Many players make up application performance (was Re: Richard Bennett, NANOG posting, and Integrity)

["McElearney, Kevin" <Kevin_McElearney () cable comcast com>]

On 7/28/14, 5:35 PM, "Jim Richardson" <weaselkeeper () gmail com> wrote:

> I pay for (x) bits/sec up/down. From/to any eyecandysource.  If said
> eyecandy origination can't handle the traffic, then I see a slowdown,
> that's life.  But if <$IP_PROVIDER> throttles it specifically, rather
> than throttling me to (x),I consider that fraud.
>
> I didn't pay for (x) bits/sec from some whitelist of sources only.

Along with paying <$IP_PROVIDER> for (x) bits/sec up/down, you are also
paying (or the product of advertising) eyecandysource to deliver a service
(w/ a level of quality).  <$IP_PROVIDER> plays a big role in delivering
your *overall* Internet experience, but eyecandysource plays an even
bigger role delivering your *specific* eyecandy experience.  If
eyecandystore has internal challenges, business negotiation/policy
objectives, or uses poor adaptive routing path decisions, this has a
direct and material impact to your *specific* eyecandy experience (and
some have found fixable by hiding your source IP with a VPN).

While ISPs do play a big role in this, people tend to miss eyecandystore
decisions (and business drivers) as a potential factors in isolated
application performance issues.