Many players make up application performance (was Re: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity)
pauldotwall at gmail.com
Tue Jul 29 15:55:19 UTC 2014
It is common courtesy around these parts to not libel your customers,
especially when they're paying you lots of money and making up 30% of
your incoming traffic. That you're posting in "hypotheticals" does
not mask your true messaging.
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 2:33 PM, McElearney, Kevin
<Kevin_McElearney at cable.comcast.com> wrote:
> 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