North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical


  • From: Tuomas Toivonen
  • Date: Mon Aug 31 10:39:38 1998

On Fri, Aug 28, 1998 at 10:50:58AM -0700, [email protected] wrote:
> > Uh, huh, this is not quite the real world. I certainly would like to see a
> > corporate marketing dude even considering that. If connectivity to cust-a
> > (surfer) sucks then cust-b will take net-b by the throat and demand
> > something to be done (in essence net-b will pay settlement to net-a or lose
> > cust-b).
> 	Realizing that most large co-located websites are in facilities or
> at network providers who have many OTHER large co-located websites, the 
> chances are great that cust-a will notice slow or no connectivity to MANY
> websites.  Who do you think he will blame? :
> a.) net-a
> b.) net-b
> c.) cust-b
> 	Of course net-a, he pays net-a $$ for connectivity, the customer will
> not take many 'its on their side' answers from net-a, he will demand that net-a
> fix his connectivity or he will leave.

Yes, but when cust-a has bad connectivity to cust-b (and other co-located
sites) I would see net-b receiving pressure from cust-b to improve
connectivity to net-a. When customer is able to make demands to provider
money has exchanged hands and provider has (should with a viable business
model) means to pay settlement.

[email protected]               fishpool creations ltd