how-to block ads
|
Comments on news posted 2006-01-10 17:09:15: "We’re not going to block our customers from accessing any content from their broadband or DSL connection,” says AT&T CFO Rick Lindner at a Citigroup conference (see Webcast, via IP Democracy). ..
| |
 acyd
join:2005-06-01
Eatontown, NJ
| Re: Somehow.. it's beneficial for google in that scenario because they would still be in business - anyone who didn't pay would get 'best effort delivery' - meaning prioritized way way below anything that ISP or Telco is selling. Deprioritze it enough and it becomes unusable. Ask anyone who had to quit a voip provder because their ISP sucked ass, and wouldn't do anything about packet loss, dial up speeds, shoddy installation, or outdated Docsis 1.0 modems in subscriber's homes.
PS this is a very simple task to do in a number of ways, you can traffic shape based on device's mac addresses, destination or source IP, etc etc | |
| | 
AndyWarhol
Premium
join:2004-03-14
Broken Arrow, OK
clubs:
| Re: Somehow.. Yeah, I know that it is easy to shape/prioritize traffic (refer to my previous posts, and I do this everyday) but prioritization should not be a pay service, it should only be used as necessity. Voice/video must be high priority because of the QOS requirements inherent in their operation, spam should be at the bottom of the list and web should be located somewhere in the middle of the priority list with email just below it. | |
| WMLGuy
join:2000-06-05
Rockaway, NJ | The Little Guy What about the little guy who has a website they can barely afford and now is faced with slower access for his customers? This is only going to place a bigger gap between the smaller companies and the big corporations. | |
| Roop
join:2003-11-15
Ottawa, ON
 ·Cybersurf Corporat..
| something we should consider let's say this deal goes through and google pays at&t for prioritized bandwidth. is at&t going throw more bandwidth buy adding more fiber and using faster/more routers to balance the load?
i don't think so.
would at&t be more likley to de-prioritize all non-paying providers and reap the benifits? this sounds more likley.
remember, the simplest explanantion being the right one, we have a lot to be concerned about. when we start saying that one backbone provider has more control over it's content, we start moving away from a free internet and into an american internet.
well, if it does happen, we can call it "america online". | |
| 
gwion
wild colonial boy
Premium,ExMod 2001-08
join:2000-12-28
Pittsburgh, PA | Today's word is... ... "extortion". Can we all say "extortion"? | |
| anon2k2
join:2004-04-17
University Place, WA
| Another reason for publicly owned infrastructure Publicly owned lines, with licensed operators who manage layer 2 & 3. If they try this "differential cost" bull dookey then the public agency goes and gets a different operator.
It worked for my region with electricity. I pay 2.5 cents a kilowatt for power, and if I disagree with a price increase, I can vote out the commissioners who OK'ed the increase. | |
| | | |
|
