<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Com com com com com: Comreg Sits On Eircom</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.lexferenda.com/17092007/512/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.lexferenda.com/17092007/512/</link>
	<description>daithí mac sithigh's blog on cyberlaw &#38; media law</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2008 00:21:07 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Tom Young</title>
		<link>http://www.lexferenda.com/17092007/512/#comment-1987</link>
		<dc:creator>Tom Young</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 18 Sep 2007 15:45:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lexferenda.com/17092007/512/#comment-1987</guid>
		<description>–        Capacity Based charging models: 

 

Pay according to the capacity of circuit required regardless of usage, e.g. 100Mbps, STM1, 1000Mbps etc. 

 

        Comments for debate: 

»        simple &#38; cost effective to implement, but does not necessarily reflect costs incurred by either party in handling traffic 

»        therefore, may not give efficient investment and/or usage signals (i.e. all-you-can-eat pricing encourages you to eat too much…) 

»        same as a usage charge if the bandwidth increments between different circuits are small enough 

»        So, can also have same investment/usage signalling properties as usage based charging if these increments are small enough</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>–        Capacity Based charging models: </p>
<p>Pay according to the capacity of circuit required regardless of usage, e.g. 100Mbps, STM1, 1000Mbps etc. </p>
<p>        Comments for debate: </p>
<p>»        simple &amp; cost effective to implement, but does not necessarily reflect costs incurred by either party in handling traffic </p>
<p>»        therefore, may not give efficient investment and/or usage signals (i.e. all-you-can-eat pricing encourages you to eat too much…) </p>
<p>»        same as a usage charge if the bandwidth increments between different circuits are small enough </p>
<p>»        So, can also have same investment/usage signalling properties as usage based charging if these increments are small enough</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tom Young</title>
		<link>http://www.lexferenda.com/17092007/512/#comment-1936</link>
		<dc:creator>Tom Young</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 17 Sep 2007 13:26:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lexferenda.com/17092007/512/#comment-1936</guid>
		<description>Yeah I'd guess its because this type of offering would more or less seal the coffin that is LLU. Additionally I expect ComReg don't have enough data on the offering. Tom.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Yeah I&#8217;d guess its because this type of offering would more or less seal the coffin that is LLU. Additionally I expect ComReg don&#8217;t have enough data on the offering. Tom.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
