On Sep 16, 2010, at 11:35 AM, Chris Woodfield wrote: > On Sep 16, 2010, at 10:57 07AM, George Bonser wrote: >>> >> >> Hi Chris, >> >> Since prioritization would work ONLY when the link us saturated >> (congested), without it, nothing is going to work well, not your >> torrents, not your email, not your browsing. By prioritizing the >> traffic, the torrents might back off but they would still continue to >> flow, they wouldn't be completely blocked, they would just slow down. >> QoS can be a good thing for allowing your VIOP to work while someone >> else in the home is watching a streaming movie or something. Without >> it, everything breaks once the circuit is congested. >> >> > > Your statement misses the point, which is, *who* gets to decide what traffic > is prioritized? And will that prioritization be determined by who is paying > my carrier for that prioritization, potentially against my own preferences? > For some damn reason, I might *prefer* that my torrent traffic get > prioritized over, say, email. Or, I might not appreciate the eventuality that > a stream I'm watching on hulu.com stutters because my neighbor's watching a > movie on Netflix and it just happens that Netflix has paid my carrier for > prioritized traffic. > > The other point, as mentioned previously, is that paid prioritization doesn't > mean a thing unless there's congestion to be managed. It's not a far stretch > to see exec-level types seeing the potential financial benefits to, well, > ensuring that such congestion does show up in their network in order to > create the practical incentives for paid prioritization. > > -C Yep... If you don't believe that will happen, I refer you to Enron vs. California ISO and the lovely changes to the electricity market in California around that time.
Owen
