More about broadband alternatives

Doug Stanfield DOUGS at oceanic.com
Fri Oct 27 13:29:41 PDT 2000


I guess I'll try to comment on a few things here.

[Chris Wong said:]
> There are quite a few Oceanic employees on this list and
> umm... they really haven't said anything.

Silence doesn't imply
umm... consent or agreement ;-)

One point is that those of us lurking here do so as Luau members who use
Linux and not as Oceanic employees, so what we say here is not official
policy nor to be construed as anything but our own opinions, not those of
Oceanic Cable/Time Warner or Road Runner/ServiceCo.  That being said, we
also are the techies and not the marketing types, so we like technical
discussions, not those about how we package and charge for service.

[Jeff Mings wrote:]
> ... RoadRunner's service
> agreement expressly forbids sharing an internet connection (such as
> with IP masquerading/NAT) unless you pay $10/per computer to share

The bottom line, from a technical perspective, is that we have to pay for
the bandwidth that our customers use.  We want our customers to share
equitably in the cost.  If one cable modem has more traffic than another
that customer should pay more.  When the systems were set up here in '97
there was no mechanism available technically to regulate on the basis of
bandwidth use.  There was only a control on the number of IPs allowed to
pass traffic so the pricing structure was set up on the basis of an
assumption; the more hosts you have connected, the more bandwidth you will
use.  Believe it or not, it was a different Internet world back in '96/'97
when those ideas were formed and made some sense. :-q

Internally we are very aware that the structure is out of date, even the
marketing folks :->  There is work being done on many levels to address this
and change things.  Some of them are public (I think there is an FTC
decision due today that might influence things), and a lot of R & D is going
on in the background.  When might things change?  All I really know
(really!) is that next year is going to be a very interesting (is that the
word) year for me :-(

[Jeff again:]
> The problem is ... making sure that I'm _allowed_ to by 
> the contract so that my associate 
> won't find himself up the creek should Oceanic decide to
> crack down on IP sharing.

The attitude is not to "crack down" but to work within the constraints of
the current service structure to charge  appropriately.  That with the
understanding that the services will change, hopefully soon.  On the other
hand, if traffic is high or we catch you reselling service we'd not be very
understanding.

[Jeff still:]
> My associate's fees would climb from $80 per month 
> (business rate) to about $180 per month, which he doesn't 
> want to pay right now; he may get desperate enough to do so as 
> frustration mounts.

Is he not going to have all ten hosts behind the gateway accessing the
Internet or is it just that he expects the traffic to be low?  Is there a
way to isolate the use?

[Jeff finally:]
> Thanks for the tip on Pacific Direct Connection, Andrew.  
> Unfortunately, seeing how high their DSL rates are compared 
> to Flex, I'm fairly certain that their wireless offerings
> will be a good deal pricier than what my associate can afford

Here's the real point.  We think the cable modem value, $ per byte, is the
best around.  I hope your associate finds that the Road Runner solution is
the best, all around.  We want you to be our customer and feel if you are
you'll be convinced of the benefits.  As we look at restructuring our
offerings we need to continue to get feedback from the real customers like
you.  Please continue to talk to us.

Thanks,

-Doug-



More information about the LUAU mailing list