kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
 ·T-Mobile US
| reply to GOLFnSUN
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. |
|
G_Poobah
join:2004-01-17
Schenectady, NY
| *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. |
|
en102
Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA
 ·RoadRunner Cable
 ·DSL EXTREME
| reply to kamm
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 $. |
|
