4 ms·

While Stacey (the author) isn't an engineer, she's probably talked to and gotten the perspectives of many more people in this space than most of us here.

by jdrock 16y ago

jonknee 16y ago
And she also makes more money when writing about controversy. No one's going to make their page view bonus by saying everything is fine.
spinchange 16y ago
I can't comment if that is probably is the case or not, because all I have is this post, and it's not cited here. What I do see is fear mongering built almost exclusively on "what they didn't say," "what ifs," and worst-case conjecture. And I can appreciate those fears, but I also know they conveniently get more pageviews than addressing QoS, or the reality that traffic prioritzation must happen on some level (by type, not source) to accomodate delivering all these services. It strikes me that the alternative to two pretty "pro-user" companies proposing a framework to deal with an unresolved set of technical issues is to have less open, less "pro user" companies deal with it with their lobbyists behind closed legislative doors. At least initially, I'll trust the devil I know.
- navyrain 16y ago
  I'm really interested why you consider traffic prioritization a foregone conclusion. I can imagine a scenario where FCC bans prioritization of any form, and the market rewards the company who actually builds out the highest capacity network, not the company who most effectively throttles traffic.
  - maqr 16y ago
    I think we need to define "prioritization". Is it prioritized to stop a DoS attack? How about to make SIP travel faster through the network than web traffic? What about things like DOCSIS, allowing quick bursts of fast speeds for your cable modem, so small downloads happen faster than sustained downloads? Who determines what the priorities should be? All of this angst is a result of lack of competition, which is the actual problem. It has almost nothing to do with prioritization of traffic. The fear, as best as I can tell, is that Comcast will one day so "No more Skype." and millions of people without another ISP choice will be stuck with it.
    - pyre 16y ago
      > All of this angst is a result of lack of competition, which is the > actual problem. It has almost nothing to do with prioritization of traffic This is true, but there doesn't seem to be a solution to this issue in sight, so we should probably treat the symptoms in the meantime.
      - maqr 16y ago
        Fair enough, but we've complacently accepted "internet" as a service, like electricity or water. I think this is a bad model. We need to figure out why we don't have more providers, then we need to lower the barriers to entry, so that we can foster competition.

While Stacey (the author) isn't an engineer, she's probably talked to and gotten the perspectives of many more people in this space than most of us here.

by jdrock 16y ago

While Stacey (the author) isn't an engineer, she's probably talked to and gotten the perspectives of many more people in this space than most of us here.

jonknee 16y ago

And she also makes more money when writing about controversy. No one's going to make their page view bonus by saying everything is fine.

spinchange 16y ago

I can't comment if that is probably is the case or not, because all I have is this post, and it's not cited here. What I do see is fear mongering built almost exclusively on "what they didn't say," "what ifs," and worst-case conjecture. And I can appreciate those fears, but I also know they conveniently get more pageviews than addressing QoS, or the reality that traffic prioritzation must happen on some level (by type, not source) to accomodate delivering all these services. It strikes me that the alternative to two pretty "pro-user" companies proposing a framework to deal with an unresolved set of technical issues is to have less open, less "pro user" companies deal with it with their lobbyists behind closed legislative doors. At least initially, I'll trust the devil I know.

navyrain 16y ago
I'm really interested why you consider traffic prioritization a foregone conclusion. I can imagine a scenario where FCC bans prioritization of any form, and the market rewards the company who actually builds out the highest capacity network, not the company who most effectively throttles traffic.
- maqr 16y ago
  I think we need to define "prioritization". Is it prioritized to stop a DoS attack? How about to make SIP travel faster through the network than web traffic? What about things like DOCSIS, allowing quick bursts of fast speeds for your cable modem, so small downloads happen faster than sustained downloads? Who determines what the priorities should be? All of this angst is a result of lack of competition, which is the actual problem. It has almost nothing to do with prioritization of traffic. The fear, as best as I can tell, is that Comcast will one day so "No more Skype." and millions of people without another ISP choice will be stuck with it.
  - pyre 16y ago
    > All of this angst is a result of lack of competition, which is the > actual problem. It has almost nothing to do with prioritization of traffic This is true, but there doesn't seem to be a solution to this issue in sight, so we should probably treat the symptoms in the meantime.
    - maqr 16y ago
      Fair enough, but we've complacently accepted "internet" as a service, like electricity or water. I think this is a bad model. We need to figure out why we don't have more providers, then we need to lower the barriers to entry, so that we can foster competition.