasn't saying one should break an SLA to run a Freenet. I
wasn't even thinking about cable companies when I wrote my first letter.
But now you have me thinking of them, and I'll say it clearly: FUCK CABLE
COMPANIES. They are the lowest form of providers on the chain, entrenched
monopolies or monopoly-wannabes run by cretins that throughout their
miserable, useless existence have provided useless service, bad attitude,
and sub-par advances. Only when the world advances to the point that they
MIGHT have their lunch eaten do they incrementally improve their services,
acting like they're doing you a great favor as they increase your rates at
the same time. They're scum. I'd never buy bandwidth from them any more
than I'd buy medicine for my family out of the back of a truck or drink
water out of a sewer. With my new home, I'm going dish, not because I
particularly LIKE dish companies, but because I hate Cable companies so
much.

As far as I'm concerned, running a freenet off something like a single DSL
connection or a cable connection... where the hell are we? India? This
wasn't even what I was thinking of!

Let's help the discussion (assuming there is one after another one of my
profanity-laden anti-suit rants) by immediately separating out ISPs into
two types: End-User and Bandwidth Provider. Some ISPs are both, but many
are one or the other, and the difference is breathtaking.

End-User ISPs are shell games as well. As soon as they get a chance,
they'll screw you over. But the fact is, too many of them are run by
no-nothings who can't believe their checks are still clearning, and going
as far as to REGULATE TRAFFIC is just a little bit beyond them. As Bob
implied, many of these ISPs ay or may not have SLAs that you signed that
mean ANYTHING; most of them are completely friggin' vague, and not worth
the paper they're printed on. What an excellent court case that would be:
are ISPs allowed to limit the number of users?

This is what I call "Make-A-Right", where a ISP acts like the henious
restrictions they're putting on are a RIGHT, and not how they feel like
trying to squeeze the maximum amount of service for putting things out.
YES, they're entitled to make these restrictions, but when people like you
think they automatically are GRANTED these rights, then they're already
winning a really bad game. Remember when it was per-minute charges to call
the next town over? Boy, those were fun times. I'll bet the Adam Smiths of
the time defended the phone company, talking about how if you weren't
paying those henious rates and tried to see about getting them reduced or
finding workarounds, you'd be hurting the phone company! Hurting them!
You'd be hurting all the other users, too! Your bad modem would chew up
the phone lines, and the phone company would RUN OUT OF LINES before you
knew it! How dare you demand lower rates because you were on a modem and
were going to be on for hours!

I sniff your clothes to see if you're a suit, Adam, but I don't really
detect the scent. But stuff comes out of you like you actually have
FEELINGS for ISPs and Cable Companies. That's sad. They'd chop your
grandmother up in a blender if it meant another percentage point on the
bottom line. Apparently you have grandmothers to spare, and I cheer for
you.

I just assume you're deluded that it matters whether I tastefully conserve
my handwidth because it might "hurt" the other users of the ISP. If I
download too much porn, my God! Malden could go dark! It's NOT THE WAY IT
WORKS. Get with it; you have much better people to defend than these
tampon-suckers.

Subject:
how much does bandwidth really cost?
From:
"james hurst" <hurstauto@hotmail.com> Date:
Thu, 18 Jul 2002 14:55:19 -0400
To:
/>bawia@bawia.org

I have often wondered what bandwidth truly costs. Why is it so expensive? Is it the cost of transport? Is it the support? If Towerstream can sell a meg for $500 a month and make money, could you buy it directly from �Poland Springs� and get it cheap enough to give it away? (with out fancy terms of service up time guarantees yada yada)

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: messenger.msn.com

Subject:
Re: [bawia] how much does bandwidth really cost?
From:
"Adam R. Kurth" <adam@kurth.com> Date:
Thu, 18 Jul 2002 15:06:21 -0400
To:
/>bawia@bawia.org

It's the cost of building all the infrastructure (pole, cables, hardware, etc.) to connect everyone. The data itself is just a little bit of electricity (or light) flying around, but it's flying through expensive equipment.

At 02:55 PM Thursday 7/18/2002, you wrote:
I have often wondered what bandwidth truly costs. Why is it so expensive?
Is it the cost of transport? Is it the support? If Towerstream can sell a meg for $500 a month and make money, could you buy it directly from �Poland Springs� and get it cheap enough to give it away? (with out fancy terms of service up time guarantees yada yada)

_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: messenger.msn.com

Subject:
RE: [bawia] how much does bandwidth really cost?
From:
"Drew from Zhrodague" <drew@zhrodague.net> Date:
Thu, 18 Jul 2002 15:10:37 -0400
To: <jim@hurstauto.com>, <bawia@bawia.org>
> I have often wondered what bandwidth truly costs. Why is it so
> expensive?
> Is it the cost of transport? Is it the support? If Towerstream
> can sell a
> meg for $500 a month and make money, could you buy it directly
> from �Poland
> Springs� and get it cheap enough to give it away? (with out fancy
> terms of
> service up time guarantees yada yada)

Well, yah. Towestream (via wireless) can give you a meg, but the important
thing to note is that both ends aren't paying Verizon for the loop. Most of
the cost of a T1 is in the fees on both ends of that pipe -- they go to
Verizon.

Subject:
Re: [bawia] how much does bandwidth really cost?
From:
Jason Scott <jscott@textfiles.com> Date:
Thu, 18 Jul 2002 15:09:40 -0400 (EDT)
To: <jim@hurstauto.com> CC: <bawia@bawia.org>
On Thu, 18 Jul 2002, james hurst wrote:

> I have often wondered what bandwidth truly costs. Why is it so expensive?
> Is it the cost of transport? Is it the support? If Towerstream can sell a
> meg for $500 a month and make money, could you buy it directly from Poland
> Springs and get it cheap enough to give it away? (with out fancy terms
> of service up time guarantees yada yada)

For a long time, the problem with internet connectivity is the wires, the
fact that you need to put a lot of physical presence around the world to
be part of your network. This problem is hundreds of years old, whether
your network was internet or phones or telegraph or trains or canals. It's
just a big huge pain in the ass to do business.

Naturally, you want to pass this cost, as much as you can, to the people
using your network. Problem is, over a short time, your network is
probably becoming outdated or people are coming in and paying you what you
think is a good price but some schmuck comes up with an even better
methodology and starts eating your lunch. Completely out of my ass
Example: Phone company has ISDN, and then DSL comes out and kicks ISDNs
ass in many situations. The cost of implementing ISDN is no longer a
factor; now you're just trying to keep ISDN alive.

Towerstream uses a wireless connection to make their stuff so cheap. They
stick a huge couple of antennas up (or lease space on existing antennas)
and then blast out to the vicinity, with equipment on the end. That's how
they do it; no phone wire charges, no installation, no monthly financial
blowjob to the telcos. And for a certain group of folks, that's great.

The basic rule of thumb as I see it, is you should check your bandwidth
options every year, whether you think you have a deal or not, and weigh
in. No one at the company you're currently getting bandwidth from is going
to tell you you're spending 4 times what you need to. That's business.

Subject:
Re: [bawia] how much does bandwidth really cost?
From:
"Mark" <mark99@attbi.com> Date:
Thu, 18 Jul 2002 15:12:57 -0400
To: <jim@hurstauto.com>, <bawia@bawia.org>
Its called over subscription levels. Besides their backbone, of of a few is
cogent and that bandwidth is cheap.

M
----- Original Message -----
From: "james hurst" <hurstauto@hotmail.com> To: <bawia@bawia.org> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 2:55 PM
Subject: [bawia] how much does bandwidth really cost?

> Springs" and get it cheap enough to give it away? (with out fancy terms of
> service up time guarantees yada yada)
> > _________________________________________________________________
> Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: messenger.msn.com
> >

Subject:
Re: [bawia] how much does bandwidth really cost?
From:
"Peter K. Butler" <peter@whizwireless.com> Date:
Thu, 18 Jul 2002 16:29:19 -0400
To: <bawia@bawia.org>
I can answer that, although I am taking a liberty at guessing on certain
things. Pardon me if I am not precise, but this is how I look at things:

The TowerSteam pricing is based on shared access. A dedicated T1 is yours
alone. The term Committed Information Rate is used often to state the rate
and the reliability. A CIR costs more because no-one shares it. You still
have to pay your mortgage even when you are away from home on vacation don't
you?

One cost is the cross connection costs to providers who place you on the
National Internet Backbone. Verizon is not an ISP. It is either Genuity or
Qwest that use the Verizon physical lines.

The second cost is the "local loop". That is the physical connection to the
point where a cross connection is made at the National Internet Backbone
from the place you want to have service. If you deal with Verizon, or one of
the DLECS, then you rent the line. This is distance related. So if you are
located far away from the nearest cross connection point, that can be very
expensive.

Thus, when both components are added up, it is reasonable that you may be
paying $700-$1500/month for an Internet T1 line. If you are in the boonies,
it may cost $2000. If you ask Verizon "what is the cost of a T1 line?", they
will quote you a low number. If you ask "what is the cost of an Internet T1
line?", they will quote a higher number using Qwest or Genuity.

If you ask the same question from a competitor of Verizon, they can buy
wholesale, and sell you for less. But if you look at that business model,
they are likely bound to Verizon circuits for the transport.

Therefore, this provisioning process and associated costs for Internet
National Backbone connectivity are NOT COMMODITIES!

TowerStream and ourselves, Whizwireless, provide a wireless solution because
we are a lower cost solution for the "local loop". Depending on where you
are located, our wireless solution eliminates a substantial part of the
local loop costs, and we can sell something for less.

Please understand one more thing about wireless. The transmitter site may be
at some distance from the cross connection point, so there is local loop
costs to the tower site. Still, that will be a lower cost solution because
you save on mileage. An ADSL circuit is only good to 3 miles or so. Wireless
beats that distance if you know how to design a wireless network spanning
greater distances.

While this is a great way to save money, Whizwireless, as an ISP, cannot
"afford" to have a single cross-connection to the National Internet
Backbone. In fact we have four (4). This means we have some redundancy, and
also we have a failover protocol called BGP. This makes good business sense
for those customers who have high standards of performance and reliability.
It also adds to our cost, but our customers expect reliability.

Thus I can cut prices by having no redundancy, charge double the price and
lose business to market forces, or come up with a balanced approach that
customers know what they are getting for their money. I look for a balanced
approach.

Now you can see why people compare us against a non-symmetric heavily loaded
Cable connection, an ADSL non-symmetric connection, or anything else. That
is a different situation. Also, when it comes to an Internet-T1, there are a
lot of variables both technical and business.

The last remaining factor is the cost to support a T1 line. While everyone
says they offer terrific support, etc, I don't dispute that people generally
try pretty hard. In the wireless case, that part of the Internet transport
has to be maintained by the wireless company. This is our day job, so we pay
people with skills to ensure the network is alive and running well.

As all of you have now discovered, wireless can bring service to rural areas
that have no service, or whatever is decided about any other form of value
added service. Because wireless is fast and symmetric, this technology does
not corrupt service. But at some point, you have to deal with wires
someplace, and deal with rapidly changing market forces and make something
reliable. That is what an ISP that really means anything today really does.

----- Original Message -----
From: "james hurst" <hurstauto@hotmail.com> To: <bawia@bawia.org> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 2:55 PM
Subject: [bawia] how much does bandwidth really cost?

Subject:
Re: [bawia] how much does bandwidth really cost?
From:
"james hurst" <hurstauto@hotmail.com> Date:
Thu, 18 Jul 2002 17:27:48 -0400
To:
/>peter@whizwireless.com, bawia@bawia.org

could you use a wireless link to connect to the point where a cross connection is made at the National Internet Backbone, by passing the local loop altogether? (and Verizon)

From: "Peter K. Butler" <peter@whizwireless.com> To: <bawia@bawia.org> Subject: Re: [bawia] how much does bandwidth really cost?
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 16:29:19 -0400

I can answer that, although I am taking a liberty at guessing on certain
things. Pardon me if I am not precise, but this is how I look at things:

One cost is the cross connection costs to providers who place you on the
National Internet Backbone. Verizon is not an ISP. It is either Genuity or
Qwest that use the Verizon physical lines.

Therefore, this provisioning process and associated costs for Internet
National Backbone connectivity are NOT COMMODITIES!

----- Original Message -----
From: "james hurst" <hurstauto@hotmail.com> To: <bawia@bawia.org> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 2:55 PM
Subject: [bawia] how much does bandwidth really cost?

> I have often wondered what bandwidth truly costs. Why is it so expensive?
> Is it the cost of transport? Is it the support? If Towerstream can sell a
> meg for $500 a month and make money, could you buy it directly from
'Poland
> Springs" and get it cheap enough to give it away? (with out fancy terms of
> service up time guarantees yada yada)
> > _________________________________________________________________
> Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: messenger.msn.com

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: mobile.msn.com

> could you use a wireless link to connect to the point where a cross
> connection is made at the National Internet Backbone, by passing the local
> loop altogether? (and Verizon)

Bob can correct me, but as I understand it, seven years ago this was the
goal of BOWSIG or whatever the hell it was called; the concern was that
government forces and idiotic legislation (think Communications Decency
Act) were going to make some parts of the internet unusuable or unwanted
for vital, useful information. To circumvent that, the idea was to use
wireless connections in the Boston area to have a couple vital links
outside of the purview of The Man.

I already went into the "bandwidth is good" speech in that previous letter
of mine. Won't force it on everyone again.

Re: Who pays for the bandwidth
405 by: John McKendry
406 by: C Wegrzyn
412 by: Jason Scott
414 by: Jason Scott
415 by: Adam W. Smith
416 by: C Wegrzyn
417 by: Tree Monkey

Who builds the bandwidth?
407 by: Dave Riley
408 by: Dan Metcalf
409 by: Dan Metcalf
410 by: Jason Scott

Subject:
So, who's up for a free-net?
From:
"james hurst" <hurstauto@hotmail.com> Date:
Fri, 19 Jul 2002 09:22:01 -0400
To:
/>bawia@bawia.org

well, what could we be doing? I know Bob is writing a paper. Life is good, but I could not afford a $599 monthly bill (with a 2 year commitment)to buy a 512kb line and give it away. You can become another wisp, but the minute you take money from people ...
If I read it correctly the TOS for Verizon buisness DSL prohibit commercial use ..go figure ..it looks like the same TOS for residential.

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: mobile.msn.com

Subject:
RE: [bawia] So, who's up for a free-net?
From:
"Drew from Zhrodague" <drew@zhrodague.net> Date:
Fri, 19 Jul 2002 12:01:44 -0400
To:
"Org Bawia@Bawia." <bawia@bawia.org>
> well, what could we be doing? I know Bob is writing a paper.
> Life is good,
> but I could not afford a $599 monthly bill (with a 2 year
> commitment)to buy
> a 512kb line and give it away. You can become another wisp, but
> the minute
> you take money from people ...
> If I read it correctly the TOS for Verizon buisness DSL prohibit
> commercial
> use ..go figure ..it looks like the same TOS for residential.

I'm in Davis, I'd be interested in connecting with anyone. Has everyone
specified their interest for the area at www.nodedb.com ?

Subject:
Re: [bawia] Who pays for the bandwidth
From:
John McKendry <jmckendry@attbi.com> Date:
Fri, 19 Jul 2002 09:43:12 -0400
To:
/>bawia@bawia.org

>
> Adam, since you make the same two points over and over again, I'm going to
> boil them down. Correct me if I get them wrong:
>
> 1. Hooray, Jason wants a freenet, but he shouldn't screw the poor ISPs
> and Cable companies he signed a contract with in the process.
> 2. Giving away bandwidth that Jason signed an SLA for (implicitly or
> explicitly) is stealing and you have no love for a thief.
>
> After reading your letter about a dozen times, that appears to be what
> you're saying, in a myriad of different ways. Well, variety is the spice
> of life. Now, let me make some comments on that.
> <...> >
> This is what I call "Make-A-Right", where a ISP acts like the henious
> restrictions they're putting on are a RIGHT, and not how they feel like
> trying to squeeze the maximum amount of service for putting things out.
> YES, they're entitled to make these restrictions, but when people like you
> think they automatically are GRANTED these rights, then they're already
> winning a really bad game. Remember when it was per-minute charges to call
> the next town over? Boy, those were fun times. I'll bet the Adam Smiths of
> the time defended the phone company, talking about how if you weren't
> paying those henious rates and tried to see about getting them reduced or
> finding workarounds, you'd be hurting the phone company! Hurting them!
> You'd be hurting all the other users, too! Your bad modem would chew up
> the phone lines, and the phone company would RUN OUT OF LINES before you
> knew it! How dare you demand lower rates because you were on a modem and
> were going to be on for hours!
>
> I sniff your clothes to see if you're a suit, Adam, but I don't really
> detect the scent. But stuff comes out of you like you actually have
> FEELINGS for ISPs and Cable Companies. That's sad. They'd chop your
> grandmother up in a blender if it meant another percentage point on the
> bottom line. Apparently you have grandmothers to spare, and I cheer for
> you.
>
> I just assume you're deluded that it matters whether I tastefully conserve
> my handwidth because it might "hurt" the other users of the ISP. If I
> download too much porn, my God! Malden could go dark! It's NOT THE WAY IT
> WORKS. Get with it; you have much better people to defend than these
> tampon-suckers.
>

First of all, Jason, please drop the suit language. I was programming in
jeans and a ponytail when you were bald and wearing diapers; this is
not an argument between the greedy businessmen and the noble nerds.
The performance characterisitics of shared-bandwidth communication
systems are not the invention of accountants. They are statistical
truths. On a shared channel, as throughput goes up, responsiveness
goes down. If you consume significantly more of the available bandwidth
than the model expects, then yes, you will hurt the other users of the ISP,
the same as modem users hurt the regular phone system users when they
arrived. Bandwidth can be shared among households because they behave
statistically like households. Do you understand this part of the
argument? Everything you've written suggests you don't, you think
this stuff about sharing the pipe fairly is crap from the suits.
It isn't. And until you deal with it, your plan is just angry
rhetoric, because it won't work.

Subject:
Re: [bawia] Who pays for the bandwidth
From:
"C Wegrzyn" <wegrzyn@garbagedump.com> Date:
Fri, 19 Jul 2002 10:12:01 -0400
To: <bawia@bawia.org>
John, I'm glad you addressed some of the issues. Having been an ISP
(www.destek.net) it isn't a matter of making "big" money - the margins are
slim. Now before anyone runs off at the mouth and claims that ISPs make big
bucks, I'd say shut up and try it. We had a small staff of a few people that
were over worked and definitely underpaid. It was definitely an act of love.

No one wants to pay $500 or $600 month for their service (unless they want
to sign a SLA). Otherwise what they are more interested is in cost vs.
benefit. For this reason as an ISP we tended to aggregate users and share
the bandwidth. As you pointed out what Peter steals must be gotten from
Paul.

Building out an ISP isn't easy and isn't cheap. We spent money on routers
(often time spending $4K to $5K and needing two). We also needed to
triplicate our Internet access - that meant we need to have three different
providers give us tier one access. Those were costs we needed to amortize
over all the users of the systems. We factored that into our prices. In
cases where someone needed guaranteed levels of service, we charged one
price. In cases where people didn't care we charged another.

I might suggest that someone that wants to host a free service should
seriously consider getting a T1 or fraction with a SLA. Sharing it won't be
a big deal. I know that some of you will be offended by that by making all
sorts of comments about service providers. That will accomplish nothing.

----- Original Message -----
From: "John McKendry" <jmckendry@attbi.com> To: <bawia@bawia.org> Sent: Friday, July 19, 2002 9:43 AM
Subject: Re: [bawia] Who pays for the bandwidth

> > boil them down. Correct me if I get them wrong:
> > > > 1. Hooray, Jason wants a freenet, but he shouldn't screw the poor ISPs
> > and Cable companies he signed a contract with in the process.
> > 2. Giving away bandwidth that Jason signed an SLA for (implicitly or
> > explicitly) is stealing and you have no love for a thief.
> > > > After reading your letter about a dozen times, that appears to be what
> > you're saying, in a myriad of different ways. Well, variety is the spice
> > of life. Now, let me make some comments on that.
> > <...> > > > > This is what I call "Make-A-Right", where a ISP acts like the henious
> > restrictions they're putting on are a RIGHT, and not how they feel like
> > trying to squeeze the maximum amount of service for putting things out.
> > YES, they're entitled to make these restrictions, but when people like

> > think they automatically are GRANTED these rights, then they're already
> > winning a really bad game. Remember when it was per-minute charges to

> > the time defended the phone company, talking about how if you weren't
> > paying those henious rates and tried to see about getting them reduced

> > finding workarounds, you'd be hurting the phone company! Hurting them!
> > You'd be hurting all the other users, too! Your bad modem would chew up
> > the phone lines, and the phone company would RUN OUT OF LINES before you
> > knew it! How dare you demand lower rates because you were on a modem and
> > were going to be on for hours!
> > > > I sniff your clothes to see if you're a suit, Adam, but I don't really
> > detect the scent. But stuff comes out of you like you actually have
> > FEELINGS for ISPs and Cable Companies. That's sad. They'd chop your
> > grandmother up in a blender if it meant another percentage point on the
> > bottom line. Apparently you have grandmothers to spare, and I cheer for
> > you.
> > > > I just assume you're deluded that it matters whether I tastefully

> > my handwidth because it might "hurt" the other users of the ISP. If I
> > download too much porn, my God! Malden could go dark! It's NOT THE WAY

> > WORKS. Get with it; you have much better people to defend than these
> > tampon-suckers.
> >
> First of all, Jason, please drop the suit language. I was programming in
> jeans and a ponytail when you were bald and wearing diapers; this is
> not an argument between the greedy businessmen and the noble nerds.
> The performance characterisitics of shared-bandwidth communication
> systems are not the invention of accountants. They are statistical
> truths. On a shared channel, as throughput goes up, responsiveness
> goes down. If you consume significantly more of the available bandwidth
> than the model expects, then yes, you will hurt the other users of the

> the same as modem users hurt the regular phone system users when they
> arrived. Bandwidth can be shared among households because they behave
> statistically like households. Do you understand this part of the
> argument? Everything you've written suggests you don't, you think
> this stuff about sharing the pipe fairly is crap from the suits.
> It isn't. And until you deal with it, your plan is just angry
> rhetoric, because it won't work.
> > John McKendry

Subject:
Re: [bawia] Who pays for the bandwidth
From:
Jason Scott <jscott@textfiles.com> Date:
Fri, 19 Jul 2002 12:48:21 -0400 (EDT)
To:
John McKendry <jmckendry@attbi.com> CC: <bawia@bawia.org>
On Fri, 19 Jul 2002, John McKendry wrote:

> First of all, Jason, please drop the suit language. I was programming in
> jeans and a ponytail when you were bald and wearing diapers; this is
> not an argument between the greedy businessmen and the noble nerds.

The kind of clothes you wear doesn't determine if you're a suit. It's
what you do. Guys in ponytails and jeans can sell out the world and be
just as ruthless and nasty as anyone in a Brooks Brothers. Sometimes, the
suit is in your MIND....

As it currently stands, this is most certainly not an argument between the
greedy businessmen and the noble nerds, because couching it in those terms
makes it sound like that's the only two groups the wireless world would be
for, and it really is literately for everyone.

My initial letter into this little storm was that I saw some really
troubling language where everything being written was about how to put up
a business, how to make the thing work for powerpoint presentations, how
to make the thing PROFITABLE. And honestly, the world has enough bland
coffee bars and yuppie watering holes on the bottom of office buildings
for that sort of conversation, don't you think?

> The performance characterisitics of shared-bandwidth communication
> systems are not the invention of accountants. They are statistical
> truths. On a shared channel, as throughput goes up, responsiveness
> goes down. If you consume significantly more of the available bandwidth
> than the model expects, then yes, you will hurt the other users of the ISP,
> the same as modem users hurt the regular phone system users when they
> arrived. Bandwidth can be shared among households because they behave
> statistically like households. Do you understand this part of the
> argument? Everything you've written suggests you don't, you think
> this stuff about sharing the pipe fairly is crap from the suits.
> It isn't. And until you deal with it, your plan is just angry
> rhetoric, because it won't work.

The point is, should the modem users have stopped using modems because the
phone users weren't getting as many lines? Things got rough as the usage
patterns changed, and then the industry adjusted. This is life, to turn a
phrase people have used on me on this list.

The part of the argument I refuse to understand is giving ISPs and
End-User environments any slack in terms of "hurting" them. If the model
doesn't work realistically, the model doesn't work, and no amount of
Appeal to Authority is going to change THAT situation...

And this really is the first time I've heard the word "fair" in
conjunction with an ISP.

In any case, this is somewhat far afield from the original discussion,
which I hope we get back to on the list.

Subject:
Re: [bawia] Who pays for the bandwidth
From:
Jason Scott <jscott@textfiles.com> Date:
Fri, 19 Jul 2002 19:54:21 -0400 (EDT)
To:
C Wegrzyn <wegrzyn@garbagedump.com> CC: <bawia@bawia.org>
ISPs were, like video rental outfits and department stores, marginalized
entities capitalizing on a growth industry that didn't have the
infrastructure to vertically integrate. They were often hardy folks who
loved jumping into a big shitkicking mess and doing what needed to be done
for their understandably loyal customer base. I remember trying to get my
used Black Box terminal server/router working, and Jeff Morris, the
president and founder of Xensei.com, came over. Late into the night we
worked, finally getting it running and connected to his network, and he
and I drove over to Buzzy's next to the Charles T-Stop at 3am to get
ourselves sandwiches and hang out. Those were great times.

But those times are over. By the time I finally moved away from Xensei, he
had a staff of folks who had one goal: refuse to admit Jeff was there, and
stop anyone from entering the building. Finally, Jeff brought in another
co-owner who nailed things down financially but was personality-wise a bit
of a zero. He likely saved the company from spiraling into debt but I was
done.

See, but there's been an amazing amount of consolidation in the last few
years; acting like that hasn't happened to the vast majority of the
connectivity companies is putting a big lie. You're up in NH; maybe the
big guys haven't penetrated to the point that the "little guys" like
you're making yourself out to be, but they will. And they'll act just like
I say they are.

Don't quote ancient history (by internet time) and act like that's what
I'm talking about. Everything's changed, and everything will change again.
Acting like McDonald's aren't bastards because Maurice and Richard worked
their asses off before Ray Kroc bought them out is playing the same game
you're playing.

And for the last goddamned time, I've already SAID that at this point the
best way to run a Freenet is to get a T-1 or greater, outside of the
pig-trough of cable systems and DSL providers. It's a little more
expensive, but good deeds never go unpunished.

As for "I know that some of you will be offended by that by making all
sorts of comments about service providers. That will accomplish nothing.",
I'm the only one on this list as far as I know, making these sorts of
comments (I've gotten a few "amen, brother" notes in the mail but people
are wisely saying out of this storm). Next time, just use my name.

> John, I'm glad you addressed some of the issues. Having been an ISP
> (www.destek.net) it isn't a matter of making "big" money - the margins are
> slim. Now before anyone runs off at the mouth and claims that ISPs make big
> bucks, I'd say shut up and try it. We had a small staff of a few people that
> were over worked and definitely underpaid. It was definitely an act of love.
>
> No one wants to pay $500 or $600 month for their service (unless they want
> to sign a SLA). Otherwise what they are more interested is in cost vs.
> benefit. For this reason as an ISP we tended to aggregate users and share
> the bandwidth. As you pointed out what Peter steals must be gotten from
> Paul.
>
> Building out an ISP isn't easy and isn't cheap. We spent money on routers
> (often time spending $4K to $5K and needing two). We also needed to
> triplicate our Internet access - that meant we need to have three different
> providers give us tier one access. Those were costs we needed to amortize
> over all the users of the systems. We factored that into our prices. In
> cases where someone needed guaranteed levels of service, we charged one
> price. In cases where people didn't care we charged another.
>
> I might suggest that someone that wants to host a free service should
> seriously consider getting a T1 or fraction with a SLA. Sharing it won't be
> a big deal. I know that some of you will be offended by that by making all
> sorts of comments about service providers. That will accomplish nothing.
>
> Regards,
> Chuck Wegrzyn

Subject:
Re: [bawia] Who pays for the bandwidth
From:
"Adam W. Smith" <asmith@netspace.org> Date:
Fri, 19 Jul 2002 22:08:42 -0400 (EDT)
To:
Jason Scott <jscott@textfiles.com> CC:
/>bawia@bawia.org

> Adam, since you make the same two points over and over again, I'm going
> to boil them down. Correct me if I get them wrong:
>
> 1. Hooray, Jason wants a freenet, but he shouldn't screw the poor ISPs
> and Cable companies he signed a contract with in the process.
> 2. Giving away bandwidth that Jason signed an SLA for (implicitly or
> explicitly) is stealing and you have no love for a thief.

Actually, I guess that's a pretty fair analysis - with one nit to pick. I
was talking about AUPs - acceptable use policies, or what you agree that
you'll do - not SLAs, which tell you what the ISP will do for you. Funny
how usually there's something on both sides of the agreement, eh?

Past that? I've written a bunch of stuff below, but I'm running out of
entusiasm for the two of us talking past each other. It's down there, if
anyone wants to see it. In fact, I'd encourage anyone or everyone to read
just the very last sentence and respond. Otherwise, we can let the list
go back to something more productive.

> First of all, I wasn't saying one should break an SLA to run a Freenet. I
> wasn't even thinking about cable companies when I wrote my first letter.

OK, fine. I was reacting to more than just your post. Sometimes I don't
read the list for a while, and things batch up and get me thinking when I
read them all at the same time. Various news reports and reactive rants
about the Time Warner / NYC situation and others have been trollfodder on
this list and similar lately.

> But now you have me thinking of them, and I'll say it clearly: FUCK CABLE
> COMPANIES. They are the lowest form of providers on the chain, entrenched
> monopolies or monopoly-wannabes run by cretins that throughout their
> miserable, useless existence have provided useless service, bad attitude,
> and sub-par advances.

1. you've got a lot of bile building up. What the heck's the point? You
can rant about Microsoft too, or the evils of software licensing, or
McDonalds (what's wrong with McDonalds again?). But does it help? If you
don't like their attitude, don't do business with them - it's your right.
But it's their right to have whatever attitude they have, and to do
business with folks other than you.

2. Sub-par advances? I know a bunch of folks, and I'll stand up right in
front, who think that getting a line that usually acts like a T1 into my
living room for $50/month is a pretty freakin' big advance from $200 for a
56k frame line or $25/month for goddamn AOL busy-signals. You try wiring
a couple of million homes in Massachusetts for high-speed service. You
try running an email or news or even just web service 24x7x365 for tens of
thousands of customers, with your customer base the hottest target for the
best hackers out there.

3. Monopoly? You live in the middle of one of the biggest areas where
that's not true. Ever hear of RCN? And that's only if you think of
direct competitors - in terms of data service, DSL is a serious competitor
for cable - for years it got all the high expectations.

4. As a friend I work with says, just about no one actually gets up in the
morning and says to themselves, "self, it's another fine day for screwing
over my customers, and the public in general!". Yet you seem to think
that the entire industry was designed around dicking over Jason Scott.
Wake up - Cable and other ISPs - even the guys at Verizon - they all go to
work and put their shoulders up against the stone. If they're lucky they
get to put their hands in some cool tech etc.

> Only when the world advances to the point that they
> MIGHT have their lunch eaten do they incrementally improve their services,
> acting like they're doing you a great favor as they increase your rates at
> the same time.

Cable data services beat DSL to the punch in the leading areas, kicked the
crap out of the existing services (dial, frame, and ISDN) on BOTH price
and performance, and are still generally within 10% of the price at which
they were introduced more than five years ago.

> As Bob
> implied, many of these ISPs ay or may not have SLAs that you signed that
> mean ANYTHING; most of them are completely friggin' vague, and not worth
> the paper they're printed on.

If there's no SLA, what are you complaining for? If there's an SLA they
don't keep, then that should have an effect - get your money back, or
decide to go with someone else in the future.

> What an excellent court case that would be:
> are ISPs allowed to limit the number of users?

Why not? That's not rhetorical, that's a literal question. 'Cause if
there's not a specific reason, like a Constitutional breach, then it's
just a contract, and either you sign it, or you don't. There's no
court/legal issue there. You don't have to like the contract they write,
but you don't have to buy their service either. Oh, but now I'm back to
my condensed point #2 - which you still don't seem to be paying more than
lip service to.

> This is what I call "Make-A-Right", where a ISP acts like the henious
> restrictions they're putting on are a RIGHT, and not how they feel like
> trying to squeeze the maximum amount of service for putting things out.

It's not a right, it's a simple contractual obligation. You want to
resell/redistribute? Get a contract that will let you. Again, I bet it's
not $50/month. Don't bitch about them not going 110% for you, when all
you are doing is sitting around calling them scum.

> YES, they're entitled to make these restrictions, but when people like you
> think they automatically are GRANTED these rights, then they're already
> winning a really bad game.

When did I say anything of the sort? There's nothing automatic about a
contract. And what's bad about the "game"? Buy something, you get
something. Buy more, you get more. Don't buy, you don't get anything -
but you don't lose anything. Why be bitter?

If anything, I'd propose that you're the one "GRANT"ing "rights" to people
- like the right to bandwidth, or the right to break a contract if it
doesn't suit you.

> Remember when it was per-minute charges to call
> the next town over? Boy, those were fun times. I'll bet the Adam Smiths of
> the time defended the phone company, talking about how if you weren't
> paying those henious rates and tried to see about getting them reduced or
> finding workarounds, you'd be hurting the phone company! Hurting them!
> You'd be hurting all the other users, too! Your bad modem would chew up

Totally out of line. There's nothing like that in my mail. I said you
hurt the company that you're ripping off. I said it was their right to
cut you off so that their model (based on statistical distribution of
limited resources) could be kept within bounds - thereby MAINTAINING
service for their other customers.

Getting rates reduced? Finding workarounds? I guess you think cable
descramblers and ripping/burning CDs for your friends is cool too? Nice
"workarounds" to the problems of not paying for HBO and CDs costing too
much? Having the capability to do something doesn't make it right.

> knew it! How dare you demand lower rates because you were on a modem and
> were going to be on for hours!

Well, precisely - you use the resource more, and you want lower rates for
it? Good luck....

> I sniff your clothes to see if you're a suit, Adam, but I don't really
> detect the scent. But stuff comes out of you like you actually have
> FEELINGS for ISPs and Cable Companies. That's sad. They'd chop your

I have to agree with another of today's posters - what is your deal with
the suit thing? I've worked for a 50,000-person company. I work now for
a company with fewer than 35 employees (left, after layoffs). Some days I
go to customer sites - pretty close to wearing a suit. Some days I work
in my bathrobe at home.

I consider the ability to work at a multitude of tasks, with some idea not
just of the technology I'm using, but the business case for how to make it
work, the sales side, the marketing side, the fact that I'm personally
psyched or not by a project - I consider the ability to take different
points of view on a subject to be an asset and a privilege. And no matter
how much I agree with someone's spirit or with the content that they put
forward - I don't respect ANY knee-jerk opinion. THINK about what you're
saying - and in my humble opinion, don't talk about "scum" you haven't
ever met, and don't talk about my grandmother.

> grandmother up in a blender if it meant another percentage point on the
> bottom line. Apparently you have grandmothers to spare, and I cheer for
> you.

> I just assume you're deluded that it matters whether I tastefully conserve
> my handwidth because it might "hurt" the other users of the ISP. If I

It does matter. The ONLY solid, technical fact is that you WILL effect
your block, and you will cost your provider money.

Now the thing you don't seem to seperate is that just because you CAN,
doesn't mean you SHOULD. But wait, I'm beating a dead horse again.

> download too much porn, my God! Malden could go dark! It's NOT THE WAY IT
> WORKS.

> Get with it; you have much better people to defend than these
> tampon-suckers.

I challenge you back - try to see life from an ISP's point of view - or if
you don't want to take the time and mental stress, don't bitch to me about
how they're treating you bad.

I wouldn't be "defending" anyone if people on this list weren't coming out
with "tampon-sucking" acusations. By the way, what is this, high school?

Want to write a constructive, specific proposal instead of a rant about a
set of thoughts you consider irrelevant?

Subject:
Re: [bawia] Who pays for the bandwidth
From:
"C. Wegrzyn" <wegrzyn@garbagedump.com> Date:
Sat, 20 Jul 2002 06:32:51 -0400
CC: <bawia@bawia.org>
Don't worry Jason if I thought I needed to use your name, I would have.
Instead I prefer to keep conversations on a polite level instead of mindless
ranting.

> > ISPs were, like video rental outfits and department stores, marginalized
> entities capitalizing on a growth industry that didn't have the
> infrastructure to vertically integrate. They were often hardy folks who
> loved jumping into a big shitkicking mess and doing what needed to be done
> for their understandably loyal customer base. I remember trying to get my
> used Black Box terminal server/router working, and Jeff Morris, the
> president and founder of Xensei.com, came over. Late into the night we
> worked, finally getting it running and connected to his network, and he
> and I drove over to Buzzy's next to the Charles T-Stop at 3am to get
> ourselves sandwiches and hang out. Those were great times.
> > But those times are over. By the time I finally moved away from Xensei, he
> had a staff of folks who had one goal: refuse to admit Jeff was there, and
> stop anyone from entering the building. Finally, Jeff brought in another
> co-owner who nailed things down financially but was personality-wise a bit
> of a zero. He likely saved the company from spiraling into debt but I was
> done.
> > See, but there's been an amazing amount of consolidation in the last few
> years; acting like that hasn't happened to the vast majority of the
> connectivity companies is putting a big lie. You're up in NH; maybe the
> big guys haven't penetrated to the point that the "little guys" like
> you're making yourself out to be, but they will. And they'll act just like
> I say they are.
> > Don't quote ancient history (by internet time) and act like that's what
> I'm talking about. Everything's changed, and everything will change again.
> Acting like McDonald's aren't bastards because Maurice and Richard worked
> their asses off before Ray Kroc bought them out is playing the same game
> you're playing.
> > And for the last goddamned time, I've already SAID that at this point the
> best way to run a Freenet is to get a T-1 or greater, outside of the
> pig-trough of cable systems and DSL providers. It's a little more
> expensive, but good deeds never go unpunished.
> > As for "I know that some of you will be offended by that by making all
> sorts of comments about service providers. That will accomplish nothing.",
> I'm the only one on this list as far as I know, making these sorts of
> comments (I've gotten a few "amen, brother" notes in the mail but people
> are wisely saying out of this storm). Next time, just use my name.
> > On Fri, 19 Jul 2002, C Wegrzyn wrote:
>
> > John, I'm glad you addressed some of the issues. Having been an ISP
> > (www.destek.net) it isn't a matter of making "big" money - the margins

> > to sign a SLA). Otherwise what they are more interested is in cost vs.
> > benefit. For this reason as an ISP we tended to aggregate users and

> > the bandwidth. As you pointed out what Peter steals must be gotten from
> > Paul.
> > > > Building out an ISP isn't easy and isn't cheap. We spent money on

> > (often time spending $4K to $5K and needing two). We also needed to
> > triplicate our Internet access - that meant we need to have three

> > over all the users of the systems. We factored that into our prices. In
> > cases where someone needed guaranteed levels of service, we charged one
> > price. In cases where people didn't care we charged another.
> > > > I might suggest that someone that wants to host a free service should
> > seriously consider getting a T1 or fraction with a SLA. Sharing it won't

> > sorts of comments about service providers. That will accomplish nothing.
> > > > Regards,
> > Chuck Wegrzyn

Subject:
Re: [bawia] Who pays for the bandwidth
From:
Tree Monkey <bangarangatan@yahoo.com> Date:
Sat, 20 Jul 2002 05:46:50 -0700 (PDT)
To:
/>bawia@bawia.org

You seem to be more concerned with corporate-whoring
and apologetics than anything else. Like all corporate
whores, you choose to rob us with fountain pens and
politeness rather than sharp words and six-guns. What
you seem to be missing is that, regardless of your
choice to be the oh-so-calm-and-cool-corporate-lawyer
type of apologist, you are still nothing more than an
apologist for thieving, parasitical corporations whose
only claim on the ongoing tribute payments from the
public is their monopoly control of the backbone.

Perhaps for your next trick, you should tell us why
Microsoft is a "natural monopoly" and how good that is
for us little guys. Or, perhaps you should just go all
out and explain to us oh-so-calmly, of course, all of
the myriad reasons why we should privatize air or, as
they've done in Bolivia, rain water? Laud us with your
tales of corporations and their virtues, while we sit
in rapt attention. Then, just for kicks, maybe you
could throw in some of that "Great Man" crap that used
to take up so many pages of the business press - you
know, before everyone realized they were crooks - that
kind of Randian "one-man against the world" crap that
helps justify the "contractual relationships" in which
the CEO makes an average of 411 times what the
rank-and-file worker in their firm makes. Hell, if you
tell this story convincingly, I'll bet we can even get
you an assignment at the WSJ or Fox, and then you can
be an official corporate whore as opposed to this
stuff you've been doing the past week in your spare
time.

"Ommmm. Mane padme Om. Monopolies are goooood. Om.
Microsofte sacreme. Ommmm. Go back to sleeeeep and be
obedient to your corporate rulers. Ommmmmm."

> Don't worry Jason if I thought I needed to use your
> name, I would have.
> Instead I prefer to keep conversations on a polite
> level instead of mindless
> ranting.
>
> Chuck Wegrzyn
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com

Subject:
Who builds the bandwidth?
From:
"Dave Riley" <dave.riley3@verizon.net> Date:
Fri, 19 Jul 2002 10:28:38 -0400
To: <bawia@bawia.org>
Is it me or did we lose something along the way?
Am sitting here being educated by knowledgeable people who
know their onions but have also noticed a void. Is the hardware
end of this story simply plug and play these days or is there
room for improvement and idea upgrades?
This Boston area is rich in wireless history from the 'wired'
French undersea cable in 1885 to many 'firsts' in wireless,
right here in N.E. www.radiocom.net/Fessenden just for one.

Question is; Is there a hyperlink or pointer to hardware
hackers and make do people? I know hams that were
tired of 'tinkering' with 2.4GHZ back in the 50s.. Now the
cadre of entrepreneurial 'hams' have virtually gone away,
or so it seems.

I see the Radio Amateurs Handbook of 1978 has more ideas
than any of todays 'adds'

Subject:
RE: Who builds the bandwidth?
From:
"Dan Metcalf" <dan.metcalf@wbsysnet.com> Date:
Fri, 19 Jul 2002 10:43:41 -0400
To:
"'Dave Riley'" <dave.riley3@verizon.net>, <bawia@bawia.org>
What do you want to do? We are shooting 66Mbps over 20 miles w/ 5.8 gear

Dan Metcalf
Wireless Broadband Sytems
/>dan.metcalf@wbsysnet.com
www.wirelessbroadbandsystems.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Riley [mailto:dave.riley3@verizon.net]
> Sent: Friday, July 19, 2002 10:29 AM
> To: bawia@bawia.org
> Subject: Who builds the bandwidth?
>
> Is it me or did we lose something along the way?
>
> Am sitting here being educated by knowledgeable people who
> know their onions but have also noticed a void. Is the hardware
> end of this story simply plug and play these days or is there
> room for improvement and idea upgrades?
> This Boston area is rich in wireless history from the 'wired'
> French undersea cable in 1885 to many 'firsts' in wireless,
> right here in N.E. www.radiocom.net/Fessenden just for one.
>
> Question is; Is there a hyperlink or pointer to hardware
> hackers and make do people? I know hams that were
> tired of 'tinkering' with 2.4GHZ back in the 50s.. Now the
> cadre of entrepreneurial 'hams' have virtually gone away,
> or so it seems.
>
> I see the Radio Amateurs Handbook of 1978 has more ideas
> than any of todays 'adds'
>
> Anyone doing any 'DX' WarChalking??
>
> Best DX here is 300 miles on 10GHZ and 9 miles for I/R laser.
>
> Watta Country!!!
>
> DR
>
>
>
> ---
> [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]
>

Subject:
RE: Who builds the bandwidth?
From:
"Dan Metcalf" <dan.metcalf@wbsysnet.com> Date:
Fri, 19 Jul 2002 11:13:00 -0400
To:
"'Dave Riley'" <dave.riley3@verizon.net>, <bawia@bawia.org>
We offer internet connectivity from our 480' tower. We can hit boston
to rhode island,

Dan Metcalf
Wireless Broadband Sytems
/>dan.metcalf@wbsysnet.com
www.wirelessbroadbandsystems.com

Subject:
Re: [bawia] RE: Who builds the bandwidth?
From:
Jason Scott <jscott@textfiles.com> Date:
Fri, 19 Jul 2002 11:32:56 -0400 (EDT)
To:
Dan Metcalf <dan.metcalf@wbsysnet.com> CC:
'Dave Riley' <dave.riley3@verizon.net>, <bawia@bawia.org>
Uh, Dan, Mr. Riley's issued a request to talk about making
do with home-made equipment and remembering history, and you responded
with an ad.

> We offer internet connectivity from our 480' tower. We can hit boston
> to rhode island,
>
> If you need bandwidth contact us
>
> Dan Metcalf
> Wireless Broadband Sytems
> dan.metcalf@wbsysnet.com
> www.wirelessbroadbandsystems.com
>
>
>

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dave Riley [mailto:dave.riley3@verizon.net]
> > Sent: Friday, July 19, 2002 10:29 AM
> > To: bawia@bawia.org
> > Subject: Who builds the bandwidth?
> >
> > Is it me or did we lose something along the way?
> >
> > Am sitting here being educated by knowledgeable people who
> > know their onions but have also noticed a void. Is the hardware
> > end of this story simply plug and play these days or is there
> > room for improvement and idea upgrades?
> > This Boston area is rich in wireless history from the 'wired'
> > French undersea cable in 1885 to many 'firsts' in wireless,
> > right here in N.E. www.radiocom.net/Fessenden just for one.
> >
> > Question is; Is there a hyperlink or pointer to hardware
> > hackers and make do people? I know hams that were
> > tired of 'tinkering' with 2.4GHZ back in the 50s.. Now the
> > cadre of entrepreneurial 'hams' have virtually gone away,
> > or so it seems.
> >
> > I see the Radio Amateurs Handbook of 1978 has more ideas
> > than any of todays 'adds'
> >
> > Anyone doing any 'DX' WarChalking??
> >
> > Best DX here is 300 miles on 10GHZ and 9 miles for I/R laser.
> >
> > Watta Country!!!
> >
> > DR
> >
> >
> >
> > ---
> > [This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]
> >

Subject:
Re: Tower
From:
"Dave Riley" <dave.riley3@verizon.net> Date:
Fri, 19 Jul 2002 13:51:09 -0400
To:
"bawia" <bawia@bawia.org>
To Jim Hurst,
You might try Bob Flynn @ 781-834-4186 in Marshfield

He has about 8-9 sections of Rohn 25 in good shape and on the ground. I know
that the price would be right.

It could be used unguyed up to about 40-50 ft if secured to a building, else needs guys...

I am thinking of stripping my tower and install some 2.4 and 4.6 ghz stuff
to go 'surfing' and testing...

skyWriter | workFlow | Subscribe

Language: fr | it | de | es | pt | ar | he | da | nl | zh | ja | ko | none

Author: bobdoyle

skyCalendar

This Version:
Archived at: http://www.skycaps.net/Freenets/BandwidthRants.20020720105014.html

Requests

Version: 2049 | Series: 2049

Some entertaining and informative rants on bandwidth from the BAWIA digest