Level 3 blames Internet slowdowns on ISPs' refusal to upgrade networks | Ars Technica
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. ^_^
> 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
> -- Niels.
More information about the NANOG