[45367] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: SlashDot: "Comcast Gunning for NAT Users"
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Stephen Sprunk)
Thu Jan 31 17:19:07 2002
Message-ID: <032701c1aaa4$3d3422f0$e1876540@ssprunkpc>
From: "Stephen Sprunk" <ssprunk@cisco.com>
To: "Greg Pendergrass" <greg@band-x.com>,
"Stephen Griffin" <stephen.griffin@rcn.com>
Cc: <alan_r1@corp.earthlink.net>, <nanog@merit.edu>
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 15:59:18 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
Thus spake "Stephen Griffin" <stephen.griffin@rcn.com>
> The point is that customers don't pay for 100% of the available
> bandwidth. Customers couldn't afford to pay for guaranteed 100%
> BW to all desinations all the time.
Customers are paying for whatever service you have sold them, period. If
you sell them 'unlimited service', you must deliver them 'unlimited service'
or face fraud, false advertising, breach of contract, etc.
> Hence, companies determine how much BW a typical user
> is likely to use, build to that, and charge the customers based on how
> much it cost to provide it. When folks use the service atypically, they
are
> using resources they didn't pay for.
No, they're using resources they paid for but you assumed they'd not use.
If you can't tell the difference, ask your lawyer.
> If you think otherwise, build a company that doesn't aggregate flows, and
> gives every customer (simultaneous) guaranteed MAX BW 24x7 to every
> destination within their network and at least the first-hop into
non-customer
> networks.
No, you state in the Terms of Service exactly what you intend to deliver.
If you can't provide unlimited service, don't offer it. If you intend to
provide a "reasonable attempt to deliver all acceptable traffic," or
something similar, that's a totally different matter.
S
