Email address obfuscation in effect -- please
click here to turn it off.
[
Date Prev][
Date Next][
Thread Prev][
Thread Next][
Date Index][
Thread Index]
-- /--------------------------------------|---------------------------\ | Jason McIntosh | CELL: 573-424-7612 | | Webmaster, thinker, programmer, etc. | WORK: 573-884-3865 | | http://poetshome.com/ | | |------------------------------------------------------------------| |"How should I know if it works? That's what beta testers are | |for. I only coded it." | |(Attributed to Linus Torvalds, somewhere in a posting) | \--------------------------------------|---------------------------/ GnuPG Key: http://poetshome.com/about/jmcintosh_mlug.missouri.edu.gpgkey
On May 9, 2006, at 2:16 PM, Scott Hussey wrote: 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.
This is true - but, I've also seen little real expansion of these backbones - but that's wayyyy out of my arena. I'd really REALLY like to see more of that last mile use - I know my parents for example on the east side of town have been waiting for broadband for 5-10 years. I also know they're using satellite right now and hate it. SO, any solution that would actually help them get broadband would work - I just haven't seen any commitment from ANY big telco on getting broadband to more rural areas. Not even with "increased fees" that are supposed to help with that.
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.
Yes, this is true - the issue I'd have is when company A, say google, gets charged more than company B, Microsoft for the same kind of traffic. Even on different levels of traffic - this is screwing the consumer. Google pays for their outgoing pipes. The consumer is paying the telco's for decent access to these sites. It's basically saying the $50 I spend for broadband each month isn't enough to get me access to the sites I want at a decent rate. It's allowing companies to choose who I can see on the internet with a decent speed. i.e. imagine if google took twice as long to load - and all of a sudden MSN took half as long? How is that fair? It bothers me more than I can describe that my ISP or cable company or WHOEVER would choose to say "no, you can't access this site at a decent rate b/c they're paying me." _ that's ignoring the fact that I'M paying for net access.
Jason _______________________________________________ members mailing list
|
_______________________________________________
members mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/members
Home | FAQ | Server | Presentations | Mailing Lists/Archives | Member Tools | Links | Sponsors | Contact