asdfdfdf
@xtraport.net
| reply to calvoiper
Re: letter to the editor...
I agree. If the usage patterns of certain users are actually undermining their model, they should just impose a neutral transfer cap to control the extreme use while not imposing on the average user. Then the user can prioritize their own use as they see fit.
This article again betrays that this isn't really about QOS offerings at all. What does bittorrent traffic have to do with QOS. Bittorrent use doesn't need anything beyond best effort. It isn't real time streaming or an application for which QOS makes sense. What the article writer really means is that he wants a service reduction for heavy users. |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| reply to Shark_615
These analogies are all flawed.
While ISPs have generally priced by bandwidth alone, resulting in "all you can shovel" usage, their costs do vary somewhat by usage.
Shared facilities (particularly major connections to Internet backbone networks) are maintained at a level lower than what would be necessary for 100% "full-blown" usage. Vastly increased usage, whether it's caused by file-sharing, VoIP, or gaming, does carry the likelihood of increased costs to the ISPs, even if bandwidth offerings to particular end-users aren't broadened.
These increased costs have to be passed along somewhere. I'd just rather see it happen directly, where I (and other end users) get to choose what gets prioritized and what I don't care about, than indirectly, where those choices are made under the table by ISPs and content providers in a back room.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
footballdude
Premium
join:2002-08-13
Imperial, MO
| reply to King P
said by King P  :The simple fact of the matter is that the gas station doesn't charge extra for unleaded gasoline because you want to speed on the interstate, so why should we pay for "premium" services when the providers of those services have already PAID for their internet connection, and we have already paid our provider for our connection. Actually, when you speed you use gas faster and less efficiently, thereby spending more on gas in the long run. Yes, I am a smart-ass. |
|
Shark_615
join:2006-01-17
Pickering, ON | reply to King P
The gas station doesn't but the Police will charge if you speed... So how does that analogy synch with what you are trying to prove?
Are you saying we should have internet cops to stop people from going over the predetermined bandwidth limit? |
|
King P
Don't blame me. I voted for Ron Paul
Premium
join:2004-11-17
Inman, SC
 ·Windstream
 ·Charter Pipeline
1 edit | reply to pnh102
said by pnh102 : quote:
The network owners counter that some Skype Technologies users use a VOIP connection to monitor their children at home, leaving call sessions open for hours or days on end.
I got a bit of a laugh out of this passage of the article. Anyway... so what if people do this? Aren't we paying for the Internet connection which enables to do this? I say any ISP that wants to implement this sort of thing should go ahead and do it immediately. Go ahead and block access for Google, Skype, online gaming and any other online content provider which refuses to pay up. Do it right now so that you can quickly fall by the wayside. quote:
I, for one, don’t want to pay the same amount of money for bandwidth while a 15-year old neighbor spends all day sucking most of it up with his limitless, gray-market BitTorrent downloads.
Anyone who thinks this is perfectly free to cancel said Internet service. This way, he/she won't be paying the same amount of money as the other user. Amen!!!!
If this guy doesn't like the fact that his 15 year old neighbor is "sucking" all his bandwidth away, then he should find a different provider. Does he even know how the internet works or does this guy know anything about BitTorrent?
The simple fact of the matter is that the gas station doesn't charge extra for unleaded gasoline because you want to speed on the interstate, so why should we pay for "premium" services when the providers of those services have already PAID for their internet connection, and we have already paid our provider for our connection.
This guy (LR Editor) needs to get over it and move on with his life. As a content provider myself, I don't expect any customer to have to pay extra to download free music from my music store, because I ALREADY paid for my connection to provide that music to them.
This practice (of QoS tariffs) is not fair to the consumers, or the content providers...period.
--
Forget 'em, Support the Indies.
»www.ind-music.com |
|
