[108947] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: routing around Sprint's depeering damage
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Marshall Eubanks)
Sun Nov 2 11:27:37 2008
From: Marshall Eubanks <tme@multicasttech.com>
To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Anders_Lindb=E4ck?= <list-only@dnz.se>
In-Reply-To: <E49C94AC-34C7-4D37-985E-851D316D6FD6@dnz.se>
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2008 11:27:15 -0500
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Nov 2, 2008, at 10:29 AM, Anders Lindb=E4ck wrote:
> 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..
Sure. Note the "what I am buying" part of this. If I, as a Sprint =20
customer, cannot get to the web sites, email servers, etc., that I =20
need to with EVD0, I will blame Sprint if Sprint is dropping the =20
packets. As a customer, I do not really care why this is occurring. =20
Yes, I might cut them some slack if the site was hosted somewhere like =20=
the summit of Mt. Everest, but that does not apply here.
For enforcing an SLA, it matters what the contract says, what the EULA =20=
says, etc. For keeping customers happy, it does not.
Or, to put it another way, if Sprint's view of the Internet is not =20
mine, my view of the Internet will rapidly no longer include being a =20
customer of Sprint.
Regards
Marshall
>
>
> ------------------------------
> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
