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_mcelear...@cable.comcast.com> wrote: > > > On 7/28/14, 5:35 PM, "Jim Richardson" <weaselkee...@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. > >