3 ms·

In a sane world, there would already be a very clear legal lever for forcing ISPs into peering agreements. You can't sell 50Mbit to a thousand people and then

In a sane world, there would already be a very clear legal lever for forcing ISPs into peering agreements. You can't sell 50Mbit to a thousand people and then only provide a 100Mbit backbone, just as an electrical utility can't sell you a 300A hookup and only wire up 30AWG, or have voltage drop to half when people in your neighborhood happen to turn on their dryer. The ISP world right now is the fucking wild west, selling "up to 50Mbits" only to have 10 arrive (just based on line attenuation!), overselling capacity of shared networks like cable 100 times over causing consistent, measurable and repeatable drop at peak times, modifying network traffic to insert "supercookies" (can you imagine USPS opening all mail) and configuring default DNS servers that hijack NXDOMAIN for malware infected websites to make a quick buck.

mjevans 10y ago
Yes, I agree with this. A major portion of this problem is that /minimum service/ is not specked. Up to is fine; but how much will I get when everyone wants to use it at once? Be honest, tell me a 'safe' number (this means pad it just a little, at least). Violating this number on a repeating, particularly repeatable basis, means that the portion of the bill which is going to pay for infrastructure upkeep (including expansion) needs to go to fixing this problem. Failure to have an expedient plan (parts on order by the end of the next business week, maintenance scheduled 'soon') for resolving this should lead to daily fines.
Kadin 10y ago
I suspect that the electric infrastructure probably is oversubscribed, in the sense that I doubt that everyone on my street could draw 200A each all at the same time and not trip a breaker somewhere upstream. But it's a testament to the way electric utilities are run that we don't notice the oversubscription. If ISPs were run the same way, probably nobody would care, either. It's just that they like to press right up against what customers will bear.

mjevans 10y ago

Yes, I agree with this. A major portion of this problem is that /minimum service/ is not specked. Up to is fine; but how much will I get when everyone wants to use it at once? Be honest, tell me a 'safe' number (this means pad it just a little, at least). Violating this number on a repeating, particularly repeatable basis, means that the portion of the bill which is going to pay for infrastructure upkeep (including expansion) needs to go to fixing this problem. Failure to have an expedient plan (parts on order by the end of the next business week, maintenance scheduled 'soon') for resolving this should lead to daily fines.

Kadin 10y ago

I suspect that the electric infrastructure probably is oversubscribed, in the sense that I doubt that everyone on my street could draw 200A each all at the same time and not trip a breaker somewhere upstream. But it's a testament to the way electric utilities are run that we don't notice the oversubscription. If ISPs were run the same way, probably nobody would care, either. It's just that they like to press right up against what customers will bear.