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

Nick B nick at pelagiris.org
Mon Mar 24 04:24:42 UTC 2014


I thought the 40% I paid in taxes covered prosecution of fraudulent
advertising.
Nick
On Mar 23, 2014 4:02 PM, "Matthew Petach" <mpetach at netflight.com> wrote:

> 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