Robin, I think what you are missing is the fact that one has no right to insist on their traffic being prioritized when it traverses the network, which is private property, of another company. That other company is already allowing your traffic through, and not mistreating it in any way,but now you want it to give your traffic special treatment? That's like me allowing you to take a shortcut and walk across my property. I generously let you do that,though I prefer to drive myself. Then, you insist that I drive you also.
Jim On Mon Mar 20 06:24:42 PST 2006, "'Hammond, Robin-David%KB3IEN'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Perhapse I am missing something but, I'll ask anyway. > > What is the difference between prioritizing A vs deprioritizing B > if A and B are on the same network concurently? Either way A is > now above B. > > IMHO treating VOIP like 'any other data' is exactly the problem. > VOIP is not any other data and refuses to be treated as such. > Minor latency and packet re-ording matters not to TCP nor > single-datagramme UDP (like DNS). Voip is stream of time > sensitive UDP datagrammes, it has no viable provisions for > retransmit nor graceful loss recovery at this time. If your > network never exceeds 10% utilization, this might not be a > problem for you. Im fairly sure on my network and most definitely > sure that on Alex's network utilization is routinely above 10% > during peek hours. > > > On Sun, 19 Mar 2006, Jim Henry wrote: > >> Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2006 11:38:14 -0500 >> From: Jim Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "'Hammond, Robin-David%KB3IEN'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Cc: 'Dana Spiegel' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, >> [email protected] >> Subject: RE: [nycwireless] New Yorker Article [was: Multichannel >> News >> -AnalystsQuestionBellInvestments] >> >> I think the only fair way to treat VOIP is for a provider to >> prioritize >> their own VOIP packets, not lower the priority of VOIP packets >> from other >> providers, or worse, block ports that competitors use for the >> service. That >> way if I own a network I can fairly insure QOS for my VOIP >> customers and >> give all competitors "best effort" service just like any other >> data >> traversing the network. >> Jim >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Hammond, Robin-David%KB3IEN [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 3:20 AM >>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> Cc: Dana Spiegel; [email protected]; Jim Henry >>> Subject: Re: [nycwireless] New Yorker Article [was: >>> Multichannel News -AnalystsQuestionBellInvestments] >>> >>> >>> >>> I realy dont see the need for an ISP to promote one set of >>> voip over another as a matter of course. How does it serve >>> any of the stake holders? >>> >>> Granted there may be times of crisis when demand is very >>> high, and there is not enough pipe to go around. Any fool can >>> see that priority should be given to emergency calls exchange >>> '999' and 'x11' in these cases. The unwillingness of verizon >>> to allow anyone access to the 911 system results in me having >>> to dial around it most of the time, i often call my local >>> precinct on its 718.xxx.xxxx number... >>> >>> I would say that non-emergency voip links should be given >>> round-robin priority, such that a user who picks up every >>> minute and hits redial will soon get through regardless of >>> who the voip carrier is, remain network neutral. Granted >>> there may be a higher bandwidth cost of routing some other >>> companies voip packets rather than using your own compressed >>> data streams, some disparity may be in the interests of all. >>> >>> Ultimately some segment of the market is likely to demand >>> neutrality of providers in the end. But it would be nice to >>> be a consultant in a position to point a client company to an >>> ISP and say, these guys are commited to as level a playing >>> field as servs everyone's interests. EULAs that prohibited >>> use of wireless technology prevented me from recomending >>> verizon or cablevision for example. >>> >>> What I am truly against is the practice of failing to promote >>> a 'rival' voip packets to provide QOS when QOS will not >>> threaten network capacity. Or worse yet, expressly delaying >>> or mangling the rival voip packets. This subtle sabotage is >>> unlikely to do anyone any good. The average consumer is >>> likely to be driven away from voip, because the issues >>> involved are too complicated to deal with. With less VOIP >>> demand, there will not be the increase in bandwidth demand >>> that might be spured by widespread adoption of voice and >>> subsequently video over IP. >>> >>> In short network non-neurtrality (network hostility) is an >>> ill-wind that blows no one any good. >>> >>> By publicly considering making non-neutrality Standard >>> Operating Procedure some large polygopolies are tempting >>> legislation that restricts the way in which all ISPs are able >>> to do buisness. Outside restrictions on the way one does >>> buisness never seem to help. If nothing else: Laissez Faire, >>> laissez aller, laissez passer. By abusing or considering the >>> abuse of a freedom that they have always had large telcos >>> jeopardise that very freedom. Surely this cannot be good for >>> anyone's bottom line? >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >>> >>>> Date: Sat, 18 Mar 2006 16:42:23 -0500 (EST) >>>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>> To: Dana Spiegel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>> Cc: [email protected], Jim Henry >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>> Subject: Re: [nycwireless] New Yorker Article [was: >>> Multichannel News >>>> -AnalystsQuestionBellInvestments] >>>> >>>> On Sat, 18 Mar 2006, Dana Spiegel wrote: >>>> >>>>> And here is where we have the astroturf statements. Network >>>>> Neutrality IS NOT regulation of the internet. It is a means of >>>>> PRESERVING internet freedom. >>>>> >>>>> This doublespeak is being promoted solely by telcos and their >>>>> astroturf organizations. Private individuals have not been >>> concerned >>>>> with attacking Net Neutrality. However astroturf >>> organizations have >>>>> been able to mis-represent Net Neutrality as government >>> regulation. >>>>> It is not. The ONLY people who benefit from NOT having Net >>> Neutrality >>>>> are the telcos and the cablecos. Private individuals and most >>>>> business BENEFIT from having Net Neutrality. >>>> Who said? >>>> >>>> As an ISP, I am *against* any kind of net neutrality that >>> would apply >>>> to my network. I don't want government to tell me what I >>> can and what >>>> I cannot do with my customer's traffic. Yes, most likely, I >>> will not >>>> touch any kind of packets, but if I choose to give higher >>> priority on >>>> *my* IP network to PilosoftVOIP packets, I should have this >>>> choice. >>>> >>>> If your suggestion is that "Net Neutrality" should only >>> apply to ILECs >>>> and cablecos - oh I'm all for it...But it kind of seems unfair, >>>> doesn't it? Not being a biggest fan of the incumbents, it does >>>> seem >>>> somewhat silly to hamstring them. >>>> >>>> The "right" thing of course would be to reverse the TRO and >>>> mandate >>>> ILECs to provide unmolested layer2 DSL transport to >>> third-parties. But >>>> that battle seems to be lost. >>>> >>>> Possibly, the only condition when net neutrality makes >>> (sort of) sense >>>> is that ILEC would have to choose between providing access to >>>> competitors like us, or to be bound by net neutrality provisions. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Alex Pilosov | DSL, Colocation, Hosting Services >>>> President | [EMAIL PROTECTED] 877-PILOSOFT x601 >>>> Pilosoft, Inc. | http://www.pilosoft.com >>>> >>>> -- >>>> NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ >>>> Un/Subscribe: >>>> http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ >>>> Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/ >>>> >>> >>> Microsoft: Where do you want to go tomorrow? >>> Linux: Where do you want to go today? >>> BSD: Are you guys coming, or what? >>> >>> >>> Robin-David Hammond KB3IEN >>> www.aresnyc.org. >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> No virus found in this incoming message. >>> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >>> Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 268.2.5/284 - Release >>> Date: 3/17/2006 >>> >>> >> > > Microsoft: Where do you want to go tomorrow? > Linux: Where do you want to go today? > BSD: Are you guys coming, or what? > > > Robin-David Hammond KB3IEN > www.aresnyc.org. > >
-- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
