RE: Two Tiered Internet

["Scott Weeks" <surfer () mauigateway com>]

----- Original Message Follows -----
From: "Schliesser, Benson" <bensons () savvis net>
To: "Marshall Eubanks" <tme () multicasttech com>
Cc: "Per Heldal" <heldal () eml cc>, "NANOG" <nanog () merit edu>
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:tme () multicasttech com] 
> 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
>