said by pizz:
I think its the suits in the exec office's making this to be such an issue. Because they simply do not want to allocate funds to networking upgrades.
There's definitely some of that going on, but that's a side effect of the pricing model. At the carrier level when they spend money to upgrade the network they get more capacity to sell to increase their revenue flow. On broadband networks with flat-rate pricing, they get the same revenue whether they invest $1 or $1,000,000,000 on network upgrades. Their only motivation is to maintain subscriber numbers, which fosters a network of mediocrity. They only have to be just good enough so most subscribers don't leave; there's no additional revenue potential to be gained from making the network really kick ass.
said by pizz:
There are limitations on any network of what it can and cannot handle. Congestion does happen, but there is so many QOS tools available, that it should never be as bad as companies are making it sound.
QoS is difficult on a shared network with no traffic tiers because there's no strict standard about who really has network "right of way." Comcast's new system for bandwidth management involves queuing the traffic of those who have been using the network the most below that of light users during times of congestion. Still, allowing the light users a chance at getting decent performance during times of congestion is still being met with disapproval
. Users want a fluffy service where the performance is never bad for anyone.. ever. Unfortunately that goal is in violent opposition to the $50 price point most folks also want.