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! |
|
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? |
|
