http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2005/12/13/ telecoms_want_their_products_to_travel_on_a_faster_internet/ My commentary is reserved at this point... but, it does make me shudder.
Before you complain... It did not require a subscription when I first saw it. On Dec 13, 2005, at 2:56 PM, Blaine Christian wrote:
http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2005/12/13/ telecoms_want_their_products_to_travel_on_a_faster_internet/
My commentary is reserved at this point... but, it does make me shudder.
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005, Blaine Christian wrote:
http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2005/12/13/ telecoms_want_their_products_to_travel_on_a_faster_internet/
My commentary is reserved at this point... but, it does make me shudder.
Comcast has been advertising in press releases it gives priority to its voice traffic over its network for a while. http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/12-12-2005/0004231957&EDATE= Unlike traditional Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) offerings that run on the public Internet, Comcast Digital Voice calls originate and travel over Comcast's advanced, proprietary managed network. Because Comcast Digital Voice is a managed service, Comcast can make sure that customer calls get priority handling. If you install a Vonage terminal adapter/router, Vonage gives priority to its voice packets over other traffic over a broadband connection. When the various services were separate, there wasn't an issue. DSL data and voice service use different frequencies over the same copper pair. Which meant DSL data bandwidth was limited because the voice frequencies were always reserved for the voice channel. Now that the networks are converging, how do you provide traditional levels of reliability to the different services sharing the same network? Do you want the picture on the TV to stop because you download a big file on your PC? Do you want to be able to make phone calls when your PC is infected with Blaster and consuming your Internet bandwidth? You coaxial cable can support a Gigabit or more of bandwidth, but the cable company only sells you a few Megabits for Internet traffic. The cable company keeps the rest of the bandwidth for other services it sells such as video and voice. The service providers will probably sell you a few Megabits of Internet bandwidth on your Coax/FTTH/DSL line, and use the rest of the bandwidth on the line for other services like video or voice. They may sell the use of the "extra" bandwidth above the level you bought for Internet service to other companies. You may have only bought 5 Mbps service from your cable company, but the cable company may sell a burstable service to a Video On Demand company which lets them download movies at 30 Mbps above your normal bandwidth cap. However, the VOD company may have only scavenger class bandwidth, which means if you are using the cable bandwidth for something else the VOD download won't interfere with it. Does Google treat ICMP packets equally as web packets?
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/12-12-2005/0004231957&EDATE=
Unlike traditional Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) offerings that run on the public Internet, Comcast Digital Voice calls originate and travel over Comcast's advanced, proprietary managed network. Because Comcast Digital Voice is a managed service, Comcast can make sure that customer calls get priority handling.
Comcast doesn't have good public Internet access? That's a shame. I commend their bravery in admitting that only their internal network is advanced. </sarcasm> John
Sean, I think you are skirting the real issue here. Prioritizing traffic in order to provide reliable transport for isochronous services is one thing; Using QoS features to de-prioritize traffic from a competitor or a company who refuses to pay to access your customers is something completely different. These are not just paranoid ravings from the tin-foil brigades: two telecom CEO's have recently floated trial balloons proposing exactly this scenario. What good is 6Mbit DSL from my ISP (say, SBC for example) if only a small portion of the net (sites that pay for non-degraded access) loads at a reasonable speed and everything else sucks? Joe On 12/13/05 12:26 PM, "Sean Donelan" <sean@donelan.com> wrote:
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005, Blaine Christian wrote:
http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2005/12/13/ telecoms_want_their_products_to_travel_on_a_faster_internet/
My commentary is reserved at this point... but, it does make me shudder.
Comcast has been advertising in press releases it gives priority to its voice traffic over its network for a while.
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/12-12-2 005/0004231957&EDATE=
Unlike traditional Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) offerings that run on the public Internet, Comcast Digital Voice calls originate and travel over Comcast's advanced, proprietary managed network. Because Comcast Digital Voice is a managed service, Comcast can make sure that customer calls get priority handling.
-- Joe McGuckin ViaNet Communications 994 San Antonio Road Palo Alto, CA 94303 Phone: 650-213-1302 Cell: 650-207-0372 Fax: 650-969-2124
--- Joe McGuckin <joe@via.net> wrote:
What good is 6Mbit DSL from my ISP (say, SBC for example) if only a small portion of the net (sites that pay for non-degraded access) loads at a reasonable speed and everything else sucks?
There are two possible ways of having a tiered system - one is to degrade competitors/those who don't pay, and the other is to offer a premium service to those who do pay. Would your perception of those two scenarios be identical? -David -Fully RFC 1925 Compliant- (speaking only for myself, btw...) David Barak Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise: http://www.listentothefranchise.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
There are two possible ways of having a tiered system - one is to degrade competitors/those who don't pay, and the other is to offer a premium service to those who do pay.
The only way I know of to offer a premium service on the same network as a non-premium service is to delay non-premium packets. This artificial packet delay is known as "Quality of Service" or QoS because it degrades the quality of service to some users in order to allow other users unobstructed use of the network. You see the same thing in road networks when the police block certain intersections to allow a parade or an important diplomat to move along the streets with no obstructions. This type of policing can also be used in networks. But there is another way. If you provide enough bandwidth so that your peak traffic levels can travel through the network without ever being buffered at any of the core network interfaces, then everybody is a king. If you charge your customers a higher fee for such a network than your competitors do, then we have a tiered Internet. This unobstructed network was pioneered by Sprint on it's zero-CIR frame relay network and they carried this forward into their IP network as well. Other companies have carried forward this architecture as well. --Michael Dillon
This unobstructed network was pioneered by Sprint on it's zero-CIR frame relay network and they carried this forward into their IP network as well. Other companies have carried forward this architecture as well.
If I understand you correctly I highly doubt this is the case. If every customer suddenly was to use the maximum link speed of their access pipes I would be very surprised if all the traffic would be carried. On the subject of tiered Internet you could argue that mobile/celluar access to the Internet is another tier. Regards, Neil
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 10:54:43 +0000, Michael.Dillon@btradianz.com said:
But there is another way. If you provide enough bandwidth so that your peak traffic levels can travel through the network without ever being buffered at any of the core network interfaces, then everybody is a king. If you charge your customers a higher fee for such a network than your competitors do, then we have a tiered Internet. This unobstructed network was pioneered by Sprint on it's zero-CIR frame relay network and they carried this forward into their IP network as well. Other companies have carried forward this architecture as well.
That's the way all serious providers did IP-backbone engineering when there was no QoS. Local congestion in the access-network would happen from time to time even back in the 90s, but a network with congestion-problems in the backbone would soon be a network with no customers. Even today, it's the superior principle for backbone engineering. Most QoS-handling (and other traffic-engineering) gizmos, although some look good on paper, are too complex and too labour-intensive to offer cost-saving or other operational advantage in large IP backbones. Bandwith in the form of long-haul dark-fiber or colors would have to be much more expensive to change that equation. //per -- Per Heldal heldal@eml.cc
What good is 6Mbit DSL from my ISP (say, SBC for example) if only a small portion of the net (sites that pay for non-degraded access) loads at a reasonable speed and everything else sucks?
One might argue that in such a situation, the end user is getting less value than they did previously. End users might then either demand a price break or might vote with their connectivity. Tony
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005, Tony Li wrote:
What good is 6Mbit DSL from my ISP (say, SBC for example) if only a small portion of the net (sites that pay for non-degraded access) loads at a reasonable speed and everything else sucks?
One might argue that in such a situation, the end user is getting less value than they did previously. End users might then either demand a price break or might vote with their connectivity.
the last 2 times this has come up I think there was the suggestion that given other options at reasonably close to the same end cost users might switch to alternate access methods. That works as long as there are alternate access methods, and as long as the telecom's don't 'cabal' and all do the same hideously bad thing... I do think it'd be funny for SBC or BS to do this sort of thing and get massive customer loss when their customers defect to cable modem networks.
One might argue that in such a situation, the end user is getting less value than they did previously. End users might then either demand a price break or might vote with their connectivity.
the last 2 times this has come up I think there was the suggestion that given other options at reasonably close to the same end cost users might switch to alternate access methods. That works as long as there are alternate access methods, and as long as the telecom's don't 'cabal' and all do the same hideously bad thing...
There are a few things that this trend would get involved with. 1) It pushes the "cost" of "peering" to the content providers, essentially bypassing the underlying upstream/transit networks. The upstream/transit networks that are essentially getting disenfranchised might react by not peering with "premium" networks that are trying to pull their customers from using their network. 2) The only way this scenario (prioritization) makes any difference is when there isn't sufficient capacity within the "premium" network. If there is sufficient capacity, this is no real issue. However, for example, assuming this were enabled today, a network would have no incentive whatsoever to upgrade its networks -- provided that the customer pain/deprioritized network traffic is low enough. (A ratio that can be experimentally determined). In the example where end users get 6Mb/s for $50/month. It is conceivable that as part of this "upgrade/premium" service for end users... they'd get 60Mb/s downstream for $50/month. The network could provide this service at no increased operational cost because it only expects to push (whatever they currently push) of deprioritized traffic. (say 6mb/s assuming no over subscription). They could then cover the costs (and profits) of this 60mb/s premium service through the fees of the so-called premium content pushers. And thus, they could make the argument that no one is being harmed and in fact the end users gain.... Except that as the non-premium traffic levels of their end users grows... they suffer. The network's answer? Pay for premium access aka paid transit aka level-2 peering.. 3) The good news is that the RBOCs haven't learned how to run IP networks cost-effectively. Their costs of implementing this so-called "tier-2" network will far exceed the fees their model tells them they will get from it. Remember when they first got into the Internet Access business? They all tried to create their own premium content-portals, search engines, what-have-you. Then they outsourced/sold that function to networks like MSN. I doubt the majority of their users even care. AOL tried to keep their network proprietary. Didn't keep them swimming either. They can do anything they want with their own bits on their own network (eventually, the FCC will concede). The problem is that anytime you deprioritize the traffic of others for no other reason than because it isn't yours... well that smells a lot like restraint of trade. The RBOCs become gate keepers not underlying bit pushers. What about the censorship issues? If they won't accept *insert bad site here [porn, hate, etc]* /premium/ network's payments to push traffic across their network, but they will accept it (as they currently do) on a deprioritized level?? Its a mess and they'll spend billions and it will cause some pain, and it'll eventually be abandoned. [My prediction based on what little is known about this thing today and history]. DJ
Thus spake "Christopher L. Morrow" <christopher.morrow@mci.com>
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005, Tony Li wrote:
What good is 6Mbit DSL from my ISP (say, SBC for example) if only a small portion of the net (sites that pay for non-degraded access) loads at a reasonable speed and everything else sucks?
One might argue that in such a situation, the end user is getting less value than they did previously. End users might then either demand a price break or might vote with their connectivity.
the last 2 times this has come up I think there was the suggestion that given other options at reasonably close to the same end cost users might switch to alternate access methods. That works as long as there are alternate access methods, and as long as the telecom's don't 'cabal' and all do the same hideously bad thing...
Congress appears to be working hard to make sure that happens.
I do think it'd be funny for SBC or BS to do this sort of thing and get massive customer loss when their customers defect to cable modem networks.
Do you really think the cablecos will be significantly less evil than the telcos? I'm not as optimistic about the result of a legislated duopoly. S Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Thus spake "Christopher L. Morrow" <christopher.morrow@mci.com>
users might switch to alternate access methods. That works as long as there are alternate access methods, and as long as the telecom's don't 'cabal' and all do the same hideously bad thing...
Congress appears to be working hard to make sure that happens.
I hope that congress doesn't allow all the telcos to decide to do the same bad thing at the same bad time... I suppose they might though :( They've been known to do some stupid things with respect to 'Internet' stuff.
I do think it'd be funny for SBC or BS to do this sort of thing and get massive customer loss when their customers defect to cable modem networks.
Do you really think the cablecos will be significantly less evil than the telcos? I'm not as optimistic about the result of a legislated duopoly.
So far they seem to be not quite so evil (minus their port blocking for some services, and rate-shaping for other services)... I used them as an example though, really so long as there is another game in town (competition) think the SBC/BS proposals will not last very long. At the very least I'd bet that they won't garner the profits that the SBC/BS execs are hoping will arrive.
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
Do you really think the cablecos will be significantly less evil than the telcos? I'm not as optimistic about the result of a legislated duopoly.
So far they seem to be not quite so evil (minus their port blocking for some services, and rate-shaping for other services)... I used them as an example though, really so long as there is another game in town (competition) think the SBC/BS proposals will not last very long. At the very least I'd bet that they won't garner the profits that the SBC/BS execs are hoping will arrive.
How do you know your MSO or ISP hasn't been doing this for years? Do ISPs have different levels of congestion on peering links between different networks? Do ISPs have different levels of congestion between peering links and internal links? Do ISPs use different circuits or queues for different types of traffic? Whether your use time division multiplexing, frequency division multiplexing or packet division multiplexing, the effect on congestion is similar. You are creating multiple queues. You don't "delay" or "slow down" packets. Routers don't have big enough buffers to "delay" a packet for milliseconds. Whether you have two queues on one physical interface or two physical interfaces with one queue each, the end effect is the same if you forward different traffic through different paths. The reality is converged or partially converged networks have been using some level of QOS at some layer (MPLS, IP, ATM) for years. CIR, PIR, UBR, CBR, DSCP, TOS, choose your style. Even the PSTN has multiple classes of service for different calls ranging from choke numbers used for radio stations and call-in contests to GETS numbers used by emergency responders. Yes, MSOs and other ISPs are already doing this. The primary difference seems to be the telco's discuss more of their network engineering practices in public.
I know I would. Regards Marshall On Dec 13, 2005, at 11:17 PM, Tony Li wrote:
What good is 6Mbit DSL from my ISP (say, SBC for example) if only a small portion of the net (sites that pay for non-degraded access) loads at a reasonable speed and everything else sucks?
One might argue that in such a situation, the end user is getting less value than they did previously. End users might then either demand a price break or might vote with their connectivity.
Tony
--On December 13, 2005 8:17:43 PM -0800 Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li> wrote:
One might argue that in such a situation, the end user is getting less value than they did previously. End users might then either demand a price break or might vote with their connectivity.
*IF* they have a choice. In many areas for consumer grade access, you don't. I fully agree that you're not getting the same value/.worth out of a service that behaves like that. The strategy they're proposiing is very anti-competitive and very monopolistic.
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 19:12:31 -0800, "Joe McGuckin" <joe@via.net> said:
What good is 6Mbit DSL from my ISP (say, SBC for example) if only a small portion of the net (sites that pay for non-degraded access) loads at a reasonable speed and everything else sucks?
All providers in your market would have to agree to do the same thing. Capped services only work for monopoly providers. //per -- Per Heldal heldal@eml.cc
To me, this seems likely to lead to massive consumer dissatisfaction, and a disaster of the magnitude of the recent Sony CD root exploit fiasco. Typical Pareto distribution models for usage mean that no matter how popular "tier 1" sites are, a substantial part of the user time will be spent on degraded "tier 2" sites. If these don't work, people will complain. Just imagine for a second that cable providers started a service that meant that every channel not owned by, say, Disney, had a bad picture and sound. Would this be good for the cable companies ? Would their customers be happy ? Of course, based on some recent experience this probably means that this will be adopted enthusiastically. Regards Marshall Eubanks On Dec 14, 2005, at 7:05 AM, Per Heldal wrote:
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 19:12:31 -0800, "Joe McGuckin" <joe@via.net> said:
What good is 6Mbit DSL from my ISP (say, SBC for example) if only a small portion of the net (sites that pay for non-degraded access) loads at a reasonable speed and everything else sucks?
All providers in your market would have to agree to do the same thing. Capped services only work for monopoly providers.
//per -- Per Heldal heldal@eml.cc
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
To me, this seems likely to lead to massive consumer dissatisfaction, and a disaster of the magnitude of the recent Sony CD root exploit fiasco.
Typical Pareto distribution models for usage mean that no matter how popular "tier 1" sites are, a substantial part of the user time will be spent on degraded "tier 2" sites.
If these don't work, people will complain. Just imagine for a second that cable providers started a service that meant that every channel not owned by, say, Disney, had a bad picture and sound. Would this be good for the cable companies ? Would their customers be happy ?
Of course, based on some recent experience this probably means that this will be adopted enthusiastically.
I'm seeing a lot of comments here that appear to be looking at this as a very binary issue -- either it's ok, or it will cause the customers to defect en masse to the competition. This seems to ignore questions of how it would be implemented, and what the competition's offering would be. If I've got a choice between two providers, both of which are offering a 3 Mb/s pipe, but one of them restricts services from other networks to half of that pipe, that's going to effectively be a situation where one provider is only offering half the Internet bandwidth the other offers. On the other hand, there could be a scenario in which one network offered a 3 Mb/s unrestricted pipe, while the other offered a 6 Mb/s pipe, with prioritized traffic potentially eating 2 Mb/s of it. That would still be 4 Mb/s of unrestricted traffic vs. the other provider's 3 Mb/s. In other words, a provider with sufficiently better last mile technology than the competition should be able to do lots of stuff like this and still come out ahead. Providers in markets that are technologically more even might have more trouble. That assumes rate limiting in the last mile. If what's instead being talked about is QoS tagging of last mile packets, that should be completely irrelevant to those who don't use the services that are prioritized. Of course, if they're restricting capacity in the backbone and using QoS there, that may be a different story, but that seems unlikely to be what's being talked about. Backbone congestion doesn't tend to happen much in major American cities these days, but individual DSL lines saturate pretty easily. -Steve
Now that the networks are converging, how do you provide traditional levels of reliability to the different services sharing the same network? Do you want the picture on the TV to stop because you download a big file on your PC? Do you want to be able to make phone calls when your PC is infected with Blaster and consuming your Internet bandwidth?
Simple. You give the consumer the ability to fiddle with the QoS settings on the provider's edge router interface. After all, they are paying for the access link. --Michael Dillon
--- Michael.Dillon@btradianz.com wrote:
Simple. You give the consumer the ability to fiddle with the QoS settings on the provider's edge router interface. After all, they are paying for the access link.
eeek! I assume you mean "tell the customer what DSCP/whatever settings you honor, and let them do the marking" right? The thought of letting customers actually make changes to my edge routers would keep me up at night... -David David Barak Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise: http://www.listentothefranchise.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 04:41:54 -0800 (PST), "David Barak" <thegameiam@yahoo.com> said:
--- Michael.Dillon@btradianz.com wrote:
Simple. You give the consumer the ability to fiddle with the QoS settings on the provider's edge router interface. After all, they are paying for the access link.
eeek! I assume you mean "tell the customer what DSCP/whatever settings you honor, and let them do the marking" right? The thought of letting customers actually make changes to my edge routers would keep me up at night...
To let customers decide priorities in your backbone is a bad idea, but I don't think that's the issue here. Assuming the customer's link to the network to be the primary bottleneck; there's nothing wrong with giving customers the ability to prioritise traffic on their link, provided that your access-equipment is able to handle queueing etc (given fool-proof mechanisms that enable self-service and keep your NOC out of the loop of course;). //per -- Per Heldal heldal@eml.cc
To let customers decide priorities in your backbone is a bad idea, but I don't think that's the issue here. Assuming the customer's link to the network to be the primary bottleneck; there's nothing wrong with giving customers the ability to prioritise traffic on their link, provided that your access-equipment is able to handle queueing etc (given fool-proof mechanisms that enable self-service and keep your NOC out of the loop of course;).
Precisely! In today's world, lots of router configuration is not done manually by anybody. There is an OSS system that applies rules to what changes will and will not be done and when they will be done. Since QoS works by degrading the quality of service for some streams of packets in a congestion scenario and since congestion scenarios are most common on end customer links, it makes sense to let the end customers fiddle with the QoS settings in both directions on their link. Of course, any incoming packet markings should be discarded or ignored once the packets pass the provider's edge router. This is possible today without any special support from router vendors. It relies entirely on operational support systems such as web servers, databases and remote control servers. QoS is for customers, not for network operators! --Michael Dillon
Michael.Dillon@btradianz.com wrote:
Since QoS works by degrading the quality of service for some streams of packets in a congestion scenario and since congestion scenarios are most common on end customer links, it makes sense to let the end customers fiddle with the QoS settings in both directions on their link.
So where would the payback be for this for the last-mile provider? Compared to the pain of setting this up and supporting it, what percentage of customers would actually use something like this? Just trying to educate users on this would be quite challenging. "Well, sir, the service allows you to select which of your traffic is important and should get priority..." "But all my traffic is important!" It gets more fun when the medium you use to get to the end customer is a shared medium, with some normal amount of oversubscription. Bob
On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 09:59:15AM -0800, Bob Snyder wrote:
Michael.Dillon@btradianz.com wrote:
Since QoS works by degrading the quality of service for some streams of packets in a congestion scenario and since congestion scenarios are most common on end customer links, it makes sense to let the end customers fiddle with the QoS settings in both directions on their link.
So where would the payback be for this for the last-mile provider? Compared to the pain of setting this up and supporting it, what percentage of customers would actually use something like this? Just trying to educate users on this would be quite challenging. "Well, sir, the service allows you to select which of your traffic is important and should get priority..." "But all my traffic is important!"
It gets more fun when the medium you use to get to the end customer is a shared medium, with some normal amount of oversubscription.
Bob
since Internet is "best-effort" ... any overt attempt to reduce this best effort service to explictly degraded service (perhaps due to intentional overprovisioning, causing degraded service) ... -is NOT the Internet- ... its some propriatary, substandard networking technology to get me to the Internet. So i suspect that marketing folks be very clear on what is being sold. --bill
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
but do i get "the Internet"? ... your claim is that i am not paying for it. my bills indicate that i -am- paying for it. (regardless of priority... after all, the Internet is "best-effort" ... and w/ QoS, i don't get that anymore... i get the choice to buy crap instead of best effort...) Best effort is the top-tier of the QoS/priority pyramid... as sad as that is.
You start with a flawed assumption, you end up with wrong conclusions. Who said this had anything to do with "the Internet"? Instead, this is about additional private network services, which cable companies already do over coax, that telco's want to offer over a multiservice access line in addition to "the Internet." Coax can carry over a Gigibit of data, but cable companies usually sell user's less than 10Mbps for Internet data. Cable companies reserve the rest of the their network capacity for private services like HBO, video on demand and voice. Just because part of a physical line is used for Internet service doesn't mean everything going across the same line is the Internet. The telephone companies are asking for the same ability to sell multiple services over the same physical line. Cable companies didn't make their Internet service slower when they add more private services, why do people expect the telephone companies to make their Internet service worse when the telephone companies add private services to their network?
The telephone companies are asking for the same ability to sell multiple services over the same physical line. Cable companies didn't make their Internet service slower when they add more private services, why do people expect the telephone companies to make their Internet service worse when the telephone companies add private services to their network?
Because they're telephone companies. Because they can't manufacture bandwidth that isn't there. Cable co's provide broadband with a fraction of the loop capacity. For telco's to offer premium service, they have to take from the aggregate capacity. It's a zero sum game, and for the telco's to get more, the subscribers get less. Tony
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005, Tony Li wrote:
Because they're telephone companies.
Oh, that's right. I forgot. They're evil.
Because they can't manufacture bandwidth that isn't there. Cable co's provide broadband with a fraction of the loop capacity. For telco's to offer premium service, they have to take from the aggregate capacity. It's a zero sum game, and for the telco's to get more, the subscribers get less.
I guess you missed all those trenches being dug in Verizon land to install fiber to the home. I guess you missed all the network upgrades in ATT/SBC and Bellsouth land to shorten their copper loop distances. Sounds like they are manufacturing more bandwidth and the zero sum game is getting bigger.
I guess you missed all those trenches being dug in Verizon land to install fiber to the home. I guess you missed all the network upgrades in ATT/SBC and Bellsouth land to shorten their copper loop distances.
Sounds like they are manufacturing more bandwidth and the zero sum game is getting bigger.
I believe it when it gets to my street. So far, the reality is Really Slow DSL, with service and installation times measured in weeks at costs that aren't competitive. So yes, I missed all of that. Tony
Tony Li wrote:
I guess you missed all those trenches being dug in Verizon land to install fiber to the home. I guess you missed all the network upgrades in ATT/SBC and Bellsouth land to shorten their copper loop distances.
Sounds like they are manufacturing more bandwidth and the zero sum game is getting bigger.
I believe it when it gets to my street. So far, the reality is Really Slow DSL, with service and installation times measured in weeks at costs that aren't competitive. So yes, I missed all of that.
And, at that, only after extracting regulatory concessions at both the state and federal levels basically giving them their monopoly back to give them "incentive" to half-*ssed roll out that DSL that is, itself, a mere fraction of what is technically possible. Color me unimpressed. -- Jeff McAdams "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- Benjamin Franklin
JM> Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 20:45:09 -0500 JM> From: Jeff McAdams JM> And, at that, only after extracting regulatory concessions at both the JM> state and federal levels basically giving them their monopoly back to JM> give them "incentive" to half-*ssed roll out that DSL that is, itself, a JM> mere fraction of what is technically possible. Hear, hear. Interestingly, back in 1997, $local_ilec claimed they were "waiting on the tariff to be approved" for lower ISDN rates. I suspect such a tariff requires filing for any chance of approval. General observation: Both cable and DSL are available, or neither are. That's empirical; don't ask me for an r-squared calculation. ;-) Eddy -- Everquick Internet - http://www.everquick.net/ A division of Brotsman & Dreger, Inc. - http://www.brotsman.com/ Bandwidth, consulting, e-commerce, hosting, and network building Phone: +1 785 865 5885 Lawrence and [inter]national Phone: +1 316 794 8922 Wichita ________________________________________________________________________ DO NOT send mail to the following addresses: davidc@brics.com -*- jfconmaapaq@intc.net -*- sam@everquick.net Sending mail to spambait addresses is a great way to get blocked. Ditto for broken OOO autoresponders and foolish AV software backscatter.
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005, Tony Li wrote:
I believe it when it gets to my street. So far, the reality is Really Slow DSL, with service and installation times measured in weeks at costs that aren't competitive. So yes, I missed all of that.
There are currently a couple of million IPTV users worldwide. Imagine how much more useful the conversation would be if it included people who have actually used it and could say what their experience has been instead of people leaping to conlusions based on inaccurate reports. http://www.cisco.com/application/pdf/en/us/guest/netsol/ns610/c647/cdccont_0...
On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 05:14:46PM -0800, Tony Li wrote:
I guess you missed all those trenches being dug in Verizon land to install fiber to the home. I guess you missed all the network upgrades in ATT/SBC and Bellsouth land to shorten their copper loop distances.
Sounds like they are manufacturing more bandwidth and the zero sum game is getting bigger.
I believe it when it gets to my street. So far, the reality is Really Slow DSL, with service and installation times measured in weeks at costs that aren't competitive. So yes, I missed all of that.
Ditto. No matter how many million IPTV users there are, it's not reaching the area where i live. I'd love Verizon to come into the chunk of the SBC area where i live that is adjancent to their existing service area and attempt to compete with each other. - jared -- Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from jared@puck.nether.net clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.
What I'm interested in is how the two service providers will build a two tiered Internet. To our experience, current QoS mechanism ( WRR + multiple_Queue) could not differentiate service quality when bandwidth is overprivisioned. If there is congestion, why should I stay with it while there is another ISP who says their is no congestion in their network ? If hard limited bandwidth allocation mechanism is available, how could they calculate the bandwidth of each service class ? how could they do with the complexity of nework management? How could they do with security problems? Looking at IPTV, I'm not sure where is millions of people use such service; but I do know P2P IPTV application (like ppstream) could provide good quality and multiple TV programs even bandwidth is limited. So, IMO this is game between ISPs, new technology, content providers and internet users. Currently, content providers are the ONLY winner. Joe --- Jared Mauch <jared@puck.nether.net> wrote:
On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 05:14:46PM -0800, Tony Li wrote:
I guess you missed all those trenches being dug
install fiber to the home. I guess you missed all the network upgrades in ATT/SBC and Bellsouth land to shorten their copper loop distances.
Sounds like they are manufacturing more bandwidth and the zero sum game is getting bigger.
I believe it when it gets to my street. So far,
in Verizon land to the reality is
Really Slow DSL, with service and installation times measured in weeks at costs that aren't competitive. So yes, I missed all of that.
Ditto.
No matter how many million IPTV users there are, it's not reaching the area where i live. I'd love Verizon to come into the chunk of the SBC area where i live that is adjancent to their existing service area and attempt to compete with each other.
- jared
-- Jared Mauch | pgp key available via finger from jared@puck.nether.net clue++; | http://puck.nether.net/~jared/ My statements are only mine.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 1GB free storage! http://sg.whatsnew.mail.yahoo.com
On Wed, Dec 14, 2005 at 07:28:06PM -0500, Sean Donelan wrote:
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
but do i get "the Internet"? ... your claim is that i am not paying for it. my bills indicate that i -am- paying for it. (regardless of priority... after all, the Internet is "best-effort" ... and w/ QoS, i don't get that anymore... i get the choice to buy crap instead of best effort...) Best effort is the top-tier of the QoS/priority pyramid... as sad as that is.
You start with a flawed assumption, you end up with wrong conclusions. Who said this had anything to do with "the Internet"?
well... the press? the telco marketing droids?? ------- = Telecoms want their products to travel on a faster Internet = Major site owners oppose 2-tier system = By Hiawatha Bray, Globe Staff | December 13, 2005 = <http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2005/12/13/ = telecoms_want_their_products_to_travel_on_a_faster_internet/> = = AT&T Inc. and BellSouth Corp. are lobbying Capitol Hill for the right = to create a two-tiered Internet, where the telecom carriers' own = Internet services would be transmitted faster and more efficiently = than those of their competitors. ------ darn that pesky Internet word keeps cropping up. to borrow a phrase; "... I do not think it means what you think it means..." - Princess Bride
Instead, this is about additional private network services, which cable companies already do over coax, that telco's want to offer over a multiservice access line in addition to "the Internet." Coax can carry over a Gigibit of data, but cable companies usually sell user's less than 10Mbps for Internet data. Cable companies reserve the rest of the their network capacity for private services like HBO, video on demand and voice. Just because part of a physical line is used for Internet service doesn't mean everything going across the same line is the Internet.
sure... if thats really the case.
The telephone companies are asking for the same ability to sell multiple services over the same physical line. Cable companies didn't make their Internet service slower when they add more private services, why do people expect the telephone companies to make their Internet service worse when the telephone companies add private services to their network?
they should not call it "the Internet" then should they? :)
participants (21)
-
Blaine Christian -
bmanning＠vacation.karoshi.com -
Bob Snyder -
Christopher L. Morrow -
David Barak -
Deepak Jain -
Edward B. Dreger -
Jared Mauch -
Jeff McAdams -
Joe McGuckin -
Joe Shen -
John Dupuy -
Marshall Eubanks -
Michael Loftis -
Michael.Dillon＠btradianz.com -
Neil J. McRae -
Per Heldal -
Sean Donelan -
Stephen Sprunk -
Steve Gibbard -
Tony Li