Home page logo
/

nanog logo nanog mailing list archives

Re: decreased caching efficiency?
From: Christian Kuhtz <ck () arch bellsouth net>
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2000 11:45:17 -0400



A couple more points..

On Fri, Oct 20, 2000 at 11:31:29AM -0400, Christian Kuhtz wrote:
And why is that wrong since they're paying for it?  ISPs are not common
carriers.

One more point, even a common carrier can offer a service to its subscribers
to block certain content upon their request (various number blocking services, 
such as BellSouth's PrivacyDirector which sends blocked/undelivered caller #/id
to an IVR to identify themselves, after which the customer gets prompted 
whether to accept the call.)  Perfectly legal.  And I suspect you'll see lots 
more of them as customers ask for them.

In fact, this whole debate reminds me of when spam first came around.  And
some customers are most definitely willing to financially recognize it if you
reduce the email spam they got.

Personally, banner ads are just that: spam. But that's beside the point.

Woah.  Where again did it *guarantee* delivery or a specific SLA?  Do you
also want to have the terms under which rerouting happens in a SPs network
in the customer contract? I think not.
  
Hmm, ISPs live by oversubscribing their service.  Phone companies do, too.
So, something has to give.

-- 
Christian Kuhtz                                     Architecture, BellSouth.net
<ck () arch bellsouth net> -wk, <ck () gnu org> -hm                       Atlanta, GA
                                                    "Speaking for myself only."



  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]
AlienVault