routing around Sprint's depeering damage

Marshall Eubanks tme at multicasttech.com
Sun Nov 2 10:27:15 CST 2008


On Nov 2, 2008, at 10:29 AM, Anders Lindbäck wrote:

> Well, selling you an "unlimited" account and them terminating that  
> contract if you use "to much" is one thing, that is a stated lack of  
> a limit in your contract.
>
> There is no delivery guarantee of your IP packets in your contract,  
> adding one would be a rather bad idea since there is no delivery  
> guarantee in IP that your service is based on and that would open a  
> carrier to liabilities if someone was using a firewall for instance  
> since that is effectivly limiting your delivery to that machine.
>
> What you are buying is access to Sprints network, and transit  
> effectivly on Sprints view of the Internet, and that is what they  
> deliver really..

Sure. Note the "what I am buying" part of this. If I, as a Sprint  
customer, cannot get to the web sites, email servers, etc., that I  
need to with EVD0, I will blame Sprint if Sprint is dropping the  
packets. As a customer, I do not really care why this is occurring.  
Yes, I might cut them some slack if the site was hosted somewhere like  
the summit of Mt. Everest, but that does not apply here.

For enforcing an SLA, it matters what the contract says, what the EULA  
says, etc. For keeping customers happy, it does not.

Or, to put it another way, if Sprint's view of the Internet is not  
mine, my view of the Internet will rapidly no longer include being a  
customer of Sprint.

Regards
Marshall

>
>
> ------------------------------
> Anders Lindbäck
> anders.lindback at dnz.se
>
>
> On 2 nov 2008, at 16.01, Daniel Senie wrote:
>
>> At 09:33 AM 11/2/2008, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>>> On Sun, 2 Nov 2008, Rod Beck wrote:
>>>
>>>> It is a short term issue that probably doesn't merit government  
>>>> intervention
>>>
>>> The only government intervention I can imagine as being productive  
>>> would be to mandate what the "Internet" is, and if someone is  
>>> selling access to it, mandate that customers can demand a refund  
>>> in case the "Internet Access" doesn't provide access to enough a  
>>> big part of it in a well enough working manner.
>>
>> Precisely the issue I am concerned about. End consumers cannot go  
>> off and multihome easily. Comcast got in trouble for altering  
>> traffic flows to its residential customers. Sprint has broken  
>> access to its EVDO customers. Does it make sense for end customers  
>> to be protected from companies providing access to only parts of  
>> the Internet?
>>
>> Sprint could, in response to this partitioning, buy some transit to  
>> provide complete connectivity to its EVDO  users. But unless  
>> they're willing to allow termination of contracts for cell phones  
>> and data cards without penalty, consumers are NOT free to switch  
>> carriers, and they are not getting unfettered access to the  
>> Internet as was sold to them. The other carriers in the space  
>> aren't much better. Verizon got in trouble for selling "unlimited"  
>> access via data cards, then cutting people off who used it heavily.
>>
>> Is it worthwhile for the government and/or the courts to set rules  
>> for such? As a consumer, I would prefer the government protect me  
>> from large businesses selling me one thing, then delivering  
>> another. Consumer protection is a valid and useful function of  
>> government, IMO.
>>
>>
>>
>
>





More information about the NANOG mailing list