5 ms·
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 th
by 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 agoI 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 agoFair 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.