On Tue, 22 Jul 2014, Derek Balling wrote:
On Jul 22, 2014, at 3:24 PM, David Lang <[email protected]> wrote:
If they can't deliver the advertised bandwidth to their customers at the prices
they are charging their customers, then they shouldn't advertise those rates at
those prices.
They *can* deliver what they advertise, "XXX megabits to your home". But they
are the first to tell you in the terms of service that network congestion is a reality,
and they disclaim any liability for when it happens.
So if there is, say, "network congestion" at the VZN/Netflix peering point,
that potential problem has been disclosed to you in the terms of service, in plain
language, and you agreed to it.
If there is congestion at a peering point, isn't it their responsibility to try
and upgrade their side of the connection so that it's not congested any more?
otherwise, term "Internet" becomes meaningless and we go back to the days of AOL
and Compuserv where you get connected to that companies network, and if you're
lucky a little bandwidth to the Internet
If this wasn't Verizon crying about Netflix, but was podunk ISP in outer
mongolia claiming that your server was flooding their network would you still
say that you needed to pay that ISP to upgrade their network?
David Lang
_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators
http://lopsa.org/
