Homepage Restrictions
Richard Clayton
In article <33102a7e...@news.demon.co.uk>, Gordon Norris
<Gor...@gnorris.demon.co.uk> writes
>Distribution: demon.service, demon.service.homepages
>Message-ID: <33102a7e...@news.demon.co.uk>
>X-Newsreader: Forte Agent .99g/32.326
those aren't distributions :( something is "broken" here (cue people
indicating that it is not Agent)
>Article in the next Dispatches: "Do you have the best homepages ?"
>Good tacticle move Cliff, find those that are popular, give them some
>advertisement. Lots more people go and see, so shut them down for
>excessive bandwidth usage.
DISpatches goes to Demon subscribers. Demon subscribers hits do not
affect the bandwidth measured (and limited to 25MB). ie there is no
inconsistency here.
> The issue which follows this one will
>contain an article on *how to make your web pages boring* <g>
Some information and tips on how to reduce bandwidth usage (which is not
the same as making your site "boring" at all) will be on www.demon.net
long before that...
--
richard writing to inform and not as company policy
"Assembly of Japanese bicycle require great peace of mind" quoted in ZAMM
Simon Thornton
Gordon Norris <Gor...@gnorris.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> I have read all the AUP and all the posts so far on this subject.
What, even the bit about keeping the figures for your site to yourself?
154Mb a day (154*365/12 = 4684Mb a month) for 10ukp a month?
Not a bad deal at all.
btw,
>Distribution: demon.service, demon.service.homepages
This means nothing. Even if the Distribution header worked (I'm
sure it used to you know) you can't put newsgroups in it.
Simon.
Mike Mann
>those aren't distributions :( something is "broken" here (cue people
>indicating that it is not Agent)
It could be argued that Agent should validate the contents of that
field when users foolishly type something in to it. I'll suggest it
to Forte.
I don't think it counts as a "seriously broken" fault, though :-)
Regards, Mike.
--
Home: mi...@kempston.demon.co.uk | mi...@mirage.co.uk
Also: kemp...@netcomuk.co.uk
PGP 2.6.2i public key available by mail from p...@kempston.demon.co.uk
Bob Adams
In article <F7lehQBC...@turnpike.com>, Richard Clayton
<ric...@turnpike.com> writes
>> The issue which follows this one will
>>contain an article on *how to make your web pages boring* <g>
>
>Some information and tips on how to reduce bandwidth usage (which is not
>the same as making your site "boring" at all) will be on www.demon.net
>long before that...
>
Tip number 1: Do not advertise your site to anybody outside of Demon.
Tip number 2: Refer to the World Wide Web as the Demon Wide Web.
Tip number 3: Er...
--
Bob Adams
http://www.amster.demon.co.uk
Ian Stirling
Richard Clayton (ric...@turnpike.com) wrote:
: In article <33102a7e...@news.demon.co.uk>, Gordon Norris
: <Gor...@gnorris.demon.co.uk> writes
: >Distribution: demon.service, demon.service.homepages
: >Message-ID: <33102a7e...@news.demon.co.uk>
: >X-Newsreader: Forte Agent .99g/32.326
: those aren't distributions :( something is "broken" here (cue people
: indicating that it is not Agent)
Distributions can't really be verified, as there is no central body
to register them with.
: --
Richard Clayton
In article <32f4cd1...@news.demon.co.uk>, Gordon Norris
<Gor...@gnorris.demon.co.uk> writes
>>DISpatches goes to Demon subscribers. Demon subscribers hits do not
>>affect the bandwidth measured (and limited to 25MB). ie there is no
>>inconsistency here.
>>
>Dispatches may go only to Demon Subscribers but I wonder how many
>copies find their way to Subscribers of other ISPs ? For instance, I
>take my copy to work to read in my lunch break. After that I lose it
>for at least a week as collegues and some of my client's staff borrow
>it to read. Only three of us, out of 25, get Dispatches. One of
>those used to borrow my copy but now gets his own.
Would you be prepared to formally write up this ringing endorsement of
DISpatches ??? Few magazines can boast such a secondary circulation. I
expect the advertising rates can be raised considerably.
>If 5 of those 22 looked at a site which Dispatches recommends as a top
>site, then puff.... off to the sin bin it goes.
yes indeed - if every single byte must be downloaded then it will be
suspended for a while... I'm surprised that your site is so riveting
that all your visitors read every single thing on it. Perhaps it is
using the same type of compulsive content that DISpatches manages ?
>>richard writing to inform and not as company policy
>
>Your weren't the guy who under calculated the costs of giving
>subscribers homepages, were you ?
This is one of those "have you stopped beating your wife questions". All
answers cause problems. I shall say "no", regardless.
> If I have calculated right, I have
>5Mb and a 25Mb limit.
Yes. Though do remember the 25MB is external bandwidth. Demon people
fetching your pages don't count.
> That works out as only 5 visitors can download
>5Mb each.
Yes, with extensive caveats as above.
> Or 10 visitors cand download 2.5Mb each. etc... etc....
Indeed so.. so if your site is like mine and is 10K long (you might be
able to face downloading the entire thing since it is quite exciting
really), you can have 2500 external vistors a day.
Mine is, regrettably, extremely dodgy (those nice people at RSACi rated
it 4444) but I obviously don't have the touch to make it anything like
as popular as the experts... I don't even get a 1MB warning :(
>As for Malcolms claims that www.demon.co.uk is a typical example of a
>high access, low usage site, then all I can say is, invite me to
>Finchley and let me look at the figures myself.......
Tours can be arranged, but the figures look pukka... Part of the reason
is of course that many of the readers are Demon subscribers... but the
other reason (which a lot of web site designers should be taking note
of) is that the design and the page content has been produced by
professionals whose intent was to provide information in a concise and
efficient manner. They seem to have succeeded.
John Davies
In article <735z8NAg...@amster.demon.co.uk>, Bob Adams
<ams...@amster.demon.co.uk> writes
Refer to Demon Internet as Demon Intranet?
JOhn ____/\
\ o o |
=( @ )=
V
Stephen Tonkin
Gordon Norris <Gor...@gnorris.demon.co.uk> writes
>What is the point then of having 5Mbytes of space ????
A site like mine, which caters to a minority interest, would be well-
nigh useless with much less. My aim is to get a lot of material on
there in the knowledge that only *some* of it is likely to be of
interest to any one caller.
From my point of view, Demon have it right.
The other thing is, no-one is forced to use all their web space. The
5Mb web space gives a nice degree of flexibility within the 25Mb
bandwidth limit.
Remove spoiler from address to send email
--
Stephen Tonkin
Malcolm Muir
Gordon Norris (Gor...@gnorris.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Feb 1997 15:40:46 +0000, si...@team-sp.org (Simon Thornton)
> wrote:
>
> >Gordon Norris <Gor...@gnorris.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> I have read all the AUP and all the posts so far on this subject.
> >
> >What, even the bit about keeping the figures for your site to yourself?
> >
> one.
>
> >154Mb a day (154*365/12 = 4684Mb a month) for 10ukp a month?
> >
> >Not a bad deal at all.
> >
>
> not working for Demon? Oh, sorry, they don't employ people who can
> add up in their marketing department. :-)
>
> The main point is that Demon offered 5Mb of web space last year to
> it's users. Even if the cost was £15 per 25mb at the time, this would
> not have been a viable proposition. That includes taking into account
> those who don't use the webspace. It appears that Demon have just
> used this to entice new clients from the competition. If they now
> find it costs too much then someone in marketing department wants
> his/her butt kicked. It should not be taken out on the clients.
> While I can understand that comms is very expensive, you should not
> offer something which you know will cause dissatisfaction when you
> take it away. The words, con, fraud, rip-off spring to mind.
Again you are equating web space with bandwidth. Why ? There is no
relationship. Small sites can easily generate more bandwidth use
than big sites.
--
Malcolm S. Muir Demon Internet Ltd.
Sunderland 322 Regents Park Road
England London N3 2QQ
Alan Harding
In article <k7uMDDA$mN9yEwO$@jwd42.demon.co.uk>, John Davies
<Jo...@jwd42.demon.co.uk> writes
That's probably more accurate, but I prefer Infranet; it seems more apt
right now.
--
Al...@harding.demon.co.uk = Alan Harding = ahar...@netcomuk.co.uk
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The opinions given above may be mine. They might also
just be what I feel like saying right now, okay?
Mike Mann
In article <32f6d416...@news.demon.co.uk>,
Gor...@gnorris.demon.co.uk (Gordon Norris) wrote:
>On the other hand, the Demon has not raised it's charges in the 18
>months I have been online. I would not argue with and increase to say
>£15 per month. It would still make the Demon a good proposition
>compared with the opposition.
Oh dear, all these customers encouraging Demon to increase its prices.
Just on a point of information, Demon have never increased the price
of the standard tenner-a-month account since they started providing IP
services. Fifteen-pounds-a-month doesn't have quite the same ring to
it and there are quite a few competitors offering service for less
than 15 pounds. Even BTNet have had to reduce their price recently
from 15 pounds to a tenner to compete effectively.
Phil Payne
In article <32f49...@muir-et2.staff.demon.net>
mal...@demon.net "Malcolm Muir" writes:
> Again you are equating web space with bandwidth. Why ? There is no
> relationship. Small sites can easily generate more bandwidth use
> than big sites.
Do you charge commercial users by bandwidth or by size?
--
Phil Payne
Phone: +44 385302803 Fax: +44 1536723021 CIS: 100012,1660
Warlord
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Sun, 2 Feb 1997 19:40:44 +0000, Stephen Tonkin
<s...@aegis1.spoiler.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>A site like mine, which caters to a minority interest, would be well-
>nigh useless with much less. My aim is to get a lot of material on
>there in the knowledge that only *some* of it is likely to be of
>interest to any one caller.
>From my point of view, Demon have it right.
>The other thing is, no-one is forced to use all their web space. The
>5Mb web space gives a nice degree of flexibility within the 25Mb
>bandwidth limit.
>Remove spoiler from address to send email
Well pointed out. I too have a 'Commercial' site that at present takes very
few hits and has low usage. The plan is if it gets more attention go
commercial. £10 a month's a bargain for 'Personal' usage. In fact I've
actually got three sites bhpscv21, bhpsgl2 and bhpstech. The others are
simply for other locations to collect mail so I use their space too.
Thanks Demon
**
o
| W A R L O R D
<O>XXXXXX<0>]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]>
|
o
PGP Public Key Available from
http://www.bhpstech.demon.co.uk/warlord
Key ID "0xF8F2A42D".
Key fingerprint = 01 6D D4 68 D8 F9 28 9C 0D BA D8 50 51 16 95 B1
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.3i
Charset: cp850
iQCVAwUBMvZIBT/oIbH48qQtAQGcjgP9EpkOnUIKIgPGGKEw6Q+HFYI/FbHJyY3j
aMw4MYwd9K1l71FgVY1JPaF95RuCdvgwES9xzLtm1AisYXrmxmiXZEs7GzIVbLHj
3SogEbUiagiClDRg0CObLWPciLcedWnN99s5HLRBGW7KqamuTQHC75xVRHgyl2pU
itrzMSiE5fs=
=8uXt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Alan Harding
In article <854994...@sievers.com>, Phil Payne <Ph...@sievers.com>
writes
>In article <32f49...@muir-et2.staff.demon.net>
> mal...@demon.net "Malcolm Muir" writes:
>
>> Again you are equating web space with bandwidth. Why ? There is no
>> relationship. Small sites can easily generate more bandwidth use
>> than big sites.
>
>Do you charge commercial users by bandwidth or by size?
I got details of Demon's commercial web pages last month, and it's by
size. (£25 for 5Mb; £50 for 10Mb; £75 for 25Mb then £1 per extra Mb,
with an initial £50 setup fee). I have checked through what I downloaded
from their web-site, and the only mention of bandwidth I can find was in
the section about running one's own server, and there's no mention of
limits there.
Malcolm Muir
Phil Payne (Ph...@sievers.com) wrote:
> In article <32f49...@muir-et2.staff.demon.net>
> mal...@demon.net "Malcolm Muir" writes:
>
> > Again you are equating web space with bandwidth. Why ? There is no
> > relationship. Small sites can easily generate more bandwidth use
> > than big sites.
>
> Do you charge commercial users by bandwidth or by size?
Size, however the same excercise of bandwidth control is being
implemented in due course. There will be an option to pay a higher fee
for greater bandwidth.
Chris Cowley
On 3 Feb 97 23:45:16 GMT, mal...@muir-et2.staff.demon.net (Malcolm
Muir) wrote:
>Phil Payne (Ph...@sievers.com) wrote:
>> Do you charge commercial users by bandwidth or by size?
>
>Size, however the same excercise of bandwidth control is being
>implemented in due course. There will be an option to pay a higher fee
>for greater bandwidth.
This worries me a lot.
Whenever our company releases new (software) products, or new versions
of existing shareware via our Demon-hosted web site, the hits to the
site increase *very* dramatically for several days before levelling
off.
We already pay over the going rate for web-space (which I've been
happy to do, as Demon's international connectivity is so good, and
server downtime is low), but if it's necessary for our costs to be
increased to cover these peaks then we're likely to be much better off
moving to an alternative web-space provider (possibly one in the US?).
By increasing the cost of 5MB of commercial virtual web-space to above
the comparitively high current price of 500 UKP a year, Demon would
seem to be in danger of pricing themselves out of this market
altogether.
I'd also consider moving our site on principle if Demon tried to
enforce any bandwidth limitations before our yearly contract came up
for renewal (yes, I realise you haven't said that this will be the
case; I'm just trying to pre-empt you and assess any potential
inconvenience to my company should this happen).
Can you give any estimates (even a ball-park figure would be useful)
for when Demon might attempt to impose bandwidth restrictions on
existing commercial web-space customers, and what those restrictions
might be?
Chris Cowley.
--
Tel: +44 (0)181 549 3537 |"The three principal virtues of a programmer are
Fax: +44 (0)181 546 4459 | Laziness, Impatience, and Hubris".
http://www.grok.co.uk/ | Larry Wall, Perl Programmers Reference, p.6
Damien Burke
On 3 Feb 97 23:45:16 GMT, mal...@muir-et2.staff.demon.net (Malcolm Muir) wrote:
>Phil Payne (Ph...@sievers.com) wrote:
>> In article <32f49...@muir-et2.staff.demon.net>
>> mal...@demon.net "Malcolm Muir" writes:
>>
>> > Again you are equating web space with bandwidth. Why ? There is no
>> > relationship. Small sites can easily generate more bandwidth use
>> > than big sites.
>>
>> Do you charge commercial users by bandwidth or by size?
>
>Size, however the same excercise of bandwidth control is being
>implemented in due course. There will be an option to pay a higher fee
>for greater bandwidth.
So you could theoretically get forced to go commercial, i.e. pay more money, and
'in due course' could be asked to pay even *more* money. Only the 'mega-abusers'
are going to take that up, and a fair few 'innocents' will simply end up with
near-non-existent pages. Comments?
--
Damien Burke (remove nojunkmail part of my address to reply)
Opinions are mine alone and do not represent RNSETT.
Dr Tony Mace
In article <32f67...@muir-et2.staff.demon.net>
mal...@demon.net "Malcolm Muir" writes:
> Size, however the same excercise of bandwidth control is being
> implemented in due course. There will be an option to pay a higher fee
> for greater bandwidth.
>
> --
> Malcolm S. Muir Demon Internet Ltd.
> Sunderland 322 Regents Park Road
> England London N3 2QQ
>
I can fully appreciate the need to control bandwidth on the 'free'
homepages and am quite happy with the information provided in banduse.txt.
My own pages have so far varied between 4-8Mb. The pages are by their
nature fairly graphics intensive, but I have done a little trimming of
colour depth etc to combat any future growth. So far 3.5Mb of the 5Mb
space allocation is taken up. I would definitely prefer a weekly or monthly
limit, even if demon set the total useage lower, to avoid an irritating
suspension for an odd day of high usage.
I also currently use 5Mb of commercial web space.
I would guess that my commercial pages are well below any likely banduse
limits, but in this case it would be absolutely vital for me to know
well in advance as some of this space is allocated to my customers on
an annual contract and any sudden additional charges would force me to move.
I would welcome information on banduse on the commercial pages. Would it be
relatively simple to implement this on www.demon.co.uk? Although
we get full logs this does not easily yield this information.
--
Tony Mace
The Cactus and Succulent Plant Mall
http://www.demon.co.uk/mace/cacmall.html
Paul Copsey
On 01 Feb 1997 17:49:54, Richard Clayton <ric...@turnpike.com> wrote:
> DISpatches goes to Demon subscribers.
And ex-subscribers.
Paul
Alan Harding
In article <UwuYHSAP...@psp.co.uk>, Thomas Lee <t...@psp.co.uk>
writes
>x-no-archive: yes
>In article <ZE1RcXAm...@harding.demon.co.uk>, Alan Harding
><Al...@harding.demon.co.uk> writes
>> but I prefer Infranet; it seems more apt
>>right now.
>
>worse.
Hence inFranet, not inTranet. :)
Dave Mills
Thomas Lee <t...@psp.co.uk> wrote:
><Al...@harding.demon.co.uk> writes
>> but I prefer Infranet; it seems more apt
>>right now.
>
>But most intranets have _better_ performance than the Internet, not
>worse.
infra- prefix
Inferior to, below, or beneath: infrasonic.
[From Latin ěnfrâ, below.]
Apt I think in this context!
--
Dave Mills Home: Dave...@ravesw.demon.co.uk
Reading, Berks Work: dmi...@shx.co.uk
England WWW :
Steve W.
mal...@muir-et2.staff.demon.net (Malcolm Muir) wrote:
>Phil Payne (Ph...@sievers.com) wrote:
>> In article <32f49...@muir-et2.staff.demon.net>
>> mal...@demon.net "Malcolm Muir" writes:
>>
>> > Again you are equating web space with bandwidth. Why ? There is no
>> > relationship. Small sites can easily generate more bandwidth use
>> > than big sites.
>>
>> Do you charge commercial users by bandwidth or by size?
>Size, however the same excercise of bandwidth control is being
>implemented in due course. There will be an option to pay a higher fee
>for greater bandwidth.
So your saying that EVEN if we paid for commercial space, we'd still
get clobbered after 5 or 6 hits a day on a 5mb site?....shucks....
Chris Cowley
On Sun, 09 Feb 1997 14:14:27 GMT, St...@crooked.demon.co.uk (Steve W.)
wrote:
>So your saying that EVEN if we paid for commercial space, we'd still
>get clobbered after 5 or 6 hits a day on a 5mb site?....shucks....
Whilst the possibilty of Demon altering the charging scheme for
commercial web space causes me great concern, I don't think anyone has
actually tried to imply that the bandwidth for commercial customers
will be limited to the same degree as that of homepages users. I
assume that Demon had a considerably higher limit in mind.
Chris.
Malcolm Muir
Steve W. (St...@crooked.demon.co.uk) wrote:
> mal...@muir-et2.staff.demon.net (Malcolm Muir) wrote:
>
> >Phil Payne (Ph...@sievers.com) wrote:
> >> In article <32f49...@muir-et2.staff.demon.net>
> >> mal...@demon.net "Malcolm Muir" writes:
> >>
> >> > Again you are equating web space with bandwidth. Why ? There is no
> >> > relationship. Small sites can easily generate more bandwidth use
> >> > than big sites.
> >>
> >> Do you charge commercial users by bandwidth or by size?
>
> >Size, however the same excercise of bandwidth control is being
> >implemented in due course. There will be an option to pay a higher fee
> >for greater bandwidth.
>
> get clobbered after 5 or 6 hits a day on a 5mb site?....shucks....
I do not recall saying anwhere anything about Commercial web space
or bandwidth limits, just that a similar exercise of bandwidth
control was being implemented.
I would be surprised if the commercial service ever suspended sites
for exceeding bandwidth, most likely it would be based on a charge for
the bandwidth use.