| Thanks for walking me through the math--I've not seen it so clearly explained before. Slashdot, hell--think about what must have happened when Thomas Friedman of the New York Times did an enthusiastic column a couple of years back on that cottage e-business in the Midwest (or wherever it was). He basically signed their death warrant! (They went belly up a few months after the column, but Friedman never admitted his own role--in their initial success or later failure.) Actually, Friedman's been strangely silent these days after all his foolish e-commerce predictions. If he'd had you to explain the numbers, he not have crowed so loudly about the "internet economy."
But that Fluxus guy shouldn't have been shut down--most folks don't give a crap about avant garde art! Don't you think Earthlink is setting the bar a bit low?
You get what you pay for. A lot of hosts advertise plans like $20/month for UNLIMITED bandwidth (where bandwidth refers to total bytes transfered.) This is never ever true. Logically it can't be true because the host has only a finite amount of bandwidth (even when this is a very large number, as in the case of Earthlink.) Anyway, what these flat rate people do is just cut you off if you get too popular. With other (I think more reputable) hosts you pay a flat fee for anything up to a specific point, and then you pay by the byte (be it mega or giga in size.) Your potential losses are more in this system, but at least you are sort of in control and you know what's happening, you can always take the site off line temporarily and serve up a 2k page offering some explanation (and maybe a link to paypal or something.) But for some projects it makes sense to go with a provider who will just cut you off. That way there is no big financial downside if you get overly popular.
As for the Times guy, I wonder if it's true that the a NYTimes link would generate more hits than a slashdot link. I'm not so sure about that. They don't call it the "slashdot effect" for nothing.
One last thing which might be of interest is that as you consider larger and larger internet players the story sort of changes. The internet is really a collection of slightly smaller networks all joined together. These "smaller" (ha!) networks are things like MCI/Worldcom and Sprint and UUnet and the US Military, etc. (probably the companies are out of date, but I can't keep up with all the mergers and whatnot.) Anyway, for the big players, they've always had traffic sharing agreements. I'm big network company A and I want all my customers to have access to content on network company B's network, so we set up a traffic sharing arrangement. I'll let all of B's customers send data over my network and in return all of my customers can send data over company B's network. This is basically the reason why the internet seems free to the casual (low bandwidth) surfer. So the interesting thing is that at the top of the pyramid, having very popular content that a very wide audience is anxious to see, is valuable in that it gets you access to these traffic sharing agreements. I'm not suggesting that any one specific site could be big enough (well, something like Aol is big enough, but they're not really a site) to get this sort of deal, but it's interesting none the less. Being popular costs because someone has to pay for the bandwidth and it is not going to be the surfer. But being so popular as to be crucial in some sense means that all the other networks will pay for your bandwidth (not in terms of money, but in terms of giving you their bandwidth.) I can't fully understand this level of things, and of course these deals are only open to the mega huge corporate powers, but it might be that it's an anthropologically interesting arrangement (whatever that means.)
news
|
But that Fluxus guy shouldn't have been shut down--most folks don't give a crap about avant garde art! Don't you think Earthlink is setting the bar a bit low?
- Tom Moody 4-09-2001 8:30 pm
You get what you pay for. A lot of hosts advertise plans like $20/month for UNLIMITED bandwidth (where bandwidth refers to total bytes transfered.) This is never ever true. Logically it can't be true because the host has only a finite amount of bandwidth (even when this is a very large number, as in the case of Earthlink.) Anyway, what these flat rate people do is just cut you off if you get too popular. With other (I think more reputable) hosts you pay a flat fee for anything up to a specific point, and then you pay by the byte (be it mega or giga in size.) Your potential losses are more in this system, but at least you are sort of in control and you know what's happening, you can always take the site off line temporarily and serve up a 2k page offering some explanation (and maybe a link to paypal or something.) But for some projects it makes sense to go with a provider who will just cut you off. That way there is no big financial downside if you get overly popular.
As for the Times guy, I wonder if it's true that the a NYTimes link would generate more hits than a slashdot link. I'm not so sure about that. They don't call it the "slashdot effect" for nothing.
One last thing which might be of interest is that as you consider larger and larger internet players the story sort of changes. The internet is really a collection of slightly smaller networks all joined together. These "smaller" (ha!) networks are things like MCI/Worldcom and Sprint and UUnet and the US Military, etc. (probably the companies are out of date, but I can't keep up with all the mergers and whatnot.) Anyway, for the big players, they've always had traffic sharing agreements. I'm big network company A and I want all my customers to have access to content on network company B's network, so we set up a traffic sharing arrangement. I'll let all of B's customers send data over my network and in return all of my customers can send data over company B's network. This is basically the reason why the internet seems free to the casual (low bandwidth) surfer. So the interesting thing is that at the top of the pyramid, having very popular content that a very wide audience is anxious to see, is valuable in that it gets you access to these traffic sharing agreements. I'm not suggesting that any one specific site could be big enough (well, something like Aol is big enough, but they're not really a site) to get this sort of deal, but it's interesting none the less. Being popular costs because someone has to pay for the bandwidth and it is not going to be the surfer. But being so popular as to be crucial in some sense means that all the other networks will pay for your bandwidth (not in terms of money, but in terms of giving you their bandwidth.) I can't fully understand this level of things, and of course these deals are only open to the mega huge corporate powers, but it might be that it's an anthropologically interesting arrangement (whatever that means.)
- jim 4-09-2001 8:57 pm [4 comments]
news
- news- 8-09-2004 11:22 am [add a comment]