telcolackey
The Truth? You can't handle the truth
join:2007-04-06
Death Valley, CA
| reply to gatorkram
Re: Sigh...
Not sure it is possible to make everyone happy. Top 1% is not happy that bandwidth is not 100mb, unlimited and free. Bottom 20% don't care about unlimited BW and want it cheaper. Middle of the road think the bandwidth is fine, but are not happy that they are subsidizing the top 1%'s DVD download library.
Can't please them all.
--
"Believe only half of what you see and nothing that you hear." - Dinah Craik |
|
Noah Vail
Premium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| said by telcolackey  :Middle of the road think the bandwidth is fine, but are not happy that they are subsidizing the top 1%'s DVD download library.Can't please them all. And I'm not happy that I had to subsidize the MoR's who couldn't be bothered to live somewhere with existing infrastructure so that I had to pay for their new lines to be run.
Since Everybody subsidizes Each Other, how is it a relevant discussion point?
NV
--
Abortion: A Republican Plot to Thin the Liberal Herd. |
|
knightmb
Everybody Lies
join:2003-12-01
Franklin, TN
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| reply to telcolackey
said by telcolackey :Not sure it is possible to make everyone happy. Top 1% is not happy that bandwidth is not 100mb, unlimited and free. Bottom 20% don't care about unlimited BW and want it cheaper. Middle of the road think the bandwidth is fine, but are not happy that they are subsidizing the top 1%'s DVD download library. Can't please them all. Given that bandwidth is shared, the middle would only be affected if everyone else on their shared pipe was burning up P2P apps, in which case they would be the minority of the group instead of the "top" of everyone else left. So unless the top bandwidth users have found a way to "control" what is allocated to them, the arguments of them using all the bandwidth falls apart when you examine it from a technical standpoint.
So some confusion is:
Are they affecting network performance as a whole? Maybe.
Are they taking all of "your" bandwidth? No, they are sharing just like you.
Can the ISP better tune it's performance? Sure, that's what QoS and Traffic Shaping was invented for.
Is blocking traffic the same as QoS and Traffic Shaping? No, by definition, QoS and Traffic Shaping don't stop traffic, just control it's flow based on a set of rules. Blocking P2P is identical to blocking HTTP or PPTP traffic, except more people would get upset if they couldn't web surf or connect to the company VPN. Customer service nightmare for sure. |
|
Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
 ·Site5.com
·AT&T Midwest
·Comcast
| reply to telcolackey
said by telcolackey :Not sure it is possible to make everyone happy. Top 1% is not happy that bandwidth is not 100mb, unlimited and free. Bottom 20% don't care about unlimited BW and want it cheaper. Middle of the road think the bandwidth is fine, but are not happy that they are subsidizing the top 1%'s DVD download library. Can't please them all. The only way to do that is to use a tiered pricing structure which Comcast is doing. Along with that though, they should be lifting bandwidth limitations for all users who get the top tier. |
|
mikenolan7
Premium
join:2005-06-07
Torrance, CA
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| reply to telcolackey
Can't please them all, therefore we can advertise whatever we want, and they get whatever we give them. How on earth does "you can't please them all" justify false advertising to everyone?
There is a simple solution here. Advertised data rates should include a percentage of time that the data rate is available. Don't spout BS about that's what you pay extra for on a business connection. Lower the uptime and availability numbers from the business connections. No more 784kb/6mb connections that run at that rate 10% of the time, unless you advertise it that way. If you advertise 90% availability, and it only reaches that rate 10% of the time, you deduct 80% from the bill. End of arguments. End of excuses. Tell the truth and you won't have to spend so much on lawyers. |
|
