"He gets it completely wrong. It's not about blocking content it is about allowing a content provider to pay extra to insure their "low-latency demanding service" gets a low-latency path to their customer."Yeah, but I don't like your idea either. Why did I pay $50/month for a high speed connection if I can't get the content at the connection I already paid for. They're trying to charge for the same service twice. You're basically segmenting the internet, which is fine but then sholdn't charge me $50 for a service you're calling "broadband" if it isn't.
THE INTERNET IS FOR PORNFrom the Avenue Q broadway music. Best Broadway musical of 2003. not too many geeks can cite the source, but geeks with girlfriends can!
I've worked at a couple of ISPs/telcos since 1994, in network engineering. I kind of understand how this works. This is nothing more than an attempt to extort money from large customers like Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft. The telco execs are pissed that these guys are making tons of money, and they think they are due more of it, simply because they have the network.Technically, there are very few paths on the internet that are anywhere near saturation. Bandwidth today is so cheap, and there is so much available. There is plenty of money to buy more switches and routers where needed. Of course, there are still a few smaller ISPs that have some saturated links, but the large players are in the process of squeezing them off the net anyway. They'll be gone soon. What will be left are the giants, who, working together against US law, are colluding to extort "protection money" from the big hosting customers.These guys are working hard buying politicians to pass laws that will allow them to further rip off their customers - both hosting and connection.Technically, QoS works fine, but once everyone buys some kind of QoS upgrade, then we are back where we are today. We've tested and simulated this to no end - the result is always the same. The few that don't buy the upgrade will be totally blocked out on a saturated link, but won't see a huge difference on an un-saturated link. Guess what? Soon more links will be "saturated", naturally.Folks, the telcos are trying to scam you.
HMTKSteve:The only way to avoid the nightmare scenario I described above, where content providers are required to individually negotiate routing policy agreements with each individual ILEC and maybe even the individual CLECs, would be include some kind of reciprocal QoS routing agreement into the current peering argeements; placing it firmly within the purview of the FCC.Do you have any idea how mind-bogglingly complex those agreements already are? I work in a legal environment which deals with quite a bit of telecommunications issues so I have at least some vague familiarity with what's involved. To call the current state of FCC regulation a clusterf**k would be the understatement of the century. One thing which might work, and I stress might, would be to tack onto the current agreements an requirement which preserves routing priority between ILECs and CLECs. The arrangement would be something like: EP a --(SIP=QoS:1)--> ISP I --(SIP=QoS:1)--> CLEC A --(SIP=QoS:1)--> ILEC 1 --(SIP=QoS:1)--> ILEC 2 --(SIP=QoS:1)--> CLEC B --(SIP=QoS:1)--> ISP II --(SIP=QoS:1)--> EP bThe above describes a situation where an end point "a" (EP a) has negotiated a service level agreement with their CLEC which includes a guarantee of an end-to-end routing priority of 1 for all SIP traffic. Reciprocal peering agreements would have to ensure that the appropriate QoS policy is maintained across each interconnet (ILEC CLEC ISP). The FCC could in theory mandate this, but the technicalities of implementation would be a nightmare; and, keep in mind, once packets leave the regulatory purview of the FCC all bets are off (no QoS guarantees outside of the US) .In the above, let's say that "EP a" is me and "ISP I" is Comcast. I would have an agreement with Comcast which ensures that I obtain an end-to-end QoS priority 1 for all SIP traffic. Alternately, "EP a" could be VoIP service like Vonage who has obtained a negotiated service level agreement with someone like Semaphore, which would ensure that all of their customer base gets priority 1 routing. By allowing both providers and consumers the ability to purchase QoS routing guarantees, it would also allow a situation where, for instance, I opt to get my VoIP termination/origination services from Mom&Pop's CutRate VoIP Shop, who haven't purchased a priority arrangement with their provider, with the knowledge that my SIP traffic is already guaranteed an end-to-end priority of 1.
furtwan1May 31, 2006
of course it's not free. I pay $50 a month!
stopherJun 1, 2006
"He gets it completely wrong. It's not about blocking content it is about allowing a content provider to pay extra to insure their "low-latency demanding service" gets a low-latency path to their customer."Yeah, but I don't like your idea either. Why did I pay $50/month for a high speed connection if I can't get the content at the connection I already paid for. They're trying to charge for the same service twice. You're basically segmenting the internet, which is fine but then sholdn't charge me $50 for a service you're calling "broadband" if it isn't.
tubatechnoJun 1, 2006
THE INTERNET IS FOR PORNFrom the Avenue Q broadway music. Best Broadway musical of 2003. not too many geeks can cite the source, but geeks with girlfriends can!
jellygraphJun 1, 2006
@ geekee<a class="user" href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41318000/jpg/_41318905_nigerchild_afp300.jpg">http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41318000/jpg/_41318905_nigerchild_afp300.jpg</a>"Standard socialist rhetoric. Give me something because I need it."Great attitude. I hope you lose everything so you know what it feels like.
iheartlibertyJun 1, 2006
I've worked at a couple of ISPs/telcos since 1994, in network engineering. I kind of understand how this works. This is nothing more than an attempt to extort money from large customers like Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft. The telco execs are pissed that these guys are making tons of money, and they think they are due more of it, simply because they have the network.Technically, there are very few paths on the internet that are anywhere near saturation. Bandwidth today is so cheap, and there is so much available. There is plenty of money to buy more switches and routers where needed. Of course, there are still a few smaller ISPs that have some saturated links, but the large players are in the process of squeezing them off the net anyway. They'll be gone soon. What will be left are the giants, who, working together against US law, are colluding to extort "protection money" from the big hosting customers.These guys are working hard buying politicians to pass laws that will allow them to further rip off their customers - both hosting and connection.Technically, QoS works fine, but once everyone buys some kind of QoS upgrade, then we are back where we are today. We've tested and simulated this to no end - the result is always the same. The few that don't buy the upgrade will be totally blocked out on a saturated link, but won't see a huge difference on an un-saturated link. Guess what? Soon more links will be "saturated", naturally.Folks, the telcos are trying to scam you.
cr8dle2graveJun 1, 2006
HMTKSteve:The only way to avoid the nightmare scenario I described above, where content providers are required to individually negotiate routing policy agreements with each individual ILEC and maybe even the individual CLECs, would be include some kind of reciprocal QoS routing agreement into the current peering argeements; placing it firmly within the purview of the FCC.Do you have any idea how mind-bogglingly complex those agreements already are? I work in a legal environment which deals with quite a bit of telecommunications issues so I have at least some vague familiarity with what's involved. To call the current state of FCC regulation a clusterf**k would be the understatement of the century. One thing which might work, and I stress might, would be to tack onto the current agreements an requirement which preserves routing priority between ILECs and CLECs. The arrangement would be something like: EP a --(SIP=QoS:1)--> ISP I --(SIP=QoS:1)--> CLEC A --(SIP=QoS:1)--> ILEC 1 --(SIP=QoS:1)--> ILEC 2 --(SIP=QoS:1)--> CLEC B --(SIP=QoS:1)--> ISP II --(SIP=QoS:1)--> EP bThe above describes a situation where an end point "a" (EP a) has negotiated a service level agreement with their CLEC which includes a guarantee of an end-to-end routing priority of 1 for all SIP traffic. Reciprocal peering agreements would have to ensure that the appropriate QoS policy is maintained across each interconnet (ILEC CLEC ISP). The FCC could in theory mandate this, but the technicalities of implementation would be a nightmare; and, keep in mind, once packets leave the regulatory purview of the FCC all bets are off (no QoS guarantees outside of the US) .In the above, let's say that "EP a" is me and "ISP I" is Comcast. I would have an agreement with Comcast which ensures that I obtain an end-to-end QoS priority 1 for all SIP traffic. Alternately, "EP a" could be VoIP service like Vonage who has obtained a negotiated service level agreement with someone like Semaphore, which would ensure that all of their customer base gets priority 1 routing. By allowing both providers and consumers the ability to purchase QoS routing guarantees, it would also allow a situation where, for instance, I opt to get my VoIP termination/origination services from Mom&Pop's CutRate VoIP Shop, who haven't purchased a priority arrangement with their provider, with the knowledge that my SIP traffic is already guaranteed an end-to-end priority of 1.
dwhisperJun 1, 2006
My comment above should have been directed at btipling, not furtwan1; sorry about that.