On Fri, Aug 28, 1998 at 10:50:58AM -0700, steve@altrina.exodus.net wrote:
Uh, huh, this is not quite the real world. I certainly would like to see a corporate marketing dude even considering that. If connectivity to cust-a (surfer) sucks then cust-b will take net-b by the throat and demand something to be done (in essence net-b will pay settlement to net-a or lose cust-b).
Realizing that most large co-located websites are in facilities or at network providers who have many OTHER large co-located websites, the chances are great that cust-a will notice slow or no connectivity to MANY websites. Who do you think he will blame? :
a.) net-a b.) net-b c.) cust-b
Of course net-a, he pays net-a $$ for connectivity, the customer will not take many 'its on their side' answers from net-a, he will demand that net-a fix his connectivity or he will leave.
Yes, but when cust-a has bad connectivity to cust-b (and other co-located sites) I would see net-b receiving pressure from cust-b to improve connectivity to net-a. When customer is able to make demands to provider money has exchanged hands and provider has (should with a viable business model) means to pay settlement. -- tuomas.toivonen@fishpool.fi fishpool creations ltd http://www.kasvua.org/~toivotuo/ http://www.fishpool.fi/