 Mactronel Camino RealPremium
join:2001-12-16
CM94sv
1 edit | I buy a pipe... I buy a pipe that I expect will go anywhere, anytime as fast as it and the source(s) will go. Major (un-named here) ISPs have said they plan on limiting that because the the source(s) didn't pay the "Toll". Looks like "The Harm" will soon be on it's way.  
--
If only the Verizon CSRs worked this well.  |
|
| You have spent entirely too much time focusing on this quote:
said by Ed Whitacre said: :
Now what they would like to do is use my pipes free, but I ain't going to let them do that
1)He's retired
2)No mention of tolls.
3)He's an idiot. Not an evil mastermind.
4)They'll never enact a "Toll" system |
|
Mactronel Camino RealPremium
join:2001-12-16
CM94sv | Fairy Tales Can Come True. It can happen to you. |
|
bmn? ? ?Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
1 edit | reply to Yauch
Ed might be gone, but you can bet that his idea is still getting serious consideration in ATT's upper management.
Seriously, they have found a way to make money without having to doing anything to earn it, by extorting it... You think they will pass up an easy revenue stream ?
edit - typo correction
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. |
|
RJ44
join:2001-10-19
Nashville, TN | said by bmn:Seriously, they have found a way to make money without having to doing anything to earn it, by extorting it... You think they will pass up an easy revenue stream ? edit - typo correction Please elaborate for those of us a bit slow on the uptake. Extortion? How, exactly? |
|
bmn? ? ?Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus | said by RJ44:said by bmn:Seriously, they have found a way to make money without having to doing anything to earn it, by extorting it... You think they will pass up an easy revenue stream ? edit - typo correction Please elaborate for those of us a bit slow on the uptake. Extortion? How, exactly? The whole concept of creating a system whereby you will allow some websites or services to perform slower or more poorly than others... Either pay up or the services you offer will be degraded.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. |
|
Time4aNAPPremium
join:2007-04-09
Des Plaines, IL | reply to Yauch
Ask Not for Whom the Tolls Bail "Toll" is probably a bad word to use, since it implies things that aren't applicable here. Certainly nobody is going to institute an omnibus "no Internet for you" toll that denies them backbone access...wait, that's exactly how it works for the lower tier ISPs. Bad example. They couldn't get away with charging different rates for different data rates...no, that is indeed what ISPs do, whether you're a home user or colocated in the same building as a major peering facility. So never mind that one as well. . ...
Hmmm, what is all the hubbub about, then? It seems like the Tier 1 ISPs are proposing to do the same thing that everybody else has been doing all along. What's the big deal about that?
Well...I suppose that it could be a double-edged sword. A competitor could pay your upstream provider to starve you of bandwidth. Of course you'd be able to monitor that, and threaten to sue, and people could go to prison for things like that, so it's not very likely. I guess that when you get right down to it, it could be a top-down way to implement much-needed QoS protocols on the Internet. Yes, the corporate giants would be able to buy the fastest access, but aren't they doing that already, by physical diversity and BGP?
For services like streaming media and VoIP to become mature and reliable enough to replace their channelized forebearers, some sort of QoS needs to be implemented. And if it cost the same no matter what QoS level you chose, everyone would pick the highest priority, and the system would fail to accomplish anything. When's the last time you used `nice' (or Windows' "START") to voluntarily lower your priority on a multiuser system?
Yes, it means that it will cost more to make VoIP calls, and to send real-time media streams. But the upside is that your VoIP phone will sound no different than an ILEC-connected phone (and still save you money), and webcasters will be able to boast rock-steady streaming, just like their broadcasting cousins, but without the possibility of RF interference. That's worth paying extra for, isn't it?
The only possible downside that I can imagine at the moment would be related to expansion and consolidation. Without some form of regulation, backbone providers will have a financial incentive to add capacity only to its higher-priority, higher-revenue lines. Even worse, they could shut down the less-traveled paths that are essential for the lowest priority traffic, and for the continued robustness of the Internet as a whole. So somewhere in all of this, a "must carry" rule that links the privilege of charging for QoS with the community responsibility to deliver all packets that come their way.
If the phrase "must carry" has a familiar ring to it, it's because similar situations have arisen on other kinds of networks. It's old-hat for the FCC. It can be done in a fair and equitable way. After all, when NSFNet went away in 1995, who noticed? |
|
RJ44
join:2001-10-19
Nashville, TN | reply to bmn
Re: I buy a pipe... said by bmn:said by RJ44:said by bmn:Seriously, they have found a way to make money without having to doing anything to earn it, by extorting it... You think they will pass up an easy revenue stream ? edit - typo correction Please elaborate for those of us a bit slow on the uptake. Extortion? How, exactly? The whole concept of creating a system whereby you will allow some websites or services to perform slower or more poorly than others... Either pay up or the services you offer will be degraded. Ah, that. The way I understood it, they were planning to create a system whereby those desiring a higher grade of QoS could pay extra for it if they wished.
Somehow, those two concepts don't exactly sound the same in black and white do they? Isn't perspective a wonderful thing?  |
|
Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA | reply to Time4aNAP
Re: Ask Not for Whom the Tolls Bail Well, net-neutrality isn't (or shouldn't be) about dis-allowing QoS. It's about telling those with government provided monopolies that they can't prioritize their own services to the detriment of their competitors. (which is kind of what you said, but in the extreme)
So they can offer VOIP QoS and mutli-media QoS for a fee. They just have to offer it to everybody. No extra special VOIP for their service, and everyone else's VOIP uses that QoS that every 5 seconds is de-prioritized for a half second to below best delivery data.
The government provides the regional wireline monopolies through restricted ROW space (by necessity, I/we don't want 10,000 networks strung on our poles), so they have a responsibility to make sure that the service arms of the network maintenance owners are playing on an even playing field with those firms that the government prevents from competing in the wireline network business. Otherwise it's really just another tax, because we won't have a choice. |
|
bmn? ? ?Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus | reply to RJ44
Re: I buy a pipe... said by RJ44:Ah, that. The way I understood it, they were planning to create a system whereby those desiring a higher grade of QoS could pay extra for it if they wished. When you raise the QoS level of one traffic flow, you negatively impact the performance of another traffic flow.
So by raising the priority of one flow, you make another flow perform poorly meaning when website A pays for better performance, website B will suffer a performance hit because they didn't pay up.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. |
|
RJ44
join:2001-10-19
Nashville, TN | said by bmn:When you raise the QoS level of one traffic flow, you negatively impact the performance of another traffic flow. So by raising the priority of one flow, you make another flow perform poorly meaning when website A pays for better performance, website B will suffer a performance hit because they didn't pay up. I don't believe you're thinking this all the way through. Your statements are true if and only if there is congestion present on the network. You seem to believe that offering something better than "best effort" classes of service means they will allow "best effort" to go to hell in a handbasket. I tend to believe that won't happen because if it did, they'd be shooting themselves in the foot and end up losing more money than they're trying to make.
That attitude is very similar to believing that FedEx ground sevice started taking longer once they began offering overnight. I'm sure it would have, had FedEx not increased their resources enough to cover it. But that's exactly what they did. |
|
bmn? ? ?Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus | said by RJ44:I don't believe you're thinking this all the way through. Your statements are true if and only if there is congestion present on the network. Actually, QoS ONLY takes affect during congestion, when routers have to make a decision between packet A and packet B. If there is no congestion, QoS has no effect because the routers and switches will forward packets at wire speed.
The funny thing is, if company A is going to buy QoS service, it would require the company they are buying it from, say Bob's Internet, to admit that his network is overloaded.
The impact of QoS on an uncongested network is absolutely minuscule.
Which raises the issue... If the providers are pushing for QoS so hard, how overutilized are their networks that they are willing to go through the effort of deploying such a harebrained scheme to make cash instead of investing in more capacity?
You seem to believe that offering something better than "best effort" classes of service means they will allow "best effort" to go to hell in a handbasket. I tend to believe that won't happen because if it did, they'd be shooting themselves in the foot and end up losing more money than they're trying to make.
That attitude is very similar to believing that FedEx ground sevice started taking longer once they began offering overnight. I'm sure it would have, had FedEx not increased their resources enough to cover it. But that's exactly what they did. See, the problem with the FedEx analogy is that FedEx's overnight delivery operation flows through a different set of drivers, vehicles, sorters, scanners, etc. By FedEx offering overnight service in such a manner, there is no way that their ground service would be impacted because they have separated it out.
A better analogy would be where overnight and ground packages are all delivered via the same driver on a busy route that can only be run by one driver, once per day (analogous to a fixed bandwidth pipe). You would have a situation in which ground packages would constantly get bumped off of trucks for packages that are being shipped at faster speeds because they HAVE to get their on time.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. |
|
RJ44
join:2001-10-19
Nashville, TN | said by bmn:said by RJ44:I don't believe you're thinking this all the way through. Your statements are true if and only if there is congestion present on the network. Actually, QoS ONLY takes affect during congestion, when routers have to make a decision between packet A and packet B. If there is no congestion, QoS has no effect because the routers and switches will forward packets at wire speed. That's exactly what I said. |
|
|
|
bmn? ? ?Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus | said by RJ44:said by bmn:said by RJ44:I don't believe you're thinking this all the way through. Your statements are true if and only if there is congestion present on the network. Actually, QoS ONLY takes affect during congestion, when routers have to make a decision between packet A and packet B. If there is no congestion, QoS has no effect because the routers and switches will forward packets at wire speed. That's exactly what I said. Right, but if you read on, you would see why I reiterated the point... Why the push for QoS unless the providers are pushing their networks too far ? And if they are pushing their networks too far, that definitely should make business customers think twice about using them.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. |
|
RJ44
join:2001-10-19
Nashville, TN | said by bmn:Right, but if you read on, you would see why I reiterated the point... Why the push for QoS unless the providers are pushing their networks too far ? And if they are pushing their networks too far, that definitely should make business customers think twice about using them. It's very simple. Because "stuff" happens to the best of networks. And if I'm offering real-time services, I want them to stay real-time even when a fiber gets cut or a router goes down or something causes everyone in the country to jump on their pc at the same time...and I'm willing to pay for that security. |
|
bmn? ? ?Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus | said by RJ44:It's very simple. Because "stuff" happens to the best of networks. And if I'm offering real-time services, I want them to stay real-time even when a fiber gets cut or a router goes down or something causes everyone in the country to jump on their pc at the same time...and I'm willing to pay for that security. QoS will not fix routers flapping or fibre cuts. Those situations are solved by properly configured routing protocols.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. |
|
RJ44
join:2001-10-19
Nashville, TN | said by bmn:said by RJ44:It's very simple. Because "stuff" happens to the best of networks. And if I'm offering real-time services, I want them to stay real-time even when a fiber gets cut or a router goes down or something causes everyone in the country to jump on their pc at the same time...and I'm willing to pay for that security. QoS will not fix routers flapping or fibre cuts. Those situations are solved by properly configured routing protocols. Are you intentionally missing the point? Because if so I will be glad to stop discussing the issue. If not, please back up and read my post again. I think it's pretty clear. |
|
bmn? ? ?Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus | said by RJ44:Are you intentionally missing the point? Because if so I will be glad to stop discussing the issue. If not, please back up and read my post again. I think it's pretty clear. Are you missing the glaring obvious point that I've made. You are overestimating the ability of what QoS can actually do for a network.
I'm sorry you can't take being corrected due to your unfamiliarity with QoS, but seriously...
I KNOW the point of QoS on a network and I'm quite familiar with the ins and outs of QoS... However, you are clearly missing the point that QoS is limited in what it can actually provide.
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. |
|
RJ44
join:2001-10-19
Nashville, TN | said by bmn:said by RJ44:Are you intentionally missing the point? Because if so I will be glad to stop discussing the issue. If not, please back up and read my post again. I think it's pretty clear. Are you missing the glaring obvious point that I've made. You are overestimating the ability of what QoS can actually do for a network. I'm sorry you can't take being corrected due to your unfamiliarity with QoS, but seriously... I KNOW the point of QoS on a network and I'm quite familiar with the ins and outs of QoS... However, you are clearly missing the point that QoS is limited in what it can actually provide. And you, with your great knowledge, repeated my statement that QoS only makes a difference in situations when a network is congested. Except the way you said it you thought you were correcting me. Then I listed a few of situations that can cause congested networks for you, since you asked, and you completely missed the point. And now you're lecturing me because you think *I* don't know what I'm talking about?
Make up your mind. Either way, I'm done talking to a closed door. |
|
bmn? ? ?Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus | said by RJ44:And you, with your great knowledge, repeated my statement that QoS only makes a difference in situations when a network is congested. Except the way you said it you thought you were correcting me. Wow, a mind reader... That must not be working out for you too well since you are way off on that one.
Then I listed a few of situations that can cause congested networks for you, since you asked, and you completely missed the point. And now you're lecturing me because you think *I* don't know what I'm talking about? And you missed the point of what I replied with. But hey, if you think you know it all, that's fine. Free country and everyone is entitled to their opinion.
Make up your mind. Either way, I'm done talking to a closed door. And I'm done talking to a closed minded poster who ALWAYS posts the Bell party line and never has an independent thought on this issue...
--
Prove it...
Save the Internet Time (NTP) service, use the pool. |
|
