[108938] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: routing around Sprint's depeering damage
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_Lindb=E4ck?=)
Sun Nov 2 10:30:35 2008
In-Reply-To: <200811021506.mA2F6loA015653@parsley.amaranth.net>
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_Lindb=E4ck?= <list-only@dnz.se>
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2008 16:29:52 +0100
To: Daniel Senie <dts@senie.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
Well, selling you an "unlimited" account and them terminating that =20
contract if you use "to much" is one thing, that is a stated lack of =20
a limit in your contract.
There is no delivery guarantee of your IP packets in your contract, =20
adding one would be a rather bad idea since there is no delivery =20
guarantee in IP that your service is based on and that would open a =20
carrier to liabilities if someone was using a firewall for instance =20
since that is effectivly limiting your delivery to that machine.
What you are buying is access to Sprints network, and transit =20
effectivly on Sprints view of the Internet, and that is what they =20
deliver really..
------------------------------
Anders Lindb=E4ck
anders.lindback@dnz.se
On 2 nov 2008, at 16.01, Daniel Senie wrote:
> At 09:33 AM 11/2/2008, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>> On Sun, 2 Nov 2008, Rod Beck wrote:
>>
>>> It is a short term issue that probably doesn't merit government =20
>>> intervention
>>
>> The only government intervention I can imagine as being productive =20=
>> would be to mandate what the "Internet" is, and if someone is =20
>> selling access to it, mandate that customers can demand a refund =20
>> in case the "Internet Access" doesn't provide access to enough a =20
>> big part of it in a well enough working manner.
>
> Precisely the issue I am concerned about. End consumers cannot go =20
> off and multihome easily. Comcast got in trouble for altering =20
> traffic flows to its residential customers. Sprint has broken =20
> access to its EVDO customers. Does it make sense for end customers =20
> to be protected from companies providing access to only parts of =20
> the Internet?
>
> Sprint could, in response to this partitioning, buy some transit to =20=
> provide complete connectivity to its EVDO users. But unless =20
> they're willing to allow termination of contracts for cell phones =20
> and data cards without penalty, consumers are NOT free to switch =20
> carriers, and they are not getting unfettered access to the =20
> Internet as was sold to them. The other carriers in the space =20
> aren't much better. Verizon got in trouble for selling "unlimited" =20
> access via data cards, then cutting people off who used it heavily.
>
> Is it worthwhile for the government and/or the courts to set rules =20
> for such? As a consumer, I would prefer the government protect me =20
> from large businesses selling me one thing, then delivering =20
> another. Consumer protection is a valid and useful function of =20
> government, IMO.
>
>
>
