[Nottingham] NanNet

Paul Sladen nottingham at mailman.lug.org.uk
Tue Feb 18 12:17:01 2003

On 18 Feb 2003, Lee wrote:

Hello Lee,

> It's more on the actual transfer of datagrams, rather than all the
> sillyness that goes on at layer 7 [...] where the suits hang out, trying
> to make money from nothing..;-)...


> I'm only interested in the internet when the costs of sending packets
> becomes very close to zero.

So if there's no money to but made at the content level;  and you're wanting
the cost at layer 3 to be ``very close to zero''.   How exactly are you
proprosing long-term funding?

> The only thing that prevents us from fast local networking, is the local
> BT copper loop, avoid that and your made.

Perhaps BT flogging you layer-1/2 interconnects is their last remaining way
to still bring in decent revenue...?  :)

> If you want gurantee's, then you have to pay for it...look at ntl, they
> 'say' 512k download speed,

512Kb is a burst...  I tried to explain why the limits are to somebody:

  1GB/day limit = ~32GB/month.

  IP Transit costs ~100ukp/Mb/month.

  1Mb/month bandwidth = ~320GB/month transfer (which cost 100ukp)

So for each NTL Cable customer they are directly spending 10ukp of the
monthly fee on buying transit.  That leaves 15ukp for running their network,
paying off support droids, enormous loans and actually trying to make a

Okay, now re-run the figures for everybody downloading 2GB/day = ~64GB/month
= ~20ukp/month.  Woah, now they have to run their network, pay for their
broadband advertising, support droids, installation teletubbies, electricity
bill, make a profit *and* pay off their debts with a fiver/month that's left.

> and was'nt jsut a few years ago that bt said the internet would fail?

Dunno about BT, but Microsoft certainly said that--and meant it aswell.

No War.    Nottingham, GB