-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
When 5% of the users don't play nicely with the rest of the 95% of
the users; how can network operators manage the network so every user
receives a fair share of the network capacity?
I don't know if that's a fair argument.
If I'm sitting at the end of 8Mb/768k cable modem link, and paying
for it, I should damned well be able to use it anytime I want.
As a consumer/customer, I say "Don't sell it it if you can't
deliver it." And not just "sometimes" or "only during foo time".
All the time. Regardless of my applications. I'm paying for it.
- - ferg
I think you have confused a circuit switch network with a packet
If you want a specific capacity 24x7x365 buy a circuit, i.e. T1, T3, OCx. It costs more, but it will be your capacity 100% of the time.
There is a reason why shared capacity costs less than dedicated capacity.
What I don't quite get is this, and this is probably skirting
"operational" and more into "capacity planning" :
* You aren't guaranteed 24/7 landline calls on a residential line;
and everyone here should understand why.
* You aren't guaranteed 24/7 cellular calls on a cell phone; and
again, everyone here should understand why.
So please remind me again why the internet is particuarly different?
The only reason I can think of is "your landline isn't marketed
as unlimited but your internet is" ..
(Who has actually, from time to time, received "congested" signals
on the PSTN and can distinguish that from "busy".)
It would seem that the state of NY agrees with you:
"The settlement follows a nine-month investigation into the marketing of
NationalAccess and BroadbandAccess plans for wireless access to the
internet for laptop computer users. Attorney General's investigation
found that Verizon Wireless prominently marketed these plans as
"Unlimited," without disclosing that common usages such as downloading
movies or playing games online were prohibited. The company also cut off
heavy internet users for exceeding an undisclosed cap of usage per
month. As a result, customers misled by the company's claims, enrolled
in its Unlimited plans, only to have their accounts abruptly terminated
for excessive use, leaving them without internet services and unable to
Ah, but the reality is that you *think* you're paying for something, but the
operator never really intended to deliver it to you.
If anything, we need better full-disclosure, preferably voluntarily, and if
not that way, legislatively required.