Level 3 blames Internet slowdowns on ISPs' refusal to upgrade networks | Ars Technica
mysidia at gmail.com
Thu Mar 20 23:32:00 UTC 2014
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 9:16 AM, Blake Hudson <blake at ispn.net> wrote:
> I don't see this as a technical problem, but one of business and ethics.
> ISP X advertises/sells customers "up to 8Mbps" (as an example), but when it
> comes to delivering that product, they've only guaranteed 512Kbps (if any)
> because the ISP hasn't put in the infrastructure to support 8Mbps per
> customer. Customer believes
Hey, what part of "up to 8Mbps" is an assurance, that the system supports
8Mbps from all customers 24x7 simultaneously? Only the former can be
delivered inexpensively; the latter from large service providers is a
business service that doesn't seem to be in the compass of ordinary
mortals. Because this is the well-known industry standard; it can't
accurately be described as one of deception.
Then there is this whole matter of end-to-end connectivity. Just
because your WAN device links up at 8 Megabits, does not mean you have
been guaranteed 8 Mbits end-to-end.
Intentionally failing to upgrade selected links and establish peerings to
carry traffic to high-demand destinations when necessary, is just
It's just a very clumsy imprecise alternative to rate-limiting a
destination, that can be claimed to have been done without specific
As far as network neutrality regulation is concerned... that should be
regarded with (essentially) no difference, from other traffic management
practices, such as using shaping or policing rules to limit
connectivity to the destination IP addresses.
> he/she has 8Mbps, Content provider says we provide 8Mbps content, but ISP
> can (theoretically and in practice) only deliver a fraction of that. That
> feels like false advertising to me.
More information about the NANOG