It is common courtesy around these parts to not libel your customers, especially when they're paying you lots of money and making up 30% of your incoming traffic. That you're posting in "hypotheticals" does not mask your true messaging. Drive Slow, Paul Wall On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 2:33 PM, McElearney, Kevin <Kevin_McElearney@cable.comcast.com> wrote:
On 7/28/14, 5:35 PM, "Jim Richardson" <weaselkeeper@gmail.com> wrote:
I pay for (x) bits/sec up/down. From/to any eyecandysource. If said eyecandy origination can't handle the traffic, then I see a slowdown, that's life. But if <$IP_PROVIDER> throttles it specifically, rather than throttling me to (x),I consider that fraud.
I didn't pay for (x) bits/sec from some whitelist of sources only.
Along with paying <$IP_PROVIDER> for (x) bits/sec up/down, you are also paying (or the product of advertising) eyecandysource to deliver a service (w/ a level of quality). <$IP_PROVIDER> plays a big role in delivering your *overall* Internet experience, but eyecandysource plays an even bigger role delivering your *specific* eyecandy experience. If eyecandystore has internal challenges, business negotiation/policy objectives, or uses poor adaptive routing path decisions, this has a direct and material impact to your *specific* eyecandy experience (and some have found fixable by hiding your source IP with a VPN).
While ISPs do play a big role in this, people tend to miss eyecandystore decisions (and business drivers) as a potential factors in isolated application performance issues.