GOLFnSUN
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
| reply to G_Poobah
Re: crooks
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. |
|
DaveNJ
No Fear
join:1999-09-01
New Jersey
·Comcast
·Patriot Media
| reply to GOLFnSUN
Re: crooks
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. |
|
shashinka
join:2000-09-16
West Boylston, MA
| reply to DaveNJ
Re: crooks
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. |
|
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...  |
|
Nick
Purveyor of common sense
Premium,VIP,MVM
join:2000-10-29
Smithtown, NY
clubs: | reply to en102
but an upstream port on a CMTS is not an oc-192. They could solve that by buying more CMTS's but that costs $. |
|
Michieru2
zzz zzz zzz
Premium
join:2005-01-28
Miami, FL
| reply to GOLFnSUN
Re: crooks
Networks are made to handle load they are expanded to keep the network from ever actually reaching 100%. This only happens when the demand is greater than the actual supply you have.
QOS indeed only works once your line has reached full capacity and is considered more like a turbo same way a turbo works on a car basically. Only instead of having the packets delayed there put first and keeps the connection maxed out from both ends.
Back on topic though I see no reason why this ISP is charging customers to have other options. Last time I checked a tax is a contribution to state revenue and levied by the government on workers' income and business profits or added to the cost of some goods, services, and transactions.
While you might say this falls under the category of services locking out competition is wrong and a unfair business practice. There is no reason why this ISP should be doing this and if it does not reflect in there TOS that they charge for 3rd party VOIP and also traffic shape VOIP packets or block this service until you pay they can be sued for obstructing there agreement with current customers and not mentioning it to new customers as well. So if I where them I would stop this tax before they get sued for it and credit the money back from people who already paid. |
|
GOLFnSUN
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| said by Michieru2 :Networks are made to handle load they are expanded to keep the network from ever actually reaching 100%. This only happens when the demand is greater than the actual supply you have. And I submit that with cable operators the upstream path is almost always oversold and that the path reaches 100% frequently. All it takes is for a couple dozen P2P users to slow the upload for the 200 to 1000 users that are typically on a single cable segment. And that is when prioritizing traffic can keep the voice product working.
You can argue that the cable company should keep splitting nodes until a single cable segment can handle every single user on the segment running 24x7 upload at maximum advertised capacity. But we all know that isn't how networks are run. That is the reality of cable systems even though many here are completely unable to accept that reality.
--
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page |
|
Michieru2
zzz zzz zzz
Premium
join:2005-01-28
Miami, FL
1 edit | I won't argue about cable companies splitting nodes but most people are aware that as the demand is more than the supply those networks will have to be upgraded and the purpose of most networks is to never really reach that 100% capacity but at least 95% with spare for more customers. The percantage can be even lower. Which is why a network will never reach 100% unless it's upgraded regularly to meet that demand. Of course nobody will ever get the exact advertised speed but quality of service for every user is a must. If the company cannot provide that quality of service even during peak hours there lines basically just operate as best effort systems. Either way all customers have a limit which are now set up at the CO instead in the modem like it was before. So the CO must have the capacity to handle the load of every customer. If not then your going to have congestion, horrible ping times, and unreliable service that would fly up and down.
The customers pay for there connection but the companies want to traffic shape data so they won't have to upgrade there CO's more frequently so that in return is more money for them and simply locking out competition and sticking a tax for using your connection with another provider is probably even illegal. But correct me if I am wrong.
I don't got my head up my ass because in this day in age quality of service must be met even for standard end users. Also you pay for what they advertise and while there still many factors the quality you just mentioned cable provides seems rather poor at best. People now rely on VOIP and other critical services for there every day lives and when they come home or use these services they expect that bandwidth that they pay for to be there. Not for the neighbor next door finally decides to stop downloading porn so you can call your family in Europe. Or some ISP blocking or giving low priority to VOIP packets because they don't want to upgrade there CO's. |
|
microserf
@cgocable.net
| reply to GOLFnSUN
When I buy a plane ticket, I expect a seat on the plane. That's the service I'm paying for. If I don't board on time, I'm SOL - the plane leaves without me. It will travel to its destination with 5 passengers or 200.
If the airline sells my seat to someone else, I get a new ticket (with upgrades and apologies for their failure to provide the contracted service). I'm not about to pay a fee to guarantee they don't sell my seat.
The guy in first class is paying a premium for a bigger seat. I'm just fine in coach...we both arrive at the same time. |
|
