| two sides two every story I kind of liked the highway analogy, except to make it more accurate that higway would have to be a private road, because in this example the network is owned by the telco involved.
So if it is thier road, shouldn't they be allowed to pass the traffic laws?
If they can't make the revenue they want, what incentive is there for the network provider to keep building?
Could they abuse this power? Certainly, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't have any say on what happens on thier network.
There are ups and downs to both side of the argument.
Certain services are going to need this type of prioritization. VOIP among them. If we shackle network providers into a single tier approach then you can't prioritize any traffic unless someone buys a seperate network |
|
 jubangyPremium
join:2005-03-26
Erie, PA | Would it not be more accurate to say that it is their road and they are running a "toll booth" so to speak. |
|
| reply to logic1977
To use your analogy that would mean the road owners want to charge more for those trucks carrying products they deem as more profitable. It shouldn't matter what you are carrying in your vehicle. You still get more money from said trucks if they are taking up more of your road due to the toll charges everybody pays to be on that road. I don't see any fair reasoning for what the ILEC's want to do. |
|
bi0tech
join:2003-06-19
Cockeysville, MD Reviews:
 ·Comcast
 ·Verizon FiOS
| reply to logic1977
Yes it is a private road that was funded at least in part by the public in the form of hundreds of millions of tax dollars for a service which still hasn't been completed.
Again nobody is saying they won't have control over what goes on "their network", this is about a pretty basic concept that makes the internet work. Services like VOIP may or may not require prioritization depending on how close to capacity they want to run the network at hand. But this does in no way indicate a need to prioritize traffic based on its origination point. Aside from being just an asinine idea, they simply can't guarantee quality service regardless unless they host the entire transit of the packet. So in the end the consumer pays more, to get the same thing in a more disfunctional way, solely to line the pockets of big business.
If they really want this type of concept let them bite the bullet and implement ipv6 end to end and pretend that this country isn't run by special interest prioritizing short term profit over a logical infrastructure. |
|
