North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: Two Tiered Internet
- From: Marshall Eubanks
- Date: Wed Dec 14 10:38:08 2005
My experience is that customers won't put a lot of effort into
understanding nuances of what they are
being offered, that they will always complain to the people they are
paying money to, and that if you think that a good use of your
bandwidth with your customers (a business's most precious commodity)
is to explain to them why it's a good thing that your service is
broken, you're crazy.
On Dec 14, 2005, at 10:18 AM, Schliesser, Benson wrote:
A friend of mine who is also on Cox (and on this list) called up and
complained enough to
Marshall Eubanks wrote:
So, the basic issue isn't relative priority. It's the absolute quality
If these don't work, people will complain. Just imagine for a second
that cable providers started a service that meant that every channel
not owned by, say, Disney, had a bad picture and sound. Would this
be good for the cable companies ? Would their customers be happy ?
of the common-denominator/lower-priority service (i.e., the baseline).
If the provider enforces a solid SLA for non-enhanced Internet,
would be upset if they also provide an enhanced option? Of course, I
don't currently have an SLA for my personal cable-modem or DSL
get an SLA from them. I wish I had one.
I test a lot of streaming here at home, and I notice when Cox has one
of their very frequent
15 second outages. Or their also frequent 5 minute periods of 80-90%
packet loss. When
Verizon puts their FTTH out here to Clifton, I think I'll get that
too and try and multi-home
(through tunnels, as I'm certainly not paying either for BGP).
Hmm, maybe there's a product there...