Re: I Call Bull$#!+ in http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r15483685 en Thu, 03 Dec 2009 08:34:29 EDT Thu, 03 Dec 2009 08:34:29 EDT Re: I Call Bull$#!+ http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15502282 grandpinaple : Except they won't block Google no matter what. What you should worry about is Google blocking them.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15502282 Fri, 17 Feb 2006 21:33:09 EDT Re: I Call Bull$#!+ http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15496055 mikef1 : Besides thinking it’s a dumb idea I see several things wrong with this two tier crap.
First these broadband providers want yahoo, Google and the like to pay for qos, why? Most of the traffic going over their networks is not traffic to and from Google or yahoo. It is p2p. Sure I might search Google 10 times today, but how much traffic does that involve, 150k? How much bandwidth is the latest screener divx taking up? This first argument doesn’t make sense.
Second, why would anyone think that even with a high qos tier that the service would be any different? We are talking residential customers here. They would actually have SLA’s with residential customers? I don’t think so. The same TOS will be used stating they will try there best, but won’t guarantee a thing. I thought this was part of what the difference between business and residential was anyway.
Third, how would they accomplish this two tier? What technology would they use to make sure top tier is faster than bottom? Packet shaping? If bandwidth is such an issue they should be packet shaping now. Shape the p2p to have lowest priority, seems like it would work to me.
--
mike
HouseOfMike]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15496055 Fri, 17 Feb 2006 01:05:32 EDT Re: I Call Bull$#!+ http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15488809 quetwo : The issue becomes when they do this, and they are the monopoly in town. E.G. Comcast in some of the remote areas around here is the ONLY broadband solution, and damn near the only dialup solution. If they block access to, lets say, Google, the area they serve will be severely hurt, because they have no other broadband connections.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15488809 Thu, 16 Feb 2006 08:32:32 EDT Re: letter to the editor... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15488187 anon : I agree. If the usage patterns of certain users are actually undermining their model, they should just impose a neutral transfer cap to control the extreme use while not imposing on the average user. Then the user can prioritize their own use as they see fit.

This article again betrays that this isn't really about QOS offerings at all. What does bittorrent traffic have to do with QOS. Bittorrent use doesn't need anything beyond best effort. It isn't real time streaming or an application for which QOS makes sense. What the article writer really means is that he wants a service reduction for heavy users. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15488187 Thu, 16 Feb 2006 03:40:44 EDT Re: I Call Bull$#!+ http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15488070 anon : "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 $5 a month". This is still problematic since the company has the motivation to reduce service level of the best effort network to force people to move to the higher service tier and since a company can't control all infrastructure between the game server and customer and therefore can't really follow through on service level commitments. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15488070 Thu, 16 Feb 2006 03:39:05 EDT Re: I Call Bull$#!+ http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15487109 grandpinaple : So someone's games are more important then my voip/p2p/ftp/http/encrypted unknown packets?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15487109 Wed, 15 Feb 2006 23:12:49 EDT Re: I Call Bull$#!+ http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15487096 grandpinaple : Umm they have already had billions of dollars in tax brakes, which they basically stole from the customers. I expect them to deliver or at least confess where the money has gone so the public can pass judgement. The government should never give money to any corporations it just don't work...]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15487096 Wed, 15 Feb 2006 23:10:41 EDT Re: I Call Bull$#!+ http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15486940 Steve :
said by en102 See Profile :

I can only assume that ISP's are doing a poor job of capacity planning, and are attempting to pass the cost of capacity upgrades on their backbone up to the consumer.
Who else should be expected to pay for these upgrades besides the customers?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15486940 Wed, 15 Feb 2006 22:47:12 EDT Re: I Call Bull$#!+ http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15485736 en102 : Well, since I think most of this is somewhat 'fluff' and a lot of this is considered to be some form of tariff or toll.

While I totally disagree that a QOS service should be imposed, I do see that the greed of companies are coming into play.

This can similar to 2 drivers on the freeway, and one paying for a toll highway, and not having to deal with the majority of . In many areas, all highways become 'toll' and there's no advantage.

Another analogy from a more pessimistic approach, its similar to 2 drivers with the same vehicle. Driver A is getting charged more for insurance than driver B for the ability to have on site towing/replacement car available within 30 minutes to keep going with $0 deductible, while driver B can wait up to 4 hours for a tow with no replacement vehicle.

Personally, since this type of scenario doesn't directly apply, its more of an extortion type of issue. I pay for my 1500-3000 kbps with 384/512 kbps connection. While this doesn't really take into consideration backbone to backbone carriers, I don't expect a 64kbps voice connection to have too many issues. I have the many low speed connections open on a constant basis - some for many days at a time.
I could see some potential 'throttling' of connections where users run 5 Mbps connections 24x7 out of their home, and not receiving a full 5 Mbps. No big deal.

I do have a concern where an ISP will charge extra $$$ for a QOS service unless they're running a T1 from point to point, or they have control of the network from endpoint to endpoint. I've had 384kbps frame-relay networks running for years without issue, and never had to worry about being raked for extra $$$ to provide QOS. I can only assume that ISP's are doing a poor job of capacity planning, and are attempting to pass the cost of capacity upgrades on their backbone up to the consumer.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15485736 Wed, 15 Feb 2006 20:06:40 EDT Re: I Call Bull$#!+ http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15484176 cmaenginsb : 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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15484176 Wed, 15 Feb 2006 16:37:09 EDT Re: letter to the editor... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15484107 calvoiper : These analogies are all flawed.

While ISPs have generally priced by bandwidth alone, resulting in "all you can shovel" usage, their costs do vary somewhat by usage.

Shared facilities (particularly major connections to Internet backbone networks) are maintained at a level lower than what would be necessary for 100% "full-blown" usage. Vastly increased usage, whether it's caused by file-sharing, VoIP, or gaming, does carry the likelihood of increased costs to the ISPs, even if bandwidth offerings to particular end-users aren't broadened.

These increased costs have to be passed along somewhere. I'd just rather see it happen directly, where I (and other end users) get to choose what gets prioritized and what I don't care about, than indirectly, where those choices are made under the table by ISPs and content providers in a back room.

calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15484107 Wed, 15 Feb 2006 16:30:01 EDT Re: I Call Bull$#!+ http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15484080 Dezbend : I think that the point is valid in some industries. I recently got my hair cut - the price was $12 or $15 for long hair. Same service different price for "heavier" users.
Or Walmart that sells shirts that are $2 extra for X sizes...

The practice does exist, that can not be denied. Aught it be used by ISPs? that is the debatable question.
--
If it is not recorded, it simply does not exist.

--------------edit--------------

My analogy is flawed. They are not talking about charging the end user more (even though it ultimately will cost us more). If it is the hair saloon then it would be charging a flat rate to the customers and charging the hair care product companies to prominently display their product. Does this happen?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15484080 Wed, 15 Feb 2006 16:26:16 EDT Re: letter to the editor... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15484037 footballdude :
said by King P See Profile :

The simple fact of the matter is that the gas station doesn't charge extra for unleaded gasoline because you want to speed on the interstate, so why should we pay for "premium" services when the providers of those services have already PAID for their internet connection, and we have already paid our provider for our connection.
Actually, when you speed you use gas faster and less efficiently, thereby spending more on gas in the long run. Yes, I am a smart-ass.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15484037 Wed, 15 Feb 2006 16:21:26 EDT Re: I Call Bull$#!+ http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15483857 amungus : It isn't. "premier" internet service, or "business" grade connections??

Would these not constitute a level of "quality" in terms of advertised speeds/reliability (T1's etc.)???
Just like your examples, you can get the el-cheapo dial up (cheap drugs) or the DSL (mid grade dinner.). From there you can get standard cable (Honda Accord). Premium cable might be the call girl, and a dedicated connection, (T1 etc.) a kick butt sports team that never lets you down.

I'm lost. Of course the internet isn't "immune" from these things. It's a "best effort" system, and has been since the beginning.
I may not know all there is to know about networking, but it just seems like there haven't been to many positive technical explanations about any of this.
I'd really enjoy reading about the details, if anyone knows any.
So far, it seems they care more about money, than for a technical arguement.
Show me the technical methods/reasons for any of it first. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15483857 Wed, 15 Feb 2006 15:56:40 EDT Re: I Call Bull$#!+ http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15483844 dispatcher21 : Hmmmm.....I can kinda see what your talking about....more research needed on my part I think.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15483844 Wed, 15 Feb 2006 15:54:27 EDT Re: I Call Bull$#!+ http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15483841 calvoiper : Steve,

Quality levels are fine, when the consumer is choosing the level and paying for his choice.

Of the categories you mentioned, all of them fall into this category EXCEPT drugs, if you are talking about prescription drugs in a health care plan. There you have the problem the whining baby bells want to create here. While you and your physician would like to make the choice of which cholesterol, blood pressure or diabetes drug is best for you, often that choice is severely limited or outright forced by your insurance company or HMO.

If we go with the bells' "third party payor" system here, we'll get a fouled up Internet comparable to our current health care & drug benefit system.

calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15483841 Wed, 15 Feb 2006 15:54:11 EDT Re: I Call Bull$#!+ http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15483821 phantom6294 : The main problem is not the existence of different tiers or QoS but THE EFFECT it has on everything else.

In general, if I decide to eat at some fancy uber-expensive restaurant, is your ability to go to McDonald's and eat a hamburger in any way affected? Probably not.

In general, if I buy/build a million dollar house, is your ability to build a $100,000 house in any way affected? Probably not.

In general, if I buy a $500,000 sports car and drive it on the highway, is your ability you buy a $8,000 Kia and drive it on the highway in any way affected? Probably not.

In general, if I pay to have my packets prioritized, is your ability to receive non-prioritized packets affected? MOST LIKELY SO.

That is what most people take issue with.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15483821 Wed, 15 Feb 2006 15:51:33 EDT Re: I Call Bull$#!+ http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15483804 dispatcher21 : There are quality levels for those things but for the same item, we still pay the same. You want a Big Mac like mine? Your gonna pay the same. Want a Yukon like mine, you'll pay the same. Internet like mine, youll pay the same. Now, if you want a better burger, a better Yukon or better internet, you can pay more. But that is why ISP's have tiered levels of service. If you want better, you can pay more, but dont put the extra cost on everyone when its you (not personally here, just general statement) want the "better" service. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15483804 Wed, 15 Feb 2006 15:49:58 EDT Re: letter to the editor... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15483776 Shark_615 : The gas station doesn't but the Police will charge if you speed... So how does that analogy synch with what you are trying to prove?

Are you saying we should have internet cops to stop people from going over the predetermined bandwidth limit?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15483776 Wed, 15 Feb 2006 15:46:39 EDT Re: I Call Bull$#!+ http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15483685 Steve :
said by pnh102 See Profile :

Anyone who thinks this is perfectly free to cancel said Internet service. This way, he/she won't be paying the same amount of money as the other user.
Why is it that there are quality levels in every other area of life - food, cars, houses, call girls, drugs, sports teams - but internet access must somehow be immune from those market realities?
--
Stephen J. Friedl • Unix Wizard • Microsoft Security MVP • Tustin, California USA • my web site]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15483685 Wed, 15 Feb 2006 15:36:13 EDT letter to the editor... http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15483647 King P :
said by pnh102 See Profile :

quote:
The network owners counter that some Skype Technologies users use a VOIP connection to monitor their children at home, leaving call sessions open for hours or days on end.

I got a bit of a laugh out of this passage of the article. Anyway... so what if people do this? Aren't we paying for the Internet connection which enables to do this?

I say any ISP that wants to implement this sort of thing should go ahead and do it immediately. Go ahead and block access for Google, Skype, online gaming and any other online content provider which refuses to pay up. Do it right now so that you can quickly fall by the wayside.

quote:
I, for one, don’t want to pay the same amount of money for bandwidth while a 15-year old neighbor spends all day sucking most of it up with his limitless, gray-market BitTorrent downloads.

Anyone who thinks this is perfectly free to cancel said Internet service. This way, he/she won't be paying the same amount of money as the other user.
Amen!!!!

If this guy doesn't like the fact that his 15 year old neighbor is "sucking" all his bandwidth away, then he should find a different provider. Does he even know how the internet works or does this guy know anything about BitTorrent?

The simple fact of the matter is that the gas station doesn't charge extra for unleaded gasoline because you want to speed on the interstate, so why should we pay for "premium" services when the providers of those services have already PAID for their internet connection, and we have already paid our provider for our connection.

This guy (LR Editor) needs to get over it and move on with his life. As a content provider myself, I don't expect any customer to have to pay extra to download free music from my music store, because I ALREADY paid for my connection to provide that music to them.

This practice (of QoS tariffs) is not fair to the consumers, or the content providers...period.
--
Forget 'em, Support the Indies.
»www.ind-music.com]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15483647 Wed, 15 Feb 2006 15:31:27 EDT I Call Bull$#!+ http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15483517 pnh102 :
quote:
The network owners counter that some Skype Technologies users use a VOIP connection to monitor their children at home, leaving call sessions open for hours or days on end.

I got a bit of a laugh out of this passage of the article. Anyway... so what if people do this? Aren't we paying for the Internet connection which enables to do this?

I say any ISP that wants to implement this sort of thing should go ahead and do it immediately. Go ahead and block access for Google, Skype, online gaming and any other online content provider which refuses to pay up. Do it right now so that you can quickly fall by the wayside.

quote:
I, for one, don’t want to pay the same amount of money for bandwidth while a 15-year old neighbor spends all day sucking most of it up with his limitless, gray-market BitTorrent downloads.

Anyone who thinks this is perfectly free to cancel said Internet service. This way, he/she won't be paying the same amount of money as the other user.
--
Rove / Rumsfeld 2008!]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,15483517 Wed, 15 Feb 2006 15:15:04 EDT