5 ms·

It's a chicken-and-egg problem. For many bad ISPs to care about this problem, QUIC adoption has to be high enough to cause mass user complaints. Yet QUIC's mass

It's a chicken-and-egg problem. For many bad ISPs to care about this problem, QUIC adoption has to be high enough to cause mass user complaints. Yet QUIC's mass adoption requires it providing better user experience before ISPs change their stupid policies. It would be interesting to see how it plays out.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
Well, yeah, to a degree. But then, it probably provides a better user experience most of the time, and especially on mobile networks, so that might be enough to gain adoption.
- riobard 8y ago
  True, I do hope that mobile roaming (and switching between WiFi and mobile) would be the killer app for QUIC. But AFAIK many ISPs treat mobile network differently from home broadband. For example, my mobile plan and fiber broadband are from the same ISP, yet they appear to be running on two different backbones. The mobile network rarely experience traffic shaping, even at peak hours. My guess is that because mobile generates higher revenue, it gets better infrastructure. The fiber broadband is likely run at loss, it would be de-prioritized. If that's the case, it would be difficult for QUIC to get traction on desktops.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
    Well, QUIC already has traction on desktops, as Chrome supports it? The bigger problem I see is whether websites will deploy it ...
shawnz 8y ago
Clearly Google is willing to move forward with it regardless of the potential for a diminished experience for some customers. And Google has more weight than most ISPs involved here. Furthermore they have shown before that they are not afraid to direct the blame right at ISPs for lagging behind in situations like this.
- riobard 8y ago
  I'm very grateful that Google puts its weight behind many of the recent improvements to the Internet, even if some would argue that it's abusing its dominant market position. What I'm worried about is that, in the QUIC case, the ISPs do have a valid reason to traffic shape UDP, at least in the name of making the network usable under load. There are too much uncontrollable UDP traffic that ISPs can do little about other than just dropping them altogether.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
    > What I'm worried about is that, in the QUIC case, the ISPs do have a valid reason to traffic shape UDP, at least in the name of making the network usable under load. Overbooking your network to the point that it is regularly overloaded is not a valid reason to drop packets of paying customers. You have to either kick out customers or expand your network. > There are too much uncontrollable UDP traffic that ISPs can do little about other than just dropping them altogether. Well, as for DDoS and the like: Tough luck? They could have abstained from abusing their power to inspect traffic, and probably noone would be working on making inspection impossible. They thought it was a good idea to abuse the power, now the power is taken from them, and that's their problem to deal with.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago

Well, yeah, to a degree. But then, it probably provides a better user experience most of the time, and especially on mobile networks, so that might be enough to gain adoption.

riobard 8y ago
True, I do hope that mobile roaming (and switching between WiFi and mobile) would be the killer app for QUIC. But AFAIK many ISPs treat mobile network differently from home broadband. For example, my mobile plan and fiber broadband are from the same ISP, yet they appear to be running on two different backbones. The mobile network rarely experience traffic shaping, even at peak hours. My guess is that because mobile generates higher revenue, it gets better infrastructure. The fiber broadband is likely run at loss, it would be de-prioritized. If that's the case, it would be difficult for QUIC to get traction on desktops.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
  Well, QUIC already has traction on desktops, as Chrome supports it? The bigger problem I see is whether websites will deploy it ...

shawnz 8y ago

Clearly Google is willing to move forward with it regardless of the potential for a diminished experience for some customers. And Google has more weight than most ISPs involved here. Furthermore they have shown before that they are not afraid to direct the blame right at ISPs for lagging behind in situations like this.

riobard 8y ago
I'm very grateful that Google puts its weight behind many of the recent improvements to the Internet, even if some would argue that it's abusing its dominant market position. What I'm worried about is that, in the QUIC case, the ISPs do have a valid reason to traffic shape UDP, at least in the name of making the network usable under load. There are too much uncontrollable UDP traffic that ISPs can do little about other than just dropping them altogether.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
  > What I'm worried about is that, in the QUIC case, the ISPs do have a valid reason to traffic shape UDP, at least in the name of making the network usable under load. Overbooking your network to the point that it is regularly overloaded is not a valid reason to drop packets of paying customers. You have to either kick out customers or expand your network. > There are too much uncontrollable UDP traffic that ISPs can do little about other than just dropping them altogether. Well, as for DDoS and the like: Tough luck? They could have abstained from abusing their power to inspect traffic, and probably noone would be working on making inspection impossible. They thought it was a good idea to abuse the power, now the power is taken from them, and that's their problem to deal with.