Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO | reply to amigo_boy
Re: Is this a good thing for the net?
To the ISP, yes it should be as they should be nothing but the dumbpipes they are passing packets along the network.
The rest will work itself out with the law of physics, congestion, and consumers willingness to deal with it. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
 ·Cox HSI
 ·magicjack.com
| reply to a333
said by a333  :To amigo_boy, ... What's your point? I was just responding to the assertion that all bandwidth is equal. That's not true. Even torrent users apply traffic shaping via QoS because they don't want their torrents disrupting their own interactive applications.
I see nothing wrong with applying the same common sense further upstream. Maybe ISPs aren't doing that in the best way. I don't know what they do, or what the alternatives are. But, just claiming that all bandwidth is equal is incorrect.
Mark |
|
a333
A hot cup of integrals please
join:2007-06-12
Rego Park, NY
 ·Cingular Wireless
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to devnuller
Yep, Comcast's "protocol agnostic" approach is EXACTLY what I was talking about, hence the reason I mentioned them in my original post..
To amigo_boy, QoS can be enabled on many different levels. Per se, many Vonage routers let you slow down ALL your internet traffic in general, to make sure your VoIP is clear/reliable. Many download managers let you put a cap on download speeds/time that stuff is downloaded. I don't see anything special about BitTorrent/P2P. What's your point? |
|
devnuller
join:2006-06-10
Hollis, NH
| reply to a333
said by a333 :I've said over an over, the ideal solution is to gracefully scale back speed for ANY upload/download if the said user is using their full bandwidth for more than 20 minutes during peak hours. This actually solves the problem, unlike throttling schemes like bell's, which render many legitimate applications useless. Like this? »www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=···NA18k1dY |
|
