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

John Osborne (
Sun, 25 Feb 1996 19:27:30 +1000


Interesting post. I can't answer your first question but have direct
experience with the second, which was alluded to earlier in you note.
I dropped one of my ISP's for the very reason that they grew too fast
for their infrastructure. Service levels kept dropping and dropping
(and I mean measurable service levels, like how many busy signals
or no answers you get on dialup, or how many times their mail service
died and went to that big post office in the sky).

Consequently, I, like many others, voted with my pocketbook and went
to another ISP. Are they "choking up" more bandwidth? I dropped them
many months ago, but people I know that have decided to "tough it out"
with them are still unsatisfied. I suspect that the market will
correct this/them, but for some regional areas there maybe only one
choice of ISP, so you're stuck.


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