Many players make up application performance (was Re: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity)
Kevin_McElearney at cable.comcast.com
Tue Jul 29 14:33:28 UTC 2014
On 7/28/14, 5:35 PM, "Jim Richardson" <weaselkeeper at gmail.com> wrote:
>I pay for (x) bits/sec up/down. From/to any eyecandysource. If said
>eyecandy origination can't handle the traffic, then I see a slowdown,
>that's life. But if <$IP_PROVIDER> throttles it specifically, rather
>than throttling me to (x),I consider that fraud.
>I didn't pay for (x) bits/sec from some whitelist of sources only.
Along with paying <$IP_PROVIDER> for (x) bits/sec up/down, you are also
paying (or the product of advertising) eyecandysource to deliver a service
(w/ a level of quality). <$IP_PROVIDER> plays a big role in delivering
your *overall* Internet experience, but eyecandysource plays an even
bigger role delivering your *specific* eyecandy experience. If
eyecandystore has internal challenges, business negotiation/policy
objectives, or uses poor adaptive routing path decisions, this has a
direct and material impact to your *specific* eyecandy experience (and
some have found fixable by hiding your source IP with a VPN).
While ISPs do play a big role in this, people tend to miss eyecandystore
decisions (and business drivers) as a potential factors in isolated
application performance issues.
More information about the NANOG