Re: [MLUG] Oh, no...

["Scott Hussey" <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On 5/9/06, Michael <EMAIL:PROTECTED> wrote:

Umm last I checked the American taxpayer has sunk billions of dollars
into the telephone and data infrastructure. THAT is why these companies
shouldn't be allowed to blackmail people into paying extra.

 

Disclaimer: I work for AT&T

 

My political opinion:

So, I hear this argument all the time. I have yet for someone to display numbers comparing how much the government has subsidized network build out and how much companies have invested. I'm not saying the government hasn't subsidized the network, but I really doubt it is enough for them to totally rule the use and rates of it. The last mile, ISP type people that care a whole lot about this. It is the long haul companies that want to charge for QoS guarantees. Once data gets into the local ISP network, there is generally plenty of bandwidth. It is the pipe into the backbone that gets saturated.

 

My technical opinion:

QoS is good. It is needed and one of the bigger improvements of IPv6. IPv4 provided QoS, but not to the extend IPv6 does. Now whether a company should be able to pay more just to have their traffic prioritized is not a technical decision, but various types of traffic certainly need QoS. VoIP needs low latency. Video generally needs guaranteed bandwidth, but not guaranteed delivery (hence, UDP instead of TCP). I think it is a fair decision for sustained transmission to be prioritized below burst transmission. Someone downloading the newest Linux ISO shouldn't suck up all the bandwidth from the guy trying to read the WSJ online.


--
Scott Hussey
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://www.alexusstudios.com

_______________________________________________
members mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/members