Re: My Reply to: My Reply to: Has CU-SeeMe a kamikaze protocol??

Carl Iverson (
Sat, 24 Feb 1996 20:08:15 -0800

BJ.Culpepper wrote:
> Just to let you know, I have received some outstanding
> replies to my previous eMail (from Scott
>, Laurent &
> Sgt Daniel W. Erskine Actually every
> one was good. It seems however that because I decided
> to leave out certain details so the eMail would not be
> too wordy, some have assumed that my experience in
> engineering networks (12 years) is not appearant. Some
> points I will note on that I think should be mentioned.
> My experience with providers have been at the company
> level and we have established ourselves as providers for
> other companies as well. At this level we have required
> a guaranteed level of service that perhaps cannot be
> applied to individual users (dial-in). Hence therefore
> providers may provide more connections than allocated
> throughput. A sort of 'keep adding until someone
> screams' theory.
> Unfortunately for all of us, it is a fact that there is
> not one answer - and time will have the final say so.
> I know that I am going to receive 2000 eMails on this
> question but here it goes. Your opinion-> Since there
> are some that are actively in the process of providing
> internet service (WWW) to users 'free' (which is paid by
> advertising), what happens to your utilization theories
> when this gets applied to internet videoconferencing?
> Does not the provider have to 'choke up' to the
> increased bandwidth requirements (for this question just
> assuming that the user number does not change)?
> BJ

Very good explanation of the technical side, do you have an opinion as to
who has the 'right' to use this capability. There are elitists out there
that feel that some of us should not use the bandwidth because it takes
away from there endevers(sp?) and convienence.