[ NNSquad ] Re: Effects of bandwidth restrictions (from IP)

["Sean B." <rhythmx@gmail.com>]

Just to clarify; Off-site backups aren't done for the cost savings (usually a monthly fee is involved). It is to entirely physically disassociate that backup from your main backup by as big of a distance as is possible. That way if a mega disaster hits your area, your data is safe somewhere far away. Not to mention hosted space usually comes with far higher level of integrity than most any home solution. A friend of mine had his USB drive knocked off his desk yesterday and lost all 500GB of the data on it.

It may take days or even weeks of background transfer on a slower link to remote backup 100s of GB of data, but consider the time it takes to do that versus the time/effort it takes to build of that much data of value in the first place.

--Sean

On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 6:35 PM, George Ou <george_ou@lanarchitect.net> wrote:

You're changing the subject Bob.  I didn't say I liked the Time Warner 40GB
plan, in fact I don't like it at all.  I merely said that any talk of people
not willing to download security updates is just silly.

That said, backing up more than 40 GBs of data remotely over any broadband
or WAN connection (excluding 20/20 FiOS or better) isn't really practical
even without the usage caps.  You're always going to be better off with a
500 GB USB 2.0 drive that you can get for $100 which typically operate at
240 Mbps.


George

-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Frankston [mailto:Bob19-0501@bobf.frankston.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 4:11 PM
To: 'George Ou'; 'Lauren Weinstein'; nnsquad@nnsquad.org
Subject: RE: [ NNSquad ] Re: Effects of bandwidth restrictions (from IP)

But if I want to recover the 130GB I have backed up remotely that means I
need to wait over three months?

-----Original Message-----
From: nnsquad-bounces+nnsquad=bobf.frankston.com@nnsquad.org
[mailto:nnsquad-bounces+nnsquad=bobf.frankston.com@nnsquad.org] On Behalf Of
George Ou
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 18:31
To: 'Lauren Weinstein'; nnsquad@nnsquad.org
Subject: [ NNSquad ] Re: Effects of bandwidth restrictions (from IP)

This is starting to get really silly.  We're looking at about 40 MBs for
Windows update per month which is 1000 smaller than Time Warner's 40GB cap.

 [ Don't fail to account (no pun intended) for the psychological
   aspects of caps.  In many areas of life -- not just
   technology-related ones -- it's long been recognized that people
   do not necessarily react to perceived limits in completely
   logical ways.  It is not at all unreasonable to postulate that
   many persons will cut back on what they consider to be
   "expendable" downloads (e.g. routine OS and application updates)
   rather than reduce their movie downloading.  This is likely to
   be true even when the combination of both wouldn't actually
   exceed the cap.  All manner of unanticipated consequences likely
   lurk with bandwidth caps being imposed on previously "unmetered"
   services.

     -- Lauren Weinstein
        NNSquad Moderator ]


-----Original Message-----
From: nnsquad-bounces+george_ou=lanarchitect.net@nnsquad.org
[mailto:nnsquad-bounces+george_ou=lanarchitect.net@nnsquad.org] On Behalf Of
Lauren Weinstein
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 3:16 PM
To: nnsquad@nnsquad.org
Cc: lauren@vortex.com
Subject: [ NNSquad ] Effects of bandwidth restrictions (from IP)


------- Forwarded Message

From: David Farber <dave@farber.net>
To: "ip" <ip@v2.listbox.com>
Subject: [IP] bandwidth restrictions redux
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 17:57:12 -0400

Begin forwarded message:

From: DV Henkel-Wallace <gumby@henkel-wallace.org>
Date: October 29, 2008 4:17:07 PM EDT
To: David Farber <dave@farber.net>
Subject: bandwidth restrictions redux

Since bandwidth restrictions have started coming into place I have
seen comments from people on the net saying that they cannot or will
not download software updates because of their provider's bandwidth
cap.  Not from people complaining politically but just ordinary users
(e.g. see various comments on the macintouch site).  I presume this
will increase the chance of security patches not being downloaded.

Since it's an ill wind that blows no good I guess I've also seen the
upside: people complaining about heavy web pages and the use of
flash.  Really, if bandwidth caps eliminate flash, can we really
complain?




- -------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

------- End of Forwarded Message

-- 
Research is to see what everybody else has seen, and think what nobody else has thought.