Re: [MLUG] Oh, no...

[Michael <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

QoS is in general a stupid idea made to make up for the fact that 
companies are encouraging users to use the network in the wrong way by 
not encouraging caching of data whenever possible. Luckily technology is 
working around these businesses as time goes by. Bit torrent is a major 
bandwidth hog but new advances are making it more responsive to network 
proximity between peers - it transfers data from closer peers when 
possible which reduces network load. Most modern video on demand 
services are being built around torrent or similar systems so they 
shouldn't cause this kind of problems. ISOs already mostly are 
downloaded by torrent these days. Torrent has become the #1 way of 
moving files on the Internet and is being merged into browsers and other 
programs to gain even more.

That leaves one-to-one video and phone applications as the major hog. 
Phone doesn't really use much bandwidth and isn't as popular as IM for 
most users. Video could use a bit more bandwidth but even that could be 
improved to take the shortest route by not going through servers all 
over the place that aren't needed. Most of those feeds aren't yet very 
high load either.

There is very little effort on the part of ISPs etc to provide local 
services in the last mile. If they are so worried about bandwidth usage 
they could do these things easily and make money at it.

QoS should be reserved for emergency needs like medical use and 911 calls.

It's not that communications companies haven't invested themselves but 
the taxpayer has also invested a lot both in the networks themselves and 
in the technology that makes them possible. And as Mike says it becomes 
a free speech issue. There are other, more legit, ways that these 
companies can make money from the situation rather than blackmailing people.
> 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.


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