On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 2:06 PM, Scott Helms <khe...@zcorum.com> wrote: > 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
yes I made a joke. (*three of them actually) > that complex and today we handle the maximum amount of complexity already > since everything is the same priority right now. sure... simple networking, no priorities. > 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 not unworkable for the consumer, per say. it makes guaranteeing that 'fast-lane' for those folk that do pay for it harder. The cableco/etc will potentially have to provide the equivalent 'fast-lane' bandwidth for each consumer, or risk contract breach with some of their paying 'fast-lane' purchasers. or that's sort of what it looks like to me... of course statistical multiplexing and 'long tail' and other things probably mean this isn't a 'happens to all households' problem, but it could happen to a goodly portion if enough services become popular in an example household. > 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. sure, but there's no contractual problem with lost bits/streams today... because 'moviecompany' didn't pay for a 'premium service' (or priority or...) from 'cableco'. -chris > > 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.li...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 1:48 PM, Scott Helms <khe...@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.li...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 1:06 PM, Ryan Brooks <r...@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. >> > >> > > >
