Subject:
|
Re: Web Host Concept
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.publish
|
Date:
|
Fri, 31 Oct 2003 17:46:35 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2533 times
|
| |
|
|
At 10:46 AM 10/31/2003, Larry Spoke Thus:
> > The fun part comes with the payment: each member of the service pays
> > monthly. The cool thing about that is that the payment is reevaluated and
> > split equally each month among all the members.
>
> Why equally split? Suppose I have a high traffic site that hosts movies and
> therefore consumes lots of bandwidth. Why should I get to pay the same as some
> guy who hosts a few highly compressed gifs and doesn't get a lot of traffic.
> Very unfair to him.
Yes. BUT...
If the payment was done on a resource-consumption basis, the guy like you
that chokes out a gigabyte or two of bandwidth each month would be paying
much, much more than the small price you pay under the equally-split
system. You get "something for nothing", in a sense. On the other hand,
while the little guy isn't consuming much in the way of resources, he gets
a great host package for much less than he would pay for a normal paid
host, plus the bonus of hosting with a lego-only host. ;)
The big guy consumes more, but maybe the little guy wants the features and
reliability. Plus, it all evens out - the little guy doesn't NEED 2gb of
bandwidth, he only needs 600MB. The big sites DO need 2GB of bandwidth.
They pay an even amount and both are happy.
> Equally split payments seems like it would be unworkable, long term, as
> the low
> traffic people would get tired of subsidising the high traffic people. I think
> your model works better if costs are allocated correctly, even if that is more
> complex.
I'd like to think that they're not really "subsidizing". Here's an
interesting thought: let's say, for sake of argument (though I really don't
want to argue) that LEGO is not a requirement. Let's just say that it's
open to the public. The little guy comes along and sees a host that says
"current monthly payment: $2.76" or something similar. He looks at the list
of features. "Wow, unlimited bandwidth and storage! I'll never find the
reliability of a paid host for three bucks a month anywhere else." (and
I've looked) and a great long list of other stuff. He's thinking he's
getting a great deal, for a small price. Then the big guy comes along. He
sees an unlimited package for his high-consumption site for a small price.
They don't realize that they're both paying for each other, they're just
seeing a small price on a fantastic package. Think of it like seeing one of
those a really hot selling hybrid car for $9000.
> Put it another way: Who frequents all you can eat places? People (like me) who
> like to eat a lot.
I eat a lot too, but that's not the only reason I like to eat at places
like that. The food is (usually) good and there's a nice selection of it.
If I want to eat mashed potatoes all night, I can do that. If I want
a-little-bit-of-everything, I can do that too. It's flexible. I can't do
that at a normal restaurant.
That's how I'm looking at this, anyway. I could be wrong; I'm open to
debate (or simple conversation. ;) )
Plus, both parties know that they're both supporting a great service, even
if you don't use all the features provided. They know that they're helping
to keep other websites online for a small price, which in my mind is good
enough reason in itself. If Michael Gasperi's website or even LUGNET had to
pay megabucks because they used a lot of resources, we would all chip in to
help balance that. This is similar, except that we're also getting
something for our money.
~Mike
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Web Host Concept
|
| (...) That's my exact point. It is not fair for me to get something for nothing. Not fair to everyone else who is now paying MORE than they ought to have to. Either you get this concept, or you don't. In this scheme, you are setting yourself up for (...) (22 years ago, 31-Oct-03, to lugnet.publish)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Web Host Concept
|
| (...) Why equally split? Suppose I have a high traffic site that hosts movies and therefore consumes lots of bandwidth. Why should I get to pay the same as some guy who hosts a few highly compressed gifs and doesn't get a lot of traffic. Very unfair (...) (22 years ago, 31-Oct-03, to lugnet.general, lugnet.publish, lugnet.animation)
|
13 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
