[e2e] Re: crippled Internet

Jon Crowcroft J.Crowcroft at cs.ucl.ac.uk
Wed Apr 18 08:13:11 PDT 2001

i dont have a problem with ISPs having rulkes based on provisioning
- and i understand the limited nature of the access link for cable
modem nets - but hey, the ISP makes its choices as to access
technology right:-)

the point is that it isn't seling bandidth, its selling non
discrimatory access to other IP access points  and TCP is the basic
sharing rule - if it wants to be in a different business, it can
call itself AOL:-)
In message < at>, RJ Atkinson typed:

 >>At 10:43 18/04/01, Jon Crowcroft wrote:
 >>>(would someone like to start a phone company that allows outgoing
 >>>calls only  -? not much of a business case:-)
 >>        It is well known that the technical limitations of
 >>cable modem networks include the asymmetric bandwidth 
 >>(very limited upstream capacity, relative to downstream) 
 >>and the shared nature of the bandwidth (more like big yellow
 >>Ethernet than the modern switched stuff).
 >>        Neither RR nor @Home actually prevent users from offering
 >>a server/service, provided it doesn't cause such bandwidth
 >>problems that other users sharing the same commons (i.e.
 >>last mile subnet) complain.  This is all about preventing
 >>a tragedy of the commons, nothing more sinister than that.
 >>        I think the service offerings are quite reasonable,
 >>particularly for the quite low monthly cost.  Neither @Home 
 >>nor RoadRunner has griped about my VPN or firewall or 
 >>other 'unusual' services in use over their network.
 >>        Clearly you disagree with me.   Degustibus non
 >>disputantum est. :-)



More information about the end2end-interest mailing list