Re: [MLUG] Oh, no...

[Rick <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

Disclaimer: Having had to deal with them repeatedly from the customer 
end, I hate all telcos... =)

This policy already exists in the form of premium pricing for QoS from 
the host end. And while I don't have ready numbers, the infrastructure 
under these lines is/was *very* much subsidized by the taxpayer in the 
form of right of way. If the telcos are allowed to charge more for 
certain traffic, then perhaps it's time they started paying actual cost 
for the ground these lines are in/over.

Secondly, if it's the customer's port that's being saturated, then the 
telco doesn't care, they either up sell the port or drop some packets. 
Either way, the bandwidth is already being paid for.

I agree that the government shouldn't rule the use and rates of the 
lines, but they most certainly should regulate them so that the telcos 
can't rape the customers. This is all about fencing off incursions into 
the traditional telco switched network cash cow and of disallowing the 
market to push innovation like it should. Voice and video over IP are 
coming, and they don't like it because they weren't smart enough to 
preposition themselves in the market.

Perhaps I'm wrong, and you should correct me if I am, but this isn't 
about prioritizing burst over sustained, this about prioritizing Google 
over Yahoo and, in this case, that's the cart going in front of the horse.

Rick

Scott Hussey wrote:
> On 5/9/06, *Michael* <EMAIL:PROTECTED 
> <mailto: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 <mailto:EMAIL:PROTECTED>
> http://www.alexusstudios.com
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> members mailing list
> EMAIL:PROTECTED
> http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/members

--
We simply can't idiot-proof everything. Sometimes the idiots just have 
to suffer and die.
--http://www.overheardintheoffice.com/

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