North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: Westnet and Utah outage
Other people have touched on it, but I'd like to re-iterate: The quality that someone can expect out of their Internet connection, as a practical matter, will somewhat vary with how much they're willing to pay. It seems to me that giving someone <<1% downtime is an expensive level of service. The Internet market today is not one where most customers question the providers on the level of service; quite contrarily they question the providers on how cheap they can go. This type of market will be cost driven, and for my $19.95 unlimited PPP account, do you think my ISP will be able to give me <<1% inaccessibility? Not without operating in the red, I don't think. I think most ISP's would be *delighted* to offer customers Very High Quality service, but few customers are willing to pay for that service. As a result, the final judgement of "how good is good enough" will be "whatever the customer can live with," as compared to anything that engineers like (ie 1%, 5%, etc). Ed [email protected] (p.s. you notice I'm brushing aside the first question, being "how do I *measure* the quality of service." Offhand, a weighted average of all of the components that a given customer needs for a connection makes the most sense to me.) -- On Tue, 28 Nov 1995 [email protected] wrote: > Hans; > > Sorry...I waited for additional replies but you seemed to be the only one to > take my bait. My question was rhetorical. > > I hear all this complaining on this forum about unacceptable delay and packet > loss by the ISP Community yet no "respected" industry standards body has yet > set QOS guidelines for ISP's! An old management dictum says "if its > important, measure it". > > I know where to look for QOS criteria on my physical plant (T1/DS3's), I even > know where to look for QOS criteria for my old X.25 network. If we want > things to get better w/i the ISP Community...let's define what better is. > > - jeff -
|