said by jlivingood:I am interested in the nuances and did not mean to offend you. Although the definition is debatable, it is a good compromise that seems to be working well in the field. said by AVonGauss: said by WernerSchutz:
In CC speak, throttling seems to be a brutish limiting to a specific speed while the version of throttling they use they define as QoS, packet prioritization and congestion management.
In my mind it is throttling, but way better than other alternatives and something I could live with as a compromise.
If it matters; one of the fundamental differences that makes it a prioritization vs a throttle system is if it was a throttle your throughput would definitely change while because it actually is a prioritization system your throughput may or may not change depending on the actual conditions.
I've concluded that some people aren't interested in the nuances for whatever reason.* If it was really a throttling system, we'd have lots of people here complaining about seeing XXXkbps for some period of time for all apps, and generally unhappy. Such is life.
In any case, this recent presentation may be of interest to folks on this thread, from a panel discussion I was on last month (12/3/2009): »www.phoenix-center.org/symposium···good.pdf
(Someone from AT&T and from Verizon also presented. The AT&T slides are not posted, but the VZ ones are here »www.phoenix-center.org/symposium···tner.pdf
* If you don't like the system, what would you do differently is always an interesting question.
Happy New Year!