cmaenginsb
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-19
Palmdale, CA
| reply to Steve
Re: I Call Bull$#!+
The problem is, who should be paying for the different quality levels? In every one of the examples the consumer pays more not the person providing the service. Those costs are passed to the consumer directly.
There currently are tiered levels of service in terms of speeds. The provider should extend this to service levels based on QOS. If you want the ability to play games then you get the "gamers" package for another $5 a month.
--
CCNA, Comtrain Certified Tower Climber |
|
grandpinaple
join:2006-01-03
New York, NY | So someone's games are more important then my voip/p2p/ftp/http/encrypted unknown packets? |
|
asdfdfdf
@xtraport.net
| reply to cmaenginsb
"If you want the ability to play games then you get the "gamers" package for another $5 a month.
--"
If one has to pay extra to have the "ability to play games" that is unacceptable and an attempt to charge by application and not communications service level. This also can't be seen as a service offering. It is simply a service reduction and a new imposed restriction.
This is different from saying "If you are not presently happy with the best effort service level in your game playing and are willing to choose the option of buying a higher service level commitment, you should pay another $5 a month". This is still problematic since the company has the motivation to reduce service level of the best effort network to force people to move to the higher service tier and since a company can't control all infrastructure between the game server and customer and therefore can't really follow through on service level commitments. |
|
