|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 16:53:22 -0400 To: nanog@nanog.org From: Daniel Senie <dts@senie.com> In-Reply-To: <d800cd540710191210q287f0421qfd4cec437904b6d1@mail.gmail.co m> Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu At 03:10 PM 10/19/2007, John C. A. Bambenek wrote: >I love how the framed it as "data discrimination". Let's just be >honest... 99% of it was illegal traffic taking up far more than their >fair share of bandwidth. Let's be honest. The US ISPs have been advertising "unlimited" service, but heavily oversubscribe to limit costs. The expectation is that users will only use the bandwidth rarely and in short bursts. We all know all about over subscription, but it is now problematic due to distributed applications. Blocking heavy users (or terminating them, as at least one cellular/wireless Internet service provider does to heavy users of its "unlimited" service) is false advertising. but it seems to be accepted all around, without so much as an asterisk and footnote. So it all comes down to what the definition of "unlimited" is. Truth in advertising and all that. There seems to be a great unwillingness to tell the truth in our society.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |