Re: ip-precedence for management traffic

[tvest () eyeconomics com]

On Dec 29, 2009, at 12:59 PM, Dan White wrote:

> On 29/12/09 12:20 -0500, Sachs, Marcus Hans (Marc) wrote:
> > Better than the typical "block outbound 25" filtering we do now.  In
> > fact, in a perfect world ISPs would offer residential customers  
> > "reduced
> > experience" versions of castration that decrease the cost along with
> > decreasing what you have access to.  At the bottom level it would be
> > essentially a thin client running a terminal service (or an emulated
> > thin client using a web browser) with all applications "in the cloud"
> > and nothing sitting on the home PC; mid-level would be web plus  
> > common
> > email clients and chat/IM; high level adds popular apps like Skype,  
> > P2P,
> > games, etc.
> >
> > I think that a fairly large percentage of homes that only want  
> > access to
> > online content and email would be very happy with the bottom tiers.
> > Many would probably like the cloud approach where all of the crazy
> > updating, rebooting, etc. is taken out of the hands of the consumer.
> > WebTV, meet the 21st century....  :)
>
> The customers in the market for such a service would be least likely  
> to
> understand your explanation of the service.
>
> Do you offer a new lower tier service, or rebrand your residential
> service, and try to explain how you're taking away services they  
> probably
> don't need. It's been my experience that if you tell someone you're  
> taking
> away something, they tend to value it even if they don't know what  
> it is.

As well they should. As well we all should.
None of us knows precisely what we're going to absolutely require, or  
merely want/prefer, tomorrow or the next day, much less a year or two  
from now. Unless, of course, we choose to optimize (constrain)  
functionality so tightly around what we want/need today that the  
prospect of getting anything different is effectively eliminated.


TV