amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
 ·Cox HSI
 ·magicjack.com
| reply to Noah Vail
Re: But what are the accusations based on?
said by Noah Vail  :Wasn't the COX throttling charge base on ... I'm on Cox (1500/256kbs). I've been using BitTorrent all weekend. My upload speed has been consistently in the 20-30kbs range. I changed all the client settings I could find. Disabled my router's QoS.
It's fine with me. I consider BT to be a usefule *low* priority option. I use QoS to throttle it relative to my VOIP and web-browsing activities. I don't fault an ISP for doing the same thing at a higher level.
Mark |
|
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| Of course you don't fault them. It is in YOUR best interest not to.
However, for the rest of the world, we don't want ISP's to do anything with our packets other then send them on at the fastest possible way they can.
You want to let the market to sort it out, then let the market sort it out. They do nothing to impede traffic and be the dumb pipes they are and should be. As their network suffers because they choose not to make improvements customers will go elsewhere and thus relieve the strain on their system. |
|
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
1 edit | Oh that's right.... many customers dont have that luxury (a choice).
So maybe they should be regulated into doing what they should be doing. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
2 edits | reply to Skippy25
said by Skippy25 :for the rest of the world, we don't want ISP's to do anything with our packets other then send them on at the fastest possible way they can. In a perfect world that would be fine. But, routers contain QoS for a reason. And, even BT users rely upon QoS to ensure their DNS, web and VOIP traffic is "sent the fastest possible way" at the expense of BT.
That's just a fact of life. If those users don't want BT congesting/competing with their higher-priority traffic, they wouldn't want the same thing on the wider-area network either.
But, unlike you, I don't claim to speak for the rest of the world. These are just my thoughts. 
Mark |
|
Skippy25
join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
| I understand QoS I support routers/swithes on a daily basis.
Regardless, they should be the dumb pipes they are and stop trying to manage it to protect the content they deliver.
As I said above, the network should be up and running and let it be managed by the natural congestion that is there by being utilized. If they want to have more customers then they need to increase capacity or lessen the bandwidth available to their customers. However, under no case should they be allowed to throttle or prioritize any packet for any reason.
If they feel someone is abusing their network then lower their tier or remove them from it. Of course they better have this clearly outlined. |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| said by Skippy25 :they should be the dumb pipes they are and stop trying to manage it to protect the content they deliver. When BT users stop using QoS (to lower BT priority), and let their network connections be "dumb pipes" I will understand your position.
Mark |
|
Noah Vail
Premium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to amigo_boy
said by amigo_boy :I use QoS to throttle it relative to my VOIP and web-browsing activities. I don't fault an ISP for doing the same thing at a higher level. Mark I wouldn't fault an ISP for QoS throttling their own personal bandwidth either; at any level.
I would fault you or any ISP who surreptitiously sabotages their customers packet integrity because they can not profitably sell the product they imply in their advertising.
NV
--
Abortion: A Republican Plot to Thin the Liberal Herd. |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
 ·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
| reply to amigo_boy
What?
This isn't about QoS good or QoS bad -- this is about who gets to decide.
The Internet standards say that the end users get to decide, not the ISP.
You are right that users do set their prioritization generally correctly. There are standards that have been sitting on shelves for years that would enable the ISPs to carry that classification right on into their own network -- in other words, BT would have lower priority, just as it should (most of the time).
They just need to enable some way for users apps to pass on the IP DSCP or TOS marking. Comcast or AT&T, both with 20% of US Internet users each, would lead the entire tech industry into enabling their apps to use it! Everyone else would just follow.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...
|
|
