Re: mailing list vs "the futur"
On Mon 27 Aug 2018 at 11:37:48 (-0400), Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Monday 27 August 2018 11:11:37 David Wright wrote:
> > On Sat 25 Aug 2018 at 14:27:38 (-0500), John Hasler wrote:
> > > David writes:
> > > > Or are you talking about some type of "shared channel" of which I
> > > > have no knowledge?
> > >
> > > Cable providers may have a great many customers on a single cable
> > > with large (but limited) bandwidth.
> > Oh, like me, you mean. When we wanted to get our cable strung from the
> > pole with the least obstructed view of our house, the linesman first
> > told us that all the terminations were taken, but on ringing the
> > office, he found that one line was not subscribed to, so we were able
> > to connect to that pole. When I walk down the back alleys, I can see
> > other poles connected to the same main coax feed that links the poles.
> > I'm still scratching my head why subscribing to NNTP newsgroups should
> > lead to bandwidth problems rather than usage ones. I can hit my
> > bandwidth limits in many other ways like downloading youtube videos,
> > watching TV, etc, but the hard limit is my usage, where I would end up
> > paying money for any excess.
> That bandwidth limit is not on your side of the isp, its the bandwidth
> from the main trunk lines to the isp. NNTP is a huge bandwidth hog
> regardless of how much of it your isp accepts for spooling on local disk
> to serve you.
I didn't know they were asking the ISP to *host* the newsgroups,
just to allow NNTP stuff to pass from whoever is hosting it to
the user, who pays for the usage they make of it.
> > > Some rural providers may have limited backhaul bandwidth. They make
> > > promises to customers based on optimistic estimates of peak usage.
> Here at least, thats gradually getting better.
I read that improvements are very patchy in the US.
> > Now it appears that you're using "usage" where I would write
> > "bandwidth". Am I in a minority of one here? Bandwidth is the rate of
> > transfer of bits, whereas usage is the quantity of bits transferred
> > irrespective of how fast they accumulated.
> Thats a pretty good view of the differences.
But I get the impression that we have another baud/bitrate muddle.