[committee] AARNet Traffic Report January and February 2009

[James Andrewartha]

On Mon, 23 Mar 2009, Scott Young wrote:

> Under the old scheme, we were charged ~$35/GB (possibly more or less
> depending on the definition of 'gigabyte'). Under the new scheme, we
> pay $750 a year for up to 50GB of traffic, which works out to roughly
> $15/GB -- but going over this limit will incur penalty charges of
> $30/GB.
> 
> So our options are:
> - continue charging $35/GB, the club makes a small profit while
> charging members exactly what has always been charged)
> - charge $15/GB, and the club loses money if we go over the 50GB limit
> - charge $30/GB, and the club (probably) makes a small profit, but is
> not at risk of losing money should we exceed the 50GB limit
> - charge some other amount.

Re-reading http://lists.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au/pipermail/ucc/attachments/20090317/fab7ab3e/attachment-0005.pdf 
it seems we get charged twice for off-net traffic - in the first year it's 
$15/GB up to the nomiated value, and $30/GB thereafter, and in the second 
year it's the annual subscription fee based on the previous year's off-net 
usage, in the 10GB bands at $15/GB.

Perhaps I'm reading it wrong, but it therefore seems the real cost of 
off-net traffic is $30/GB, with a marginal cost of at least $45/GB if we 
go over our limit.

-- 
# TRS-80              trs80(a)ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au #/ "Otherwise Bub here will do \
# UCC Wheel Member     http://trs80.ucc.asn.au/ #|  what squirrels do best     |
[ "There's nobody getting rich writing          ]|  -- Collect and hide your   |
[  software that I know of" -- Bill Gates, 1980 ]\  nuts." -- Acid Reflux #231 /