phantom6294
join:2002-02-27
Abingdon, MD
 ·Comcast
| reply to Steve
Re: I Call Bull$#!+
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 | Hmmmm.....I can kinda see what your talking about....more research needed on my part I think. |
|
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. |
|
Steve
I'm a PC, so shut up
Consultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
| 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? |
|
grandpinaple
join:2006-01-03
New York, NY
| 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... |
|
