North American Network Operators Group

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

Re: Two Tiered Internet

  • From: Marshall Eubanks
  • Date: Wed Dec 14 10:38:08 2005


My experience is that customers won't put a lot of effort into understanding nuances of what they are
being offered, that they will always complain to the people they are paying money to, and that if you think that a good use of your bandwidth with your customers (a business's most precious commodity) is to explain to them why it's a good thing that your service is broken, you're crazy.

On Dec 14, 2005, at 10:18 AM, Schliesser, Benson wrote:

Marshall Eubanks wrote:

If these don't work, people will complain. Just imagine for a second
that cable providers started a service that meant that every channel
not owned by, say, Disney, had a bad picture and sound. Would this
be good  for the  cable companies ? Would their customers be happy ?
So, the basic issue isn't relative priority. It's the absolute quality
of the common-denominator/lower-priority service (i.e., the baseline).

If the provider enforces a solid SLA for non-enhanced Internet, then who
would be upset if they also provide an enhanced option? Of course, I
don't currently have an SLA for my personal cable-modem or DSL

A friend of mine who is also on Cox (and on this list) called up and complained enough to
get an SLA from them. I wish I had one.

I test a lot of streaming here at home, and I notice when Cox has one of their very frequent
15 second outages. Or their also frequent 5 minute periods of 80-90% packet loss. When
Verizon puts their FTTH out here to Clifton, I think I'll get that too and try and multi-home
(through tunnels, as I'm certainly not paying either for BGP).

Hmm, maybe there's a product there...