-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 - -- "Jamie Bowden" <jamie@photon.com> wrote:
It would seem that the state of NY agrees with you:
The part of this discussion that really infuriates me (and Joe Greco has hit most of the salient points) is the deceptiveness in how ISPs "underwrite" the service their customers subscribe to. For instance, in our data centers, we have 1Gb uplinks to our ISPs, but guaranteed service subscription (a la CIR) to a certain rate which we engineer (based on average traffic volume, say, 400Mb), but burstable to full line rate -- if the bandwidth is available. Now, we _know_ this, because it's in the contract. :-) As a consumer, my subscription is based on language that doesn't say "you can only have the bandwidth you're paying for when we are congested, because we oversubscribed our network capacity." That's the issue here. I know full well the technical arguments of both sides of the issues, the economic issues, and the difference between a circuit switched network and a pcekt network, thank you. :-) $.02, - - ferg -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Desktop 9.6.3 (Build 3017) wj8DBQFHIhwoq1pz9mNUZTMRAlheAJ9KlFY73/+1dxQ7Q898reknG/MxHwCcDURl i0ARgqsvoxpPQkXFVCe9ons= =NGAf -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg(at)netzero.net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/