FTC: All's Well in Broadband Land > I buy a pipe...

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

said by RJ44:

Please elaborate for those of us a bit slow on the uptake. Extortion? How, exactly?

said by bmn:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

said by bmn:

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.

said by RJ44:

That's exactly what I said.

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.

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.

said by bmn:

QoS will not fix routers flapping or fibre cuts. Those situations are solved by properly configured routing protocols.

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.

said by bmn:

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.

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.

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.