how-to block ads
|
Jonbo298
join:2004-01-12
Council Bluffs, IA
| Though... I have a distaste for Traffic Shaping, if it came down to choosing either bill by the GByte, or traffic shaping, I'd take shaping. But thats why I'm hoping the Telco's don't flock to one of these "ideas".
If it becomes more of an issue, the next thing after Bittorrent will arrive and then a new battle will wage at some point. | |
|  zed260
join:2007-09-30
Cleveland, TN | Re: Though... i dont mind paying by the gigabyte as long as no traffic shaping | |
| | | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
 ·AT&T Southeast
| Re: Though... You can always throw in QoS and weight the high bandwidth/large number of connections apps (i.e. P2P apps) at the bottom and let everything flow freely. That way you aren't shaped, bill-per-byte isn't needed as much, and everyone will be happy...except for the hogs that want to download the Internet via their P2P app and their "unlimited" residential connection. P2P apps would be able to roam freely during non-peak usage times such as early morning through midday. | |
| | | | | | | | | openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
·AT&T Southeast
| Re: Though... I agree. QoS is the future to keep a majority of customers happy. Of course the P2P users won't like it, but a majority of people would be happy that they're now able to surf, read e-mail, and upload their photos to Walmart without a problem.
If I were king for a day, I'd look at the most used services/protocols and then weight them higher. I'd also look at the most resource consuming services/protocols and weight them with the lowest priority. There may be a few services/protocols here and there outside of the basic model, but you can handle the exceptions on a case by case basis. | |
| | | | | 
factchecker
@cox.net
| said by tiger72  :VoIP -> VPN -> HTTP/ SMTP -> FTP inbound -> NNTP -> P2P. Tweaked it for you... Basically you have your most important, time sensitive apps at the top and the less sensitive traffic at the bottom.
If providers would do that across the board, without charging anyone extra (ie charging Vonage, etc. more for that higher QoS), I'd have no problems with it, so long as the providers realize that QoS only saves you for only so long before you have to upgrade. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY | All of the Ellacoya/Sandvine/Ciscos can do that easily, prioritize a certain protocol lower, but no, Comcast can't be satisfied with that, they need to ELIMINATE the traffic. | |
| | | | | | 
LeftOfSanity
join:2005-11-06
Felton, DE
| Re: Though... said by patcat88 :All of the Ellacoya/Sandvine/Ciscos can do that easily, prioritize a certain protocol lower, but no, Comcast can't be satisfied with that, they need to ELIMINATE the traffic. From what I understand, they aren't eliminating it. The resets just delay it. | |
| TheWickerMan
join:2002-04-09
Enola, PA
| said by Jonbo298 :I have a distaste for Traffic Shaping, if it came down to choosing either bill by the GByte, or traffic shaping, I'd take shaping. Reluctantly, I have to agree. I don't want to go back to the early to mid 90's where I had to constantly worry about how much I was on the internet. After a few months of running up bills in excess of $100, I found a rare-at-the-time flat-rate provider.
Funny thing, a few months after that, a telemarketer called me trying to sell me internet service at the low cost of "only" $x/hour. When I told him I was already getting unlimited usage for $19/month, he seemed shocked. I don't think he even knew such a thing existed. It's always funny listening to them stammer and try to "save" the call, before finally realizing they have nothing to sell you.  | |
| | | |
|
·
·
·
·