4 ms·
I think there's a valid argument for them to step in here. This is an issue of customers not being able to use what they purchased, eg The Internet. The water
by click170 12y ago
I think there's a valid argument for them to step in here.
This is an issue of customers not being able to use what they purchased, eg The Internet.
The water was arguably muddy when they were advertising "Speeds up to X", but now when their own infrastructure is incapable of providing what they're selling and they are fully aware of this, they no longer have a leg (or argument) to stand on.
- blasteye 12y agoI dont see how they can get in trouble for not providing their advertised speeds so long as the speed degradation only occurs outside of their direct network.
- click170 12y agoAre you choosing to ignore the fact that Level3 has offered to pay for the equipment and labor to upgrade their peering point and the ISP has refused, or are you choosing to imagine that the peering point is outside of that ISP's "direct network"? Either way you cut it, the ISP is in the wrong. The peering point is 100% within their control, and Level3 has gone above and beyond to try to ease congestion, the ISP has outright refused. How on earth can you side with the ISP on this - do you work for one?