amungus
Premium
join:2004-11-26
America
clubs:
| crooks
those crooks just don't want to admit that their network isn't all that...
a packet is a packet is a packet people, and having "quality" service is what you should have to begin with. so are they saying that 'quality' on anything else that requires decent latency also sucks without this mafia fee? If I were a gamer with this ISP, I'd be furious.
Idiots. Why did they buy fancy new routers/switches etc in the first place if they don't expect people to use them? I really don't get it. This is just stuck on stupid. As ISP's, they should be giving the BEST that they can no matter what people use it for.
What about Net2Phone? What about games like WOW, secondlife, Everquest, Counterstrike.................
What about video? What about MOVIE services? What about streaming music services? What the heck do they expect their users to use the internet for? email? Got news for you morons, this is 2006, and people don't just chat or send/recieve the occasional email.
Maybe they should've just never bough any new upgrades to any of their equipment and sold dialup cable. |
|
GOLFnSUN
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
| said by amungus  :a packet is a packet is a packet people, No, it isn't. There are file download packets, and browsing packets, and then there are real-time packets that can't be delayed and need QOS guarantees to work - like voice conversations.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page |
|
amungus
Premium
join:2004-11-26
America
clubs:
| ok, you got me. sorry. so I guess my main point is more along the line that other things besides voice need it. that isp's should be able to handle it. and that one should not be having to pay extra money in order to use it.
granted, I also think in the back of my head, that phone through internet has a long way to go before being nearly as reliable as plain ol' telephone service. |
|
G_Poobah
join:2004-01-17
Schenectady, NY
| reply to GOLFnSUN
As usual, your corporate astroturfing attempts to divert the problem by stating incorrect facts and outright lies.
Lie #1 : Real-Time packets need QOS and can't be delayed : OUTRIGHT LIE. Read about how internet 2 solved this issue. It was a technical issue, and the solution was NOT QOS, it was upgrading the network.
Lie #2 : QOS Solves the problem. Another OUTRIGHT LIE. QOS solves the problem ONLY if they traffic load is at 100%. In any working network, QOS does NOTHING to the traffic until there is too much traffic. If Shaw is running at 100% load, then they have bigger problems than QOS will ever solve.
Lie #3 : There are different kinds of packets. Another OUTRIGHT LIE. All packets are treated equally. As long as the NETWORK is working correctly, then the traffic will work correctly. I can be running at 95% load, and my VoIP should have NO MORE LATENCY than if I were running at 5% load. LATENCY is not related to TRAFFIC LOAD until the traffic load is at 100%. If there is Latency at sub 100% loads, then the network has problems (hardware/misconfiguration/not powerful enough routers/etc), but QOS isn't the solution.
Another pack of lies by people who want to rip you off. There is no techncial reason whatsoever you should have to pay more to get acceptable internet service. This is an outright greed tax, that solves nothing. Want proof? Just encyrpt your traffic, poof, no more problems.
--
Flabby? pastey-skinned? riddled with phlebitis? Then you've got a good Republican body! So compare your lives to mine, and then kill yourself. |
|
GOLFnSUN
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| said by G_Poobah :Lie #1 : Real-Time packets need QOS and can't be delayed : OUTRIGHT LIE. Read about how internet 2 solved this issue. It was a technical issue, and the solution was NOT QOS, it was upgrading the network. OUTRIGHT TRUTH:
Only in fantasy land will a network exist that can't reach 100% at some point in time. Join the real world.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page |
|
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
·T-Mobile US
| Let's go back to your original lie
said by GOLFnSUN :said by G_Poobah :Lie #1 : Real-Time packets need QOS and can't be delayed : OUTRIGHT LIE. Read about how internet 2 solved this issue. It was a technical issue, and the solution was NOT QOS, it was upgrading the network. OUTRIGHT TRUTH: Only in fantasy land will a network exist that can't reach 100% at some point in time. Join the real world. OUTRAGEOUS LIE: when you're implying Shaw will have to spend even a dime on handling VoIP packets.
What a BS. |
|
sieklucki1
join:2002-08-12
Liverpool, NY
 ·Verizon FIOS
·Charter Pipeline
| reply to G_Poobah
Re: crooks
Well put--a user's packets should all be treated equally.
VOIP should not suffer degradation alone, if VOIP is working badly, all other internet traffic should be working equally badly. Of course, if the internet is slow a customer will move to a different provider.
However, a similar argument works for good quality. If everything but VOIP works well then the provider is artificially degrading VOIP and thus not really providing internet access as most companies advertise.
As for charging extra--if I pay for internet access all my packets should be delivered to me equally (well or badly). I should not be penalized for having "different types" of packets. |
|
amungus
Premium
join:2004-11-26
America
clubs:
| reply to G_Poobah
ok, you got him. both of you must have a bit more knowledge than I... either way, agreed that it's greed.
didn't even consider internet2, yeah, they've been toying with that for quite some time...
...your first "Outright lie!" ...don't real time packets need low latency/fast access??? perhaps not qos, as we're arguing here in this thread, but do they not need the low latency? I always thought that was the point of having high speed internet, that it was also supposed to be low latency...
that's where my thought of them (shaw, or any isp) upgrading equipment comes in... for what purpose again??? oh yeah, so people could benefit from faster, lower latency network access...
let the neutrality wars begin.
I would bet on gamers to weigh in on this more and more as they begin to realize that these things could also affect them more... I play some online games, barely, but when I do, I expect them to work. Many isp's have touted their services as being fit for such things... suddenly they aren't??????? ooops. |
|
DaveNJ
No Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey
·Comcast
·Patriot Media
| reply to GOLFnSUN
said by GOLFnSUN :said by G_Poobah :Lie #1 : Real-Time packets need QOS and can't be delayed : OUTRIGHT LIE. Read about how internet 2 solved this issue. It was a technical issue, and the solution was NOT QOS, it was upgrading the network. OUTRIGHT TRUTH: Only in fantasy land will a network exist that can't reach 100% at some point in time. Join the real world. If a network is running at 40% people will feel it, a network at 100% is likely the same a highway at 100% nothing is going to happen. 40% is usually the limit before upgrades are needed. |
|
G_Poobah
join:2004-01-17
Schenectady, NY
| reply to kamm
Re: Let's go back to your original lie
*sigh*.. As usual, I'll have to post the background information about QOS. Background: Internet2 had a highly qualified real world working group with no profit motive study QOS in an unbiased, technical manner, to document problems and solutions for these so called 'traffic jams'. These studies are openly published for all to read, and reflect the real world results of a network hundreds of times faster than todays regular internet. Let me summarize for those too lazy to read it.
»qbone.internet2.edu/
"Moreover, within the Internet2 environment very few application performance problems can be traced to network congestion. Instead, end-to-end performance is often hampered by faults on or near end-systems including: broken TCP stacks (e.g. inadequate socket buffering), Ethernet duplex mismatch, and crummy cabling (e. g. CAT3, shared media, or physical damage)."
So, how is it that the cable companies/telephone companies 'magically know better' than the designers of internet 2? Are all their engineers smarter? Do they know more? Oh, wait, does the profit motive make them more technically savy? NO. The only reason the megacorps even bring up the concept of QOS is so they can RIP PEOPLE OFF. QOS isn't the solution, and it's been proven time after time again in real world studies.
--
Flabby? pastey-skinned? riddled with phlebitis? Then you've got a good Republican body! So compare your lives to mine, and then kill yourself. |
|
grumpygeek
join:2004-12-14
Houston, TX
| reply to GOLFnSUN
Re: crooks
If a Shaw engineer wants to post the extract from their QoS config on here - or even confirm that they have QoS in the core and out to the CMTS's, I'll take back my assertion that it's anything more than a predatory marketing move.
Not that it's a bad one; I would be awfully nervous if I were with them right now. |
|
shashinka
join:2000-09-16
West Boylston, MA
| reply to DaveNJ
Cisco themselves recommend 70%. I myself having worked for and managed a Network Operations Center for a phone company that provided internet access. Our network usually ran during the day between 30-40% capacity. Maybe even higher at points, during this time our response times were still in check for streaming voice and video. I agree with G_Poobah on this. QOS is only needed during the peak times to assign bandwidth priority to the stream. On some even basic network setups no QOS is setup for voice calls and customers are told that everything will be fine unless there is a broadcast storm or some kind of traffic that is affecting the ports associated with the VOIP traffic. Such as an ip multicast for ghosting. |
|
shashinka
join:2000-09-16
West Boylston, MA
| reply to amungus
Actually end to end delay can be higher than most expect. Can be up to As long as the stream is consistent then the call will sound fine. What is more detrimental to the conversation is jitter, when the response time fluctuates. Another factor is packet loss (dropped data packets). Depending on the codec used (g711, g729) some lost packets can be corrected in the stream via error detection/correction mechanisms.
This link provides all sorts of technical information regarding this: »www.voiptroubleshooter.com/indep···ces.html |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
 ·DSL EXTREME
| reply to kamm
Re: Let's go back to your original lie
I agree - if customers have been using VoIP for quite a while now haven't had issues, why should this now be a concern?
I'm assuming that Shaw wants
a) $$$
b) to be able to pass the buck if someone points the finger for a dropped call
As all these companies are always pushing speeds 8 or 10 Mbps , and typically do not have the outbound capacity to handle it, they want to set standards (and make more $$$). If you look at shaw's network map, they have an OC-192 running cross country, so they should have ample bandwidth.
»www.bigpipeinc.com/pdf/network_m···rnet.pdf |
|
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY | reply to G_Poobah
Umm I was talking to him, in case you haven't noticed...  |
|
Emendo
join:2004-01-27
Vancouver, BC | reply to GOLFnSUN
Re: crooks
Yes, all those are encapsulated in IP packet. |
|
omgomg
@telus.net
| reply to amungus
they are anti-competitive
their own VOIP service can't match Vonage pricing so they resorted to this bullshit. not only do they degrade other VOIP packets, they also degrade gaming packets as well in certain areas. CRTC won't do a thing since they don't regulate internet-related services. Shaw pretty much can do this as long as they want. Vonage complaints won't get through. |
|
bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| reply to GOLFnSUN
Re: crooks
said by GOLFnSUN :said by amungus :a packet is a packet is a packet people, No, it isn't. There are file download packets, and browsing packets, and then there are real-time packets that can't be delayed and need QOS guarantees to work - like voice conversations. Yes, but unless Shaw is mismanaging their network or running at near capacity, there should be no need for them to have to implement QoS. The router shouldn't be buffering packets but instead should be passing them in near real-time anyway.
QoS is fix for the problems of the providers and they are trying to foist the cost in onto the backs of others.
--
New Rule: People who defend economic systems, like capitalism & communism, from ANY criticism, need a life. |
|
Nick
Purveyor of common sense
Premium,VIP,MVM
join:2000-10-29
Smithtown, NY
clubs:
| reply to sieklucki1
You pay for internet access and the only thing that really entitles you to is that your packet can go from point a (your cable modem) to point b (whatever you're accessing). I have never seen an ISP advertize or claim that they can get your packet from point A to point B in x amount of time. Just like they don't guarantee or claim you'll always get x megabits per second. They always claim UP TO...x
In reality the ISP is in the business to make money, they will provide better quality of service to a commercial client typically because they have a Service Level Agreement with them and that can potentially cost them more money. So commercial traffic is almost always higher priority than your traffic. Then there's voice traffic. Imagine if it's an emergency 911 call (something many MSOs still lack a good impementation of) vs someone's porn packets...Voice goes through because it's important.
--
Stupidity, like hydrogen, is one of the basic building blocks of the Universe.
Gallery * Life * Work |
|
Nick
Purveyor of common sense
Premium,VIP,MVM
join:2000-10-29
Smithtown, NY
clubs: | reply to en102
Re: Let's go back to your original lie
but an upstream port on a CMTS is not an oc-192. They could solve that by buying more CMTS's but that costs $. |
|
