Re: mailing list vs "the futur"
On Monday 27 August 2018 13:07:27 David Wright wrote:
> 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.
Likely, David. The number of folks that understand the difference in any
given crowd is a rather low percentage.
Cheers, Gene Heskett
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page <http://geneslinuxbox.net:6309/gene>