Search:  

 
 
   All ForumsHot TopicsGallery






how-to block ads


 
Forums » FCC Identifies, Fines VoIP Blocker » I don't get this:
Search Topic:
Share Topic:
RSS topic:
toggle:
flat / full
normal / watch
Post a:
Post a:
Fine? What fine? »
« Acted quick  
AuthorAll Replies


Corvus
Flaming Tards Since 2003
Premium,VIP
join:2003-11-26
reply to ColdFiltered
Re: I don't get this:

Are you saying that the FCC could force the ISP to use QOS for all the customers using third party VoIP?


DaSneaky1D
one wall to block them all
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
The Lou
reply to ColdFiltered
Ah, ok. You are absolutely right.


ColdFiltered

join:2005-01-25
Atlanta, GA

reply to DaSneaky1D
Example:

An Earthlink DSL subscriber in Atlanta will more commonly be found on BellSouth Telecommunications local WAN. This means that between the DSL modem and the Earthlink gateway (into their network) its riding Bellsouth ATM core. Those cores are setup for UBR and no differential treatment on the packets traveling with those tunnels/routes between the subscriber and ISP.

Additionally, the tariff service is for Bellsouth acting as a wholesalers to ISPs, and that tariff is based on UBR. You can classify layer three packets to contain priority, but on layer two they will be treated just like any other ATM packet, including ATM-carried packets that may have layer three qualities much lower.

And example within an example:

Two customers riding the same ILEC ATM core that is necessary between the two subscribers and their respective ISPs. One ISP sets up VoIP to have higher priority Layer-3 traffic than all other services. The other ISP doesn't offer VoIP and doesn't really care about Layer-3 priorities (QoS).

Now, on the LEC's ATM core the only thing that matters IN SOME CASES is the distinguishment of QoS on Layer-2 and both these customers are treated identically in this case. So, the second subscriber's porn, music, gaming, email, etc. traffic is treated more more or less important as the first subscriber's VoIP phone service.

In order to guarantee voice packets priority over all other forms of traffic this needs to be address on network segments that the ISPs do not control. This is where the much fear ILEC-offered VoIP will come into big play. This will be done through the use of a different network topology on both Layer-2 and 3 that will afford wholesale prioritization of packets. But who says that ILEC has to resell on that topology? No one.
Forums » FCC Identifies, Fines VoIP BlockerFine? What fine? »
« Acted quick  


Thursday, 10-Dec 15:29:30 Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Hosting by www.nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo | feedback | contact
over 10 years online! © 1999-2009 dslreports.com.
page compression OFF
Most commented news this week
· [200] Sprint Sued For Distracted Driving Death
· [131] AT&T Launching New 24 Mbps U-Verse Tier
· [83] AT&T Hints At Usage-Based iPhone Data Pricing
· [82] 3G Network Test Says AT&T Is Tops
· [72] Mediacom Unveils 105 Mbps Pricing
· [69] WPA Cracker: Test WPA-PSK Networks In 20 Minutes
· [66] Sprint Poised For A Turnaround?
· [51] The Future Of Wi-Fi Is Bright
· [50] Average American Consumes 34 Gigabytes Daily
· [47] Site Leaks Yahoo, Verizon Fed Data Share Pricing
Most people now reading
· New Mediacom Email [Mediacom]
· [WIN7] Well, I was dumb, but do I have recourse? [Microsoft Help]
· New 5 mans full walk through [World of Warcraft]
· malware has been found hidden inside an Ubuntu screensaver [Security]
· Will Gearscore die now? [World of Warcraft]
· IMG 1.7 (IMG Updates and Discussion) [Verizon FIOS TV]
· Windows 7 boot manager editing questions [Microsoft Help]
· Connecting to Google Voice Via SIP [VOIP Tech Chat]
· [How to] Install Asterisk on an Asus WL-520GU router [VOIP Tech Chat]
· Cross Server Dungeon Experience [World of Warcraft]