Ah, back to my original point. Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled
masses.... Bandwidth.
The last I tried the hit the drop pool through Tucows, I was gettting nothing
but busy signals. It was a waste of time and I've since quit. Am I missing
something here? (off list?).
So long as Tucows hasn't committed their drop bandwidth to others, can't we
find a better way to use it ourselves, say guaranteed bandwidth on-demand?
There may be little or no dev involved-- with the applications left to the
users. This had been free -- and pretty useless -- so Tucows was generating no
direct value.
I'm OK with "highest and best use" too, I just don't want that imposed at the
wholesale level. Specifically, I'd be willing to pay $X for bandwidth if I
expect to pick-up several domains worth $2-4X total. That's empowerment. Pool,
Enom, and now Snap all take the $2-4X for themselves. That's self-interest.
Best, Loren
elliot noss <enoss@tucows.com> wrote:
> this summarizes well what I was trying to convey. that this market is in
> a state of flux and we do not want to waste scarce dev resources on
> something that will change.
>
> a few more bits. kudos Joe. I have used highest best use as an important
> analogy in this marketfor a while now (hey were you actually listening
> to my comments in the public forum in Rome! ;-)). the prices WILL go up
> as efficiency increases. and they should. and this is a good thing. and
> inactive registrars will not be able to collect fat fees for doing
> nothing but engaging in regulatory arbitrage.
>
> the primary reasons that I see the current situation as far from the end
> are twofold. one, the present structure exists because of current
> structural inefficiency and two, the dollars flow in a way that
> guarantees a state of flux (ie, there is excess economic rent as a
> function of the inefficiency). sorry for being a bit obtuse but if we
> were all talking in a bar over beers......
>
> Regards
>
> Gordon Hudson wrote:
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Loren Stocker" <loren@800.net>
> > To: "JB" <info@bwp.net>; <discuss-list@opensrs.org>
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 11, 2004 5:46 PM
> > Subject: Re: SnapNames switches to auction-based system -- any OpenSRS
> > opportunities?
> >
> >
> >
> >>Huh? Just what don't I get here? You think I'm against the drop market?
> >
> > That's
> >
> >>nonsense. I love it. Defend it.
> >>
> >>What I'm suggesting here is that Tucows engage in the drop market in a
way
> >>that empowering users, rather that simply extract maximum value for
> >
> > themselves
> >
> >>as does Pool, Snap, and Enom. What ever happened to loyality?
> >
> >
> > The problem is that the way domains drop is not within the control of
Tucows
> > or any of us.
> > The goalposts could easily change at any time.
> > This could mean husge amounts of wasted time and money for Tucows and
> > resellers.
> > Personally, if I thought the drop business was sustainable long term
> > I would already be offering it to customers in some form.
> > I am not yet convinced that it is a long term business.
> >
> > Of course I could be wrong, but I have so many projects underway right
now
> > this is one
> > of the least attractive of the possible avenues to go down.
> >
> > Regards
> >
> > Gordon Hudson
> > Hostroute.com Ltd
> > www.hostroute.net
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Tue Oct 19 2004 - 23:37:58 EDT