asdfdfdf
@xtraport.net
| reply to cmaenginsb
Re: I Call Bull$#!+
"If you want the ability to play games then you get the "gamers" package for another $5 a month.
--"
If one has to pay extra to have the "ability to play games" that is unacceptable and an attempt to charge by application and not communications service level. This also can't be seen as a service offering. It is simply a service reduction and a new imposed restriction.
This is different from saying "If you are not presently happy with the best effort service level in your game playing and are willing to choose the option of buying a higher service level commitment, you should pay another $5 a month". This is still problematic since the company has the motivation to reduce service level of the best effort network to force people to move to the higher service tier and since a company can't control all infrastructure between the game server and customer and therefore can't really follow through on service level commitments. |
|
grandpinaple
join:2006-01-03
New York, NY | reply to cmaenginsb
So someone's games are more important then my voip/p2p/ftp/http/encrypted unknown packets? |
|
grandpinaple
join:2006-01-03
New York, NY
| reply to Steve
Umm they have already had billions of dollars in tax brakes, which they basically stole from the customers. I expect them to deliver or at least confess where the money has gone so the public can pass judgement. The government should never give money to any corporations it just don't work... |
|
Steve
I'm a PC, so shut up
Consultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
| reply to en102
said by en102  :I can only assume that ISP's are doing a poor job of capacity planning, and are attempting to pass the cost of capacity upgrades on their backbone up to the consumer. Who else should be expected to pay for these upgrades besides the customers? |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·DSL EXTREME
1 edit | reply to phantom6294
Well, since I think most of this is somewhat 'fluff' and a lot of this is considered to be some form of tariff or toll.
While I totally disagree that a QOS service should be imposed, I do see that the greed of companies are coming into play.
This can similar to 2 drivers on the freeway, and one paying for a toll highway, and not having to deal with the majority of . In many areas, all highways become 'toll' and there's no advantage.
Another analogy from a more pessimistic approach, its similar to 2 drivers with the same vehicle. Driver A is getting charged more for insurance than driver B for the ability to have on site towing/replacement car available within 30 minutes to keep going with $0 deductible, while driver B can wait up to 4 hours for a tow with no replacement vehicle.
Personally, since this type of scenario doesn't directly apply, its more of an extortion type of issue. I pay for my 1500-3000 kbps with 384/512 kbps connection. While this doesn't really take into consideration backbone to backbone carriers, I don't expect a 64kbps voice connection to have too many issues. I have the many low speed connections open on a constant basis - some for many days at a time.
I could see some potential 'throttling' of connections where users run 5 Mbps connections 24x7 out of their home, and not receiving a full 5 Mbps. No big deal.
I do have a concern where an ISP will charge extra $$$ for a QOS service unless they're running a T1 from point to point, or they have control of the network from endpoint to endpoint. I've had 384kbps frame-relay networks running for years without issue, and never had to worry about being raked for extra $$$ to provide QOS. I can only assume that ISP's are doing a poor job of capacity planning, and are attempting to pass the cost of capacity upgrades on their backbone up to the consumer. |
|
cmaenginsb
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-19
Palmdale, CA
| reply to Steve
The problem is, who should be paying for the different quality levels? In every one of the examples the consumer pays more not the person providing the service. Those costs are passed to the consumer directly.
There currently are tiered levels of service in terms of speeds. The provider should extend this to service levels based on QOS. If you want the ability to play games then you get the "gamers" package for another $5 a month.
--
CCNA, Comtrain Certified Tower Climber |
|
Dezbend
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-20
1 edit | reply to dispatcher21
I think that the point is valid in some industries. I recently got my hair cut - the price was $12 or $15 for long hair. Same service different price for "heavier" users.
Or Walmart that sells shirts that are $2 extra for X sizes...
The practice does exist, that can not be denied. Aught it be used by ISPs? that is the debatable question.
--
If it is not recorded, it simply does not exist.
--------------edit--------------
My analogy is flawed. They are not talking about charging the end user more (even though it ultimately will cost us more). If it is the hair saloon then it would be charging a flat rate to the customers and charging the hair care product companies to prominently display their product. Does this happen? |
|
amungus
Premium
join:2004-11-26
America
clubs:
| reply to Steve
It isn't. "premier" internet service, or "business" grade connections??
Would these not constitute a level of "quality" in terms of advertised speeds/reliability (T1's etc.)???
Just like your examples, you can get the el-cheapo dial up (cheap drugs) or the DSL (mid grade dinner.). From there you can get standard cable (Honda Accord). Premium cable might be the call girl, and a dedicated connection, (T1 etc.) a kick butt sports team that never lets you down.
I'm lost. Of course the internet isn't "immune" from these things. It's a "best effort" system, and has been since the beginning.
I may not know all there is to know about networking, but it just seems like there haven't been to many positive technical explanations about any of this.
I'd really enjoy reading about the details, if anyone knows any.
So far, it seems they care more about money, than for a technical arguement.
Show me the technical methods/reasons for any of it first. |
|
dispatcher21
join:2004-01-22
united state | reply to phantom6294
Hmmmm.....I can kinda see what your talking about....more research needed on my part I think. |
|
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| reply to Steve
Steve,
Quality levels are fine, when the consumer is choosing the level and paying for his choice.
Of the categories you mentioned, all of them fall into this category EXCEPT drugs, if you are talking about prescription drugs in a health care plan. There you have the problem the whining baby bells want to create here. While you and your physician would like to make the choice of which cholesterol, blood pressure or diabetes drug is best for you, often that choice is severely limited or outright forced by your insurance company or HMO.
If we go with the bells' "third party payor" system here, we'll get a fouled up Internet comparable to our current health care & drug benefit system.
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! |
|
phantom6294
join:2002-02-27
Abingdon, MD
·Comcast
| reply to Steve
The main problem is not the existence of different tiers or QoS but THE EFFECT it has on everything else.
In general, if I decide to eat at some fancy uber-expensive restaurant, is your ability to go to McDonald's and eat a hamburger in any way affected? Probably not.
In general, if I buy/build a million dollar house, is your ability to build a $100,000 house in any way affected? Probably not.
In general, if I buy a $500,000 sports car and drive it on the highway, is your ability you buy a $8,000 Kia and drive it on the highway in any way affected? Probably not.
In general, if I pay to have my packets prioritized, is your ability to receive non-prioritized packets affected? MOST LIKELY SO.
That is what most people take issue with. |
|
dispatcher21
join:2004-01-22
united state
| reply to Steve
There are quality levels for those things but for the same item, we still pay the same. You want a Big Mac like mine? Your gonna pay the same. Want a Yukon like mine, you'll pay the same. Internet like mine, youll pay the same. Now, if you want a better burger, a better Yukon or better internet, you can pay more. But that is why ISP's have tiered levels of service. If you want better, you can pay more, but dont put the extra cost on everyone when its you (not personally here, just general statement) want the "better" service. |
|
Steve
I'm a PC, so shut up
Consultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
| reply to pnh102
said by pnh102 : 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. Why is it that there are quality levels in every other area of life - food, cars, houses, call girls, drugs, sports teams - but internet access must somehow be immune from those market realities?
--
Stephen J. Friedl • Unix Wizard • Microsoft Security MVP • Tustin, California USA • my web site |
|
