Re: [httpstreaming] [conex] [dispatch] Q-HTTP

["Mike Hammer (hmmr)" <[e-mail]>]

Mikael,

So, you are assuming that the alternative provider is not subject to the
same economic constraints as the provider you are jumping from?  If that
were such an easy thing to do, you would see many more players on the
field, and fewer commentators in the stands.

Agree, that the core should not be getting congested, but this problem
gets worse progressively as you approach the customer edge.  And the
costs to overprovision the edge go up correspondingly.  The last mile is
the most expensive.

Mike


-----Original Message-----
From: Mikael Abrahamsson [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 5:08 PM
To: Mike Hammer (hmmr)
Cc: David Singer; [e-mail]; Kathy McEwen; httpstreaming;
[e-mail]; Ingemar Johansson S; Mark Watson; GARCIA ARANDA,
JOSEJAVIER (JOSE JAVIER)
Subject: Re: [conex] [dispatch] [httpstreaming] Q-HTTP

On Wed, 10 Nov 2010, Mike Hammer (hmmr) wrote:

> 3) The people that build and operate the networks will double 
> (quadruple?) their investments for no additional return out of the 
> goodness of their hearts.

No, they're going to do it because if they don't give the customers what

they promised, their customers are going to leave. This is if there is a

functional market and customers actually have a choice of providers. I 
realise this is not the case in parts of the world, but that doesn't
mean 
we should solve that by technical means, that's a political and
regulatory 
problem, it doesn't have any technical solution.

Let's not forget that if you're congesting your core and distribution, 
you're not delivering what your customers have purchased. Period.

Everything else is just smoke and mirrors.

Congestion is acceptable on the customer access, it's not acceptable in 
the core. That means that any flows/pakets that should yield, are within
a 
single customer domain, and thus in the customers own interest.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: [e-mail]