 VarlikWithout Honor You Will Never Be FreePremium
join:2002-01-06
Anderson, SC
3 edits | reply to tsu9
Re: Sucking up.... The bigger question is how many companies will be able to afford the higher QOS tier. And how many consumers will be able and willing to take the hit to they're wallet when costs get passed on to them.
As for your question think about it what does a QOS consist of? What's it's definitions and what are the standards for meeting them. That can be easily answered by asking this question. Who determines what the companies QOS standards and requirements are? Federal, State and local government have some say. But guess who has the biggest? Hint, it ain't you or me.
--
"Sir SIR! We don't use DHCP servers. We only use IBM & Microsoft servers." From there my call to tech support went steadily downhill. |
|
 tsu9
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL | Well, the bigger question I had was, if everybody uses the QOS service, is it still QOS? |
|
|
|
RadioDoc58ef2c0Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
1 edit | reply to Varlik
said by Varlik:The bigger question is how many companies will be able to afford the higher QOS tier. And how many consumers will be able and willing to take the hit to they're wallet when costs get passed on to them. Question for you then: How much extra do you think cable companies charge for HD content? Is $10/mo or more extra for a HD STB too much of a "hit to they're [sic] wallet"? Would you pay that same $10/mo extra to get a QoS'd IPTV HD stream path from your ISP?
The cable companies are perfectly content to hold HD hostage for higher fees. Without getting into the silly ideological or political debate (which is as sensible as debating religion at this point) what would you be willing to pay?
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
| reply to Varlik
Re: Sucking up.... said by Varlik:The bigger question is how many companies will be able to afford the higher QOS tier. And how many consumers will be able and willing to take the hit to they're wallet when costs get passed on to them. My guess is that fees will go up anyway and we will all (both consumers and Google) have to pay for these supposed upgrades if the incumbents get their way. |
|
VarlikWithout Honor You Will Never Be FreePremium
join:2002-01-06
Anderson, SC
1 edit | reply to RadioDoc
said by RadioDoc:Question for you then: How much extra do you think cable companies charge for HD content? Is $10/mo or more extra for a HD STB too much of a "hit to they're [sic] wallet"? Would you pay that same $10/mo extra to get a QoS'd IPTV HD stream path from your ISP? The cable companies are perfectly content to hold HD hostage for higher fees. Without getting into the silly ideological or political debate (which is as sensible as debating religion at this point) what would you be willing to pay? I'd be willing to pay the price the cable company wants. Because in the long run it will be cheaper IMO. It's my affirm belief that many of the companies providing HSI long to make it per the byte for the consumer.
And charge companies more for their connection and bandwidth via the two tiered system to ensure QOS. Companies who buy into the HSI providers system will just pass those fees onto all their consumers. If I support HDnet I end up supporting the two tiered system.
I do agree with you on the hostage part by the cable companies though. But I suspect this will change suddenly in a few years.
--
"Sir SIR! We don't use DHCP servers. We only use IBM & Microsoft servers." From there my call to tech support went steadily downhill. |
|
 JigsawStardust We ArePremium
join:2000-10-21
Cleveland, OH | reply to tsu9
said by tsu9:Well, the bigger question I had was, if everybody uses the QOS service, is it still QOS? I sort of see what your saying if everyone uses it then in essence the lines will be the same as when they dint have it.Sort of like the Fastpass at amusement parks there fast till everyone uses it then your still waiting in line.
--
»www.auralmoon.com/html/ Stimulating ears for 6 years |
|
tsu9
join:2001-08-17
Wheeling, IL | Yep. It starts becoming less "hQOS" (high-tier QOS) and more "lQOS" (lower-tier QOS), which is effectively a downgrade. |
|
 DryvlyneFar Beyond DrivenPremium
join:2004-08-30
Newark, OH | reply to Varlik
Good point about companies longing to charge consumers on a per byte basis. I can see Internet access being metered in the future just like water, gas and electric. If consumer A spends 1,000 hours online in one month then his/her bill will be proportionate to that amount of usage. Unfortunately, I imagine this kind of situation would be utopian for cableco and telco ISPs, I just hope I don't see it in my lifetime. |
|
VarlikWithout Honor You Will Never Be FreePremium
join:2002-01-06
Anderson, SC | reply to tsu9
said by tsu9:Yep. It starts becoming less "hQOS" (high-tier QOS) and more "lQOS" (lower-tier QOS), which is effectively a downgrade. I can agree with that and who will ultimately bear the costs the end consumer. And many businesses who don't buy in whether because of price point or principle will be financially hurt maybe even forced to close.
--
"Sir SIR! We don't use DHCP servers. We only use IBM & Microsoft servers." From there my call to tech support went steadily downhill. |
|
 csspaa
join:2004-12-08
Belleville, MI | reply to tsu9
Another question would be why don’t they sell cheaper lower tiers with less bandwidth. Instead of implementing QoS. That way the people that wanted less bandwidth could get it. Therefore freeing up more bandwidth on the pipe. My Grandmother is not going to watching IPTV anytime soon. I for one am not media intense surfer. I don’t use P2P or watch videos on a regular basis. I check my email, myspace, bank account and a couple a boards. I don’t want to be sent to the end of line because someone else wants to make a Voip call, I pay the same amount as they do.
First in first out, it can be done. |
|
