North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical RE: Two Tiered Internet
----- Original Message Follows ----- From: "Schliesser, Benson" <[email protected]> To: "Marshall Eubanks" <[email protected]> Cc: "Per Heldal" <[email protected]>, "NANOG" <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Two Tiered Internet Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 10:40:58 -0600 > Hi. > > I agree with your comments re customers. (residential > customers, in particular) > > At risk of being flamed, what I'd propose is that > regulators should put effort into understanding whether > the basic service is broken. If it's not broken then <flame :-> Regulators in what country? Atlantis? BFE? Do you mean the United States internet as opposed to the rest of the world's internet??? </flame> scott > perhaps it is reasonable to allow provider-prioritized > traffic. (i.e., if the provider offers a good SLA for > basic traffic and lives up to it even in the presence of > prioritized traffic) On the other hand, if the provider > doesn't guarantee a quality basic service then their > request to "prioritize" is in bad-faith; they will > effectively be de-prioritizing the basic service. > > Cheers, > -Benson > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Marshall Eubanks [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Wednesday, 14 December, 2005 09:36 > To: Schliesser, Benson > Cc: Per Heldal; NANOG > Subject: Re: Two Tiered Internet > > Hello; > > 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 services... > > > > 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... > > Regards > Marshall > > > Cheers, > > -Benson >
|