4 ms·

If anything, customers should be suing ISPs every time they don't get the expected bandwidth. It's the ISP that fails to deliver according to the contract.

by mrpopo 5y ago

dwighttk 5y ago
I bet there is fine print that says they are delivering exactly according to the contract
- xoa 5y ago
  You're certainly right, and the specific term here for what consumers should, but generally don't, have is a "Service Level Agreement" (SLA). This is pretty standard for business links and nearly anything at all at the datacenter level, if you ever subscribe to a whole line at a colo you'll probably see that. SLAs tend to spell out not just maximum sustained bandwidth, but 90/95/97/99%, uptime, what if any burst bandwidth is available, any latency guarantees, etc. All of these are different measures that cost different amounts to hit at any given level, and SLAs spell out exactly what is being paid for in numbers that can be monitored fairly easily. If I could make one simple change to the home broadband market, it would be insisting on a standardized big number consumer level SLA. I certainly don't expect residential rates to cover the same 99.97% or worst case minimum that business class does, that's a major part of what higher end connections are paying for. But whatever they do offer should be transparent, fixed for contract period and measurable. ISPs should by law be required to spell out not just the top line bandwidth level, but also 75%/95% guarantees over a standard time (day/month maybe) and what the worst case guaranteed minimum is. This wouldn't be some big centralized bureaucratic decision about implementations or what numbers have to be hit, but rather merely make sure the market has clear information so customers can compare and ISPs could be held to their promises. Energy Star consumer information might be some guide to layout, but I think something like that would be low hanging fruit. Also to be clear, a distinction can and should be made for intra-network vs inter-network, and both should be accounted for. Obviously an ISP has the most control and is the most responsible for how traffic traverses their own network to their edges, but ISPs do have some responsibility (affected by size/location) for their peering agreements too. If they're purposefully choking that it's on them, though small/remote ISPs may be at a disadvantage in negotiations there which should ideally have some eyes on it.
  - jimmydorry 5y ago
    I absolutely agree, however national or even regional level transparency reports are bullshit. It needs to be at the exchange / node level. The same ISP will have different levels of service between cities and suburbs.
- c12 5y ago
  I wouldn't be surprised. I have a gigabit connection and the contract specifically states that they guarantee a maximum throughput of 400Mbit at peak times.
  - lostcolony 5y ago
    Guaranteeing a maximum doesn't sound like much of a guarantee.
    - david422 5y ago
      "We guarantee our performance will be subpar"
  - kmonsen 5y ago
    It's like the geico commercials: you could save up to x% on your car insurance if you switch to Geico. It says nothing, there are two weasel word exceptions in there.
    - names_are_hard 5y ago
      There's another weasel phrase in there: "Or more" (Switching to Geico could save you 15% _or more_) So it could save you nothing, or it could save you 15%, or even more. Basically we have no idea what it'll save you, if anything.
  - zsmi 5y ago
    Hopefully you mistyped and meant "they guarantee a minimum throughput of 400Mbit at peak times." Otherwise 0Mbit is consistent with the terms of the contract, which is probably exactly what the ISP was going for.
- petre 5y ago
  That and also 'reasonable use' clauses.
vlan0 5y ago
I agree, but there still need to be constraints. For instance, if I have a 1Gb symmetrical connection, it's probably still unreasonable for me to expect 1Gb connecting to my buddy's 1Gb 3k miles away.
- geocar 5y ago
  If you and your buddy use the same ISP, no it is not unreasonable.
  - vlan0 5y ago
    Right, that's likely doable on the same ISP, even 3k miles away. It does highlight a philosophical question I raised in another comment. What exactly are consumers purchasing from last mile ISPs? Is it 1Gb to anywhere on the providers network? 1Gb to the nearest CDN/Internet exchange? I don't think there is a good answer for this. But it's important to think about when we talk about ISPs reaching their hand towards large content providers.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
zakki 5y ago
Usually the contract cover the bandwidth on last mile. The bandwidth for the internet is shared between all customers.
xxs 5y ago
>suing ISPs every time they don't get the expected bandwidt this is beyond flawed, unless you consider all possible bandwidth, not just Netflix being slow. The latter can be entirely an issue on Netflix side.

If anything, customers should be suing ISPs every time they don't get the expected bandwidth. It's the ISP that fails to deliver according to the contract.

by mrpopo 5y ago

If anything, customers should be suing ISPs every time they don't get the expected bandwidth. It's the ISP that fails to deliver according to the contract.

dwighttk 5y ago

I bet there is fine print that says they are delivering exactly according to the contract

xoa 5y ago
You're certainly right, and the specific term here for what consumers should, but generally don't, have is a "Service Level Agreement" (SLA). This is pretty standard for business links and nearly anything at all at the datacenter level, if you ever subscribe to a whole line at a colo you'll probably see that. SLAs tend to spell out not just maximum sustained bandwidth, but 90/95/97/99%, uptime, what if any burst bandwidth is available, any latency guarantees, etc. All of these are different measures that cost different amounts to hit at any given level, and SLAs spell out exactly what is being paid for in numbers that can be monitored fairly easily. If I could make one simple change to the home broadband market, it would be insisting on a standardized big number consumer level SLA. I certainly don't expect residential rates to cover the same 99.97% or worst case minimum that business class does, that's a major part of what higher end connections are paying for. But whatever they do offer should be transparent, fixed for contract period and measurable. ISPs should by law be required to spell out not just the top line bandwidth level, but also 75%/95% guarantees over a standard time (day/month maybe) and what the worst case guaranteed minimum is. This wouldn't be some big centralized bureaucratic decision about implementations or what numbers have to be hit, but rather merely make sure the market has clear information so customers can compare and ISPs could be held to their promises. Energy Star consumer information might be some guide to layout, but I think something like that would be low hanging fruit. Also to be clear, a distinction can and should be made for intra-network vs inter-network, and both should be accounted for. Obviously an ISP has the most control and is the most responsible for how traffic traverses their own network to their edges, but ISPs do have some responsibility (affected by size/location) for their peering agreements too. If they're purposefully choking that it's on them, though small/remote ISPs may be at a disadvantage in negotiations there which should ideally have some eyes on it.
- jimmydorry 5y ago
  I absolutely agree, however national or even regional level transparency reports are bullshit. It needs to be at the exchange / node level. The same ISP will have different levels of service between cities and suburbs.
c12 5y ago
I wouldn't be surprised. I have a gigabit connection and the contract specifically states that they guarantee a maximum throughput of 400Mbit at peak times.
- lostcolony 5y ago
  Guaranteeing a maximum doesn't sound like much of a guarantee.
  - david422 5y ago
    "We guarantee our performance will be subpar"
- kmonsen 5y ago
  It's like the geico commercials: you could save up to x% on your car insurance if you switch to Geico. It says nothing, there are two weasel word exceptions in there.
  - names_are_hard 5y ago
    There's another weasel phrase in there: "Or more" (Switching to Geico could save you 15% _or more_) So it could save you nothing, or it could save you 15%, or even more. Basically we have no idea what it'll save you, if anything.
- zsmi 5y ago
  Hopefully you mistyped and meant "they guarantee a minimum throughput of 400Mbit at peak times." Otherwise 0Mbit is consistent with the terms of the contract, which is probably exactly what the ISP was going for.
petre 5y ago
That and also 'reasonable use' clauses.

vlan0 5y ago

I agree, but there still need to be constraints. For instance, if I have a 1Gb symmetrical connection, it's probably still unreasonable for me to expect 1Gb connecting to my buddy's 1Gb 3k miles away.

geocar 5y ago
If you and your buddy use the same ISP, no it is not unreasonable.
- vlan0 5y ago
  Right, that's likely doable on the same ISP, even 3k miles away. It does highlight a philosophical question I raised in another comment. What exactly are consumers purchasing from last mile ISPs? Is it 1Gb to anywhere on the providers network? 1Gb to the nearest CDN/Internet exchange? I don't think there is a good answer for this. But it's important to think about when we talk about ISPs reaching their hand towards large content providers.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

zakki 5y ago

Usually the contract cover the bandwidth on last mile. The bandwidth for the internet is shared between all customers.

xxs 5y ago

>suing ISPs every time they don't get the expected bandwidt this is beyond flawed, unless you consider all possible bandwidth, not just Netflix being slow. The latter can be entirely an issue on Netflix side.