Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignitionnet
If I ran VM it would be bankrupt. I'm a decent engineer but don't know quite so much about how to run a business  |
I'm not quite as good an engineer but I am taking a degree in management (particularly technology management), I'm sure we can come to a mutually beneficial arrangement
To be honest though for anyone running a media company the size of VM, broadband FUPs and contention ratios would make up a fairly small amount of their time and more likely delegated to someone lower down, CTO perhaps being the highest person who'd actually care.
---------- Post added at 14:54 ---------- Previous post was at 14:49 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chrysalis
no thats different to an isp doing things to artifically restrict such as STM, AUP letters and so on.
Of course also if congestion occurs then can reduce contention further till it stops, before you say it be just about impossible to need 1:1 to achieve that. Seems you can only think at extremes, either 1:1 or limited, its perfectly possible to sell an unlimited service on a contended service and its been done in the past many times. It got broken when talktalk etc. started breaking the price structure and isp's increased contention.
|
Indeed correct.
By my (very approximate) reckoning a network comprised of nothing but the top 1% of heavy users would still be happy with a 10:1 to 20:1 contention ratio, that level would be sufficient that they probably won't be able to tell the difference from a 1:1. However, the pipe ratios also matter in reducing the potential for visible contention. In any case on VM's network, I'm apparently an extremely heavy user (within the top 0.1%) but 30:1 suits me just fine.
The assumption contention has to be 1:1 to sell a truly unlimited service only applies under the assumption that every single user uses 100% of their line speed, absolutely all the time.