en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·DSL EXTREME
1 edit | Re: I Call Bull$#!+ 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. |
