|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical Re: decreased caching efficiency?
A couple more points.. On Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 11:31:29AM -0400, Christian Kuhtz wrote: > And why is that wrong since they're paying for it? ISPs are not common > carriers. One more point, even a common carrier can offer a service to its subscribers to block certain content upon their request (various number blocking services, such as BellSouth's PrivacyDirector which sends blocked/undelivered caller #/id to an IVR to identify themselves, after which the customer gets prompted whether to accept the call.) Perfectly legal. And I suspect you'll see lots more of them as customers ask for them. In fact, this whole debate reminds me of when spam first came around. And some customers are most definitely willing to financially recognize it if you reduce the email spam they got. Personally, banner ads are just that: spam. But that's beside the point. > Woah. Where again did it *guarantee* delivery or a specific SLA? Do you > also want to have the terms under which rerouting happens in a SPs network > in the customer contract? I think not. Hmm, ISPs live by oversubscribing their service. Phone companies do, too. So, something has to give. -- Christian Kuhtz Architecture, BellSouth.net <[email protected]> -wk, <[email protected]> -hm Atlanta, GA "Speaking for myself only."
|