Level 3 blames Internet slowdowns on ISPs' refusal to upgrade networks | Ars Technica

Matthew Petach mpetach at netflight.com
Sun Mar 23 20:02:34 UTC 2014


On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 12:27 PM, Niels Bakker <niels=nanog at bakker.net>wrote:

> * mpetach at netflight.com (Matthew Petach) [Sun 23 Mar 2014, 20:06 CET]:
>
>  Doesn't sound too outlandish.  Mind you, I'm sure
>> it would raise costs, as that testing and validation
>> wouldn't be free.  But I'm sure we'd all be willing to
>> pay an additional $10/month on our service to be
>> sure it could deliver what was promised, or at least
>> to ensure that what was promised was scaled down
>> to match what could actually be delivered.
>>
>
> Nice strawman you erected there.
>
>
Thanks! I thought it looked quite nice up on its pole. :)

Now it's time for people to take turns poking
holes in it.   ^_^


 Thanks!
>>
>
> Yeah, thanks for standing up for industries holding their customers
> hostage to extract rents from companies trying to serve those customers.
>

I'm not so much standing up for them as
pointing out that simply calling for additional
oversight and regulation often brings increased
costs into the picture.  Oddly enough, I'm having
a hard time identifying exactly *where* the money
comes from to pay for government verification of
industry performance claims; I'm sure it's just my
weak search-fu, however, and some person with
more knowledge on the subject will be able to
shed light on how such validation and
compliance testing is typically paid
for.


>
>         -- Niels.
>
>
Thanks!

Matt


More information about the NANOG mailing list