Chris, You're not reading what I said, nor did I make a statement anything like one of the silly things you referenced (640k ram etc). Prioritization isn't that complex and today we handle the maximum amount of complexity already since everything is the same priority right now. You're trying to make the statement that giving multiple content providers priority somehow makes connectivity unworkable for consumers as if we don't have this problem already. Consumers can easily starve themselves of bandwidth with video or any other content and almost no connections in the US have any sort of intelligent fair usage buffering provided by the service provider. This is true for both cable, telco, and other operators. Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms -------------------------------- On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 2:01 PM, Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 1:48 PM, Scott Helms <khelms@zcorum.com> wrote:
Its not really that complex, if you think about it having 10000s of 'movieco' with the same priority is the status quo. At the end of the day the QoS mechanics in DOCSIS are pretty straightforward and rely on service flows, while service flows can have equal priority I doubt most operators will sell more than a few (perhaps just one) top priority in a given a category.
yes, there will only ever be 5 computers. or you couldn't possibly need more than 640kb of ram..... or more than 4billion 'ip addresses'.
I don't think you have to get to more than 10 or 20 of the stated examples before things get dicey ... Once a set of customers experience (and can measure) the effect, they'll back their complaints up to 'moviecompany' and some set of contract penalties will kick in, I suspect.
Sure, if there is only one it's not a problem, but there are already not just one...
Scott Helms Vice President of Technology ZCorum (678) 507-5000 -------------------------------- http://twitter.com/kscotthelms --------------------------------
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Christopher Morrow <morrowc.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 1:06 PM, Ryan Brooks <ryan@hack.net> wrote:
On 5/15/14, 11:58 AM, Joe Greco wrote:
2) Netflix purchases 5Mbps "fast lane"
I appreciate Joe's use of quotation marks here. A lot of the dialog has included this 'fast lane' terminology, yet all of us know there's no 'fast lane' being constructed, rather just varying degrees of _slow_ applied to existing traffic.
please correct me if I'm wrong, but 'fast lane' really is (in this example): 'cableco' port from 'moviecompany' has 'qos' marking configuration to set all 'moviecompany' traffic (from this port!) to some priority level.
customer-port to 'cableco' has 'qos' handling/queuing that will ensure '5mbps' of 'moviecompany' is always going to get down the link to the customer, regardless of the other traffic the customer is requesting.
right? (presume that in the rest of the 'cableco' network is protecting 'moviecompany' traffic as well, of course)
So, when there are 1 'moviecompany' things to prioritize and deliver that's cool... but what about when there are 10? 100? 1000? doesn't the queuing get complicated? what if the 'cableco' customer with 10mbps link has 3 people in the location all streaming from 3 different 'moviecompany' organizations which have paid for 'fastlane' services?
3 x 5 == 15 ... not 10. How will 'cableco' manage this when their 100gbps inter-metro links are seeing +100gbps if 'fastlane' traffic and 'fastlane' traffic can't make it to the local metro from the remote one?
This all seems much, much more complicated and expensive than just building out networking, which they will have to do in the end anyway, right? Only with 'fastlanes' there's extra capacity management and configuration and testing and ... all on top of: "Gosh, does the new umnptyfart card from routerco actually work in old routerco routers?"
This looks, to me, like nuttiness... like mutually assured destruction that the cableco folk are driving both parties into intentionally.
-chris
BTW: I didn't use a particular 'cable company' name for 'cableco', nor did I use a particular streaming media company for 'moviecompany'... Also, 'cableco' is short-hand for 'lastmile-consumer-provider-network'. Less typing was better, for me, I thought.