"Joe" seems guilty of the same disease many programmers are, premature optimization. This is a perennial issue with coders, not something confined to greybeards.

I've seen ASP developers worry about the cost of function calls, and use that as a rationale for write only, unreusable and barely maintainable code. I've seen brand new VB coders worry about "large" arrays. I've seen perl coders tell me not to make function calls as it "slows down the code". These are all personal examples, fill in your own as appropriate.

"We should forget about small efficiencies, say about 97% of the time: premature optimization is the root of all evil."

Donald Knuth

It's as applicable today as it ever was.

I essentially agree with you about the main post. If there shipping cable TV, much of the cost is already sunk.

I was responding to your pricing quotes, for two reasons:

1. The quote is a lowball quote. The cable TV operation might well be able to get that pricing, but it's unlikely. Why not offer a more realistic quote. I'm pretty sure the numbers work out similarly (i.e. the cable folks should spring for more bandwidth).
2. The lowball quote feeds the "I'm paying for all that bandwidth all the time for my $50" crowd. It creates the impression that consumer bandwidth should be backbone quality at $50 a month.

I probably should have picked the post I responded to a with a little more care, as the "ISPs are evil" post was not the direct parent to yours. I saw that post, and saw yours shortly after with the lowball quote.

Before you take offense, I should say that $50/Meg does fit with my impressions of wholesale price for internet, so the quote is not entirely unreasonable, but it is certainly a come-on pricing that, in standard Salesmen-pitch style creates the impression that the true cost is much cheaper then it truly is.

I agree that 70x over-subscription is likely too high, and the request
makes it clear that it is to high, but your pricing
estimates are too low to guide any discussion.

A quick Google search for "DS-3 pricing" shows a full DS-3 for $2200. That means 45 Mbps, so overselling that based on 5-year-old usage data means an ISP could sell 1080 Mbps. Across 400 customers, that's 2.7 Mbps each for $2,200 a month.

That's internet bandwidth pricing, which is not the most expensive
piece, oddly enough. Nor, for a small operation, is it the main
component in pricing.

What does it take to actually implement this?

Well

• A port charge. You are usually charged rent for using up the
  physical port. With the lowball quote you gave, the provider is almost
  certainly going to hide some charges here
• A datacenter. Depending on how well done this is, the costs can vary
  widely. It's clear the original querier's operation is lowball, but even
  a mediocre data center has significant cost associated with it. Think
  power, UPS, Generator, Air-conditioning, rent... Doing this right will
  be the major cost, even ignoring buildout.
• Loop charge. This is likely to be significantly more expensive then
  the bandwidth. Unless you are right next to the provider, the charges
  are high. In no way will it be less then $2200, and could easily top
  $10,000
• buildout. Typical DS3 trenching charges will run you $100,000 -
  $300,000, payable up front. DS3 capable router will run you at list
  $5K, The telco will usually lease you termination equipment for a few K,
  or you could purchase, adding another 100K. Most of this is one-time,
  but that still needs to be factored into the total cost, and it can be
  very substantial
• support staff. Even a minimal staff will cost a whole lot more then
  the DS3

Running an ISP is not a way to get rich.

It bothers me when I read the grandparent post implying that ISPs rip
people off by not selling them dedicated bandwidth. Dedicated is an
order of magnitude more expensive. I remember trying to get access under
models that harkened closer to dedicated access, and it was bloody
expensive, I remember a $300/mo pricing for dialup.... Oversubscription
is good for all of us. The provider in question is not doing the right
thing (ordering more bandwidth) but it bothers me to see un-hinged rants
(grandparent post) suggesting that dedicated bandwidth is a reasonable
expectation.

WSH/vbscript is a fine thing. It let me feel somewhat at home in the last job I had with strong windows server work.

That said, it has an extremely important weakness, no way to implement recursive libraries. For one offs, it's just fine, but for anything more complex, the P's are a much better choice.

I did come across a complete hackish way to implement this, read the library in and interpret it. That's a pretty dangerous substitute for having real library support.

For what it's worth, the IIS vbscript does not have that weakness. It does allow libraries to call libraries.

It seems a real stretch to suggest that the numbers of people installing a hacked OSX would be more then a small fraction of either:

• those who leave the default install alone
• Those who install a pirated XP

I'd venture that most of the slashdot crowd would install there favorite OS. I have no real feel for what the average Dell customer would do though, and I rather suspect that few of us here do.

It is credible to me that a significant portion of the 32% is XP installs, but it also seems likely to me that over half of that 32% remain a linux install. As a prior post indicated, the price point is not huge, which limits the the re-installs to the fully intentional pirates (i.e. you are fully intending to pirate when you purchase). I rather doubt the few bucks saved means that much to most Dell customers, and that most of that 1/3 at least intend to use Ubuntu when they purchase.

Prohibitions against usury have been part of Christianity for a very long time. Usury, i.e. lending money with interest, is at the core of any functioning capitalism.

It's quite possible to rationalize this, but to pretend it isn't there is ignorant (and I mean that in a non-pejorative sense)

If thou lend money to any of My people, even to the poor with thee, thou shalt not be to him as a creditor; neither shall ye lay upon him interest. (Exodus, 22:24 [14])

And if thy brother be waxen poor, and his means fail with thee; then thou shalt uphold him: as a stranger and a settler shall he live with thee. Take thou no interest of him or increase; but fear thy God; that thy brother may live with thee. Thou shalt not give him thy money upon interest, nor give him thy victuals for increase. (Leviticus, 25:35-37)

Thou shalt not lend upon interest to thy brother: interest of money, interest of victuals, interest of any thing that is lent upon interest. Unto a foreigner thou mayest lend upon interest; but unto thy brother thou shalt not lend upon interest; that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all that thou puttest thy hand unto, in the land whither thou goest in to possess it. (Deuteronomy, 23:20-21)