Re: It's hard to dance if your feet are bound

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick () ianai net>
Date: September 2, 2008 3:47:41 PM EDT
To: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>, Tony Lauck <tlauck () madriver com>
Cc: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick () ianai net>
Subject: Re: [IP] It's hard to dance if your feet are bound

On Sep 2, 2008, at 3:12 PM, David Farber wrote:
> From: Tony Lauck <tlauck () madriver com>
> Date: September 2, 2008 11:25:49 AM EDT
> To: dave () farber net
> Subject: Re: [IP] Re:  It's hard to dance if your feet are bound
>
> Any business that thinks of its customers as "offenders" has a  
> serious problem. These customers are leading edge users and what  
> they are presently doing will become the norm in a few years. Of  
> course, a "business" that depends on a government monopoly may be  
> able to prosper for a while, so long as its political connections  
> remain intact.

First, please note the quotes.  I was using someone else's  
terminology.  To be honest, I'm not certain I disagree with you, but  
I'm sure I agree either.

Many companies have "customers" they do not want.  An ISP (which shall  
remain nameless) back in the 90s allowed their NOC employees to fire  
one customer a month.  They did not die because of it, just the  
opposite.  Their employees were much happier, and the other 99.9% of  
their customers were happier as well because they had more resources  
(modems, customer service time, incoming bandwidth, etc.).

This is not unique to the Internet industry.  Take the guy who comes  
into McDonald's and orders a small fry, bothers other customers,  
spills catsup all over, makes a mess in the toilet, etc.  He is a  
customer, but I doubt McDonald's is going to go out of business by  
considering this guy a "worst offender" or refusing him service - just  
the opposite.

Companies which are required to sell to anyone in a certain class  
(e.g. everyone in Town X) may have more of these customers than other  
businesses.


Back on topic, it is a fact that the resources in question are not  
infinite.  Given a finite set of resources to divide amongst a set of  
users, the 80-20 rules might mean dumping the 20 to give the 80 better  
service equals more profit.  That becomes even more probable when it  
is the 90-10 or, as some have argued here, the 99-1 rule.

The problem is that this is not a normal business.  It is a government  
granted duopoly.  So maybe they should be forced to provide for the 1%  
users?  But, just like the phone system, that means the other 99% will  
have to pay more than their "fair share".  Which is not, well, fair.

Do you think people doing file sharing or downloading 10 movies a day  
should get subsidized by the Internet equivalent of the Universal  
Service Fund?


> If we want to improve broadband connectivity we will have to smash  
> all these political connections.

Not sure how to do that.  We don't want 100 pieces of copper or fiber  
running into our houses.  Therefore there will always be some  
political connection.  Maybe we should do as Bob & others have  
suggested and split the "infrastructure" from the "service"?

--
TTFN,
patrick



> David Farber wrote:
> > Begin forwarded message:
> > From: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick () ianai net>
> > Date: September 2, 2008 9:01:59 AM EDT
> > To: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>, Bob Frankston <Bob19-0501 () bobf frankston com 
> > >
> > Cc: "Patrick W. Gilmore" <patrick () ianai net>
> > Subject: Re: [IP] It's hard to dance if your feet are bound
>
> {...}
>
> > So it is decision time: Raise prices to support full-time  
> > connections?  Or deal with statistical multiplexing and prune the  
> > "worst offenders" so the rest of the populace doesn't suffer?
>
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------
> Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
> RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
> Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com





-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com