Joe Greco wrote:
> I have no idea what the networking equivalent of thirty-seven half-eaten
> bags of Cheetos is, can't even begin to imagine what the virtual equivalent
> of my couch is, etc. Your metaphor doesn't really make any sense to me,
> sorry.There isn't one. The "fat man" metaphor was getting increasingly silly,
I just wanted to get it over with.
Actually, it was doing pretty well up 'til near the end. Most of the
amusing stuff was [off-list.] The interesting conclusion to it was that
obesity is a growing problem in the US, and that the economics of an AYCE
buffet are changing - mostly for the owner.
> Interestingly enough, we do have a pizza-and-play place a mile or two
> from the house, you pay one fee to get in, then quarters (or cards or
> whatever) to play games - but they have repeatedly answered that they
> are absolutely and positively fine with you coming in for lunch, and
> staying through supper. And we have a "discount" card, which they used
> to give out to local businesspeople for "business lunches", on top of it.That's not the best metaphor either, because they're making money off
the games, not the buffet. (Seriously, visit one of 'em, the food isn't
very good, and clearly isn't the real draw.)
True for Chuck E Cheese, but not universally so. I really doubt that
Stonefire is expecting the people who they give their $5.95 business
lunch card to to go play games. Their pizza used to taste like cardboard
(bland), but they're much better now. The facility as a whole is designed
to address the family, and adults can go get some Asian or Italian pasta,
go to the sports theme area that plays ESPN, and only tangentially notice
the game area on the way out. The toddler play areas (<8yr) are even free.
This is falling fairly far from topicality for NANOG, but there is a
certain aspect here which is exceedingly relevant - that businesses
continue to change and innovate in order to meet customer demand.
I suppose you could market
Internet connectivity this way - unlimited access to HTTP and POP3, and
ten free SMTP transactions per month, then you pay extra for each
protocol. That'd be an awfully tough sell, though.
Possibly. 
>> As long as you fairly disclose to your end-users what limitations and
>> restrictions exist on your network, I don't see the problem.
>
> You've set out a qualification that generally doesn't exist.I can only speak for my network, of course. Mine is a small WISP, and we
have the same basic policy as Amplex, from whence this thread
originated. Our contracts have relatively clear and large (at least by
the standards of a contract) "no p2p" disclaimers, in addition to the
standard "no traffic that causes network problems" clause that many of
us have. The installers are trained to explicitly mention this, along
with other no-brainer clauses like "don't spam."
Actually, that's a difference, that wasn't what Mark@Amplex was talking
about. Amplex web site said they would rate limit you down to the minimum
promised rate. That's disclosed, which would be fine, except that it
apparently isn't what they are looking to do, because their oversubscription
rate is still too high to deliver on their promises.
When we're setting up software on their computers (like their email
client), we'll look for obvious signs of trouble ahead. If a customer
already has a bunch of p2p software installed, we'll let them know they
can't use it, under pain of "find a new ISP."We don't tell our customers they can have unlimited access to do
whatever the heck they want. The technical distinctions only matter to a
few customers, and they're generally the problem customers that we don't
want anyway.
There is certainly some truth to that. Getting rid of the unprofitable
customers is one way to keep things good. However, you may find yourself
getting rid of some customers who merely want to make sure that their ISP
isn't going to interfere at some future date.
To try to make this slightly more relevant, is it a good idea, either
technically or legally, to mandate some sort of standard for this? I'm
thinking something like the "Nutrition Facts" information that appears
on most packaged foods in the States, that ISPs put on their Web sites
and advertisements. I'm willing to disclose that we block certain ports
for our end-users unless they request otherwise, and that we rate-limit
certain types of traffic.
ABSOLUTELY. We would certainly seem more responsible, as providers,
if we disclosed what we were providing.
I can see this sort of thing getting confusing
and messy for everyone, with little or no benefit to anyone. Thoughts?
It certainly can get confusing and messy.
It's a little annoying to help someone go shopping for broadband and then
have to dig out the dirty details in the T&C, if they're even there.
In a similar way, I get highly annoyed at hotels that offer "free
Internet," and then it turns out that they only offer 802.11b in the lobby,
and you need MSIE to go through their portal system, and there's a maximum
session life of 300s for all proxied connections, which makes the life of
a UNIX guy who's simply looking to do SSH a bit of hell. Admittedly, it
has gotten somewhat better in recent years.
... JG