Subject:
|
Re: Web Host Concept
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.publish
|
Date:
|
Sat, 1 Nov 2003 06:05:40 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2223 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.publish, Mike Thorn wrote:
> At 01:36 PM 10/31/2003, you wrote:
> > In lugnet.publish, Mike Thorn wrote:
> > > 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.
> >
> > 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 a tragedy of the commons.
>
> Well, then, in that case...can we agree to disagree? :)
>
> If you want to carry on privately that's fine but I don't really want to
> start a debate. You see the system as unfair, I ask "who wouldn't pass up
> hosting that starts at $4 and only gets cheaper in the long run?". We see
> from two different perspectives, and that's fine (and good).
Na, it's more than a mere difference of opinion. You're setting yourself up for
failure. You may not care about that and that's your perogative but I prefer to
give my business to outfits that I think have enough of a grasp of economics
that they're likely to be around in a year or two.
If you're going to provide unlimited bandwidth for 4 a month, you're not going
to be around long. I've warned you about it, whether you choose to heed it is
your perogative.
So in answer to your question "who wouldn't pass up hosting that starts at $4
and only gets cheaper in the long run?" the answer is... I would (pass it up).
Moving sites is a huge bother and one I prefer not to subject myself to
unnecessarily.
I'm done. If you respond, that's your choice.
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Web Host Concept
|
| Sure, with that kind of thoughts, we are going forward a s a society! Why bother trying something new when we can give our money to huge companies that already have al we need? Heck, why bother risking a few bucks a month when I can throw my money (...) (21 years ago, 5-Nov-03, to lugnet.publish)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Web Host Concept
|
| (...) Well, then, in that case...can we agree to disagree? :) If you want to carry on privately that's fine but I don't really want to start a debate. You see the system as unfair, I ask "who wouldn't pass up hosting that starts at $4 and only gets (...) (21 years ago, 31-Oct-03, to lugnet.publish)
|
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
|
|
|
|
