FreetheNet
@cgocable.net
| reply to urbanriot
Re: Usage Billing
ack..sorry for the bad grammar for all you grammar people out there, especially using your instead of you're!
Anyway, here is the link to the thread I quoted Krispy from:
»Does having Cogeco home phone effect my internet speed?.
I have a lot of experience in this area and just want regular users to know the truth, not the spin version of it. I would believe what was said to the CRTC by Cogeco and Rogers, to anything that is posted in the Cogeco forums, after years of disinformation. |
|
urbanriot
join:2004-10-18
St Catharines, ON
 ·Cogeco Cable
| All right, so she said it's the same "circuit."
What's your point again? I'm pretty sure that, even if Cogeco's VOIP was mixed into the internet pot, everyone would agree that the added bonus of having their Cogeco phone packets QoS'd at a higher priority would be a good thing...(?) |
|
dan991199
join:2007-10-01
St Catharines, ON
·Cogeco Cable
 ·TekSavvy Solutions..
1 edit | said by urbanriot  :All right, so she said it's the same "circuit." What's your point again? I'm pretty sure that, even if Cogeco's VOIP was mixed into the internet pot, everyone would agree that the added bonus of having their Cogeco phone packets QoS'd at a higher priority would be a good thing...(?) no i think everyone would agree that having ALL voip phone packets QOS'd at a higher priority would be a good thing. |
|
urbanriot
join:2004-10-18
St Catharines, ON | Even better, but then everyone would have to comply with the same standards... and they don't. |
|
Snickerdo
Premium
join:2001-02-28
Niagara Falls, ON
| said by urbanriot :Even better, but then everyone would have to comply with the same standards... and they don't. Giving priority to SIP, MCGP and Skype would cover 99% of all VoIP traffic out there.
--
You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: Victory. Victory at all costs - Victory in spite of all terror - Victory, however long and hard the road may be, for without victory there is no survival. |
|
urbanriot
join:2004-10-18
St Catharines, ON | It's not a terrible idea... but now you're talking about what people like to call "packet shaping" and I'm sure you know how that term excites everyone... |
|
exseven
Premium,VIP
join:2003-05-23
Beamsville, ON
1 edit | reply to Snickerdo
Except that would need a lot of capital to do... you you pay an extra lets say $5 for SIP MGCP or Skype priority? Right now no specific QOS rules towards VOIP packet headers are in use, it is looked upon the same as any other RTP stream.
Cogeco's Digital Phone implementation utilizes PacketCable specifications and has separate service flows for the Digital Phone and the ethernet port on the eMTA.
With all the people against QOS on the system, why are you asking for it? Asking for VOIP priority is like asking for HTTP priority over P2P..... |
|
Snickerdo
Premium
join:2001-02-28
Niagara Falls, ON
| said by exseven :With all the people against QOS on the system, why are you asking for it? I didn't say I was asking for it.
And, considering that Cogeco openly admits that they do packet shaping and have the hardware in place, there wouldn't be any capital costs involved to prioritize the three main VoIP protocols. The only thing they'd need to do is pay the wages for the person who has to implement it and test it before going live.
--
You ask, what is our aim? I can answer in one word: Victory. Victory at all costs - Victory in spite of all terror - Victory, however long and hard the road may be, for without victory there is no survival. |
|
exseven
Premium,VIP
join:2003-05-23
Beamsville, ON | sorry snick, i was replying to dan. |
|
