3 ms·

> First, it's impossible in the long run You assume that the carriers won't track usage of different bandwidth classes and bill / cap them differently. Offeri

by shasta 16y ago

> First, it's impossible in the long run You assume that the carriers won't track usage of different bandwidth classes and bill / cap them differently. Offering different reliability/latency/throughput guarantees for different classes of data seems like a very reasonable idea to me. If you want to download bulk data using the most expensive transport layer, knock yourself out.

loup-vaillant 16y ago
First, I'm assuming that they can't track usage. Now they can, but if everyone encrypts everything, it will no longer be possible. And filtering or slowing down TLS is not really feasible, because of e-commerce. I'm not certain of this point, but I'm reasonably sure. Second, why the hell should one bit cost me more than another? Or come slower than another? Because it's part of bittorent transaction instead of a video stream? Third, why the freaking hell should it be okay for my ISP to spy on me? (Just in case it's not clear: spying is requiered for prioritization)
- shasta 16y ago
  Ideally, packet class identification would be at the network or transport layer. I don't like the idea of an ISP doing payload inspection ("spying"), either. But your argument about all bits being the same is naive. Do you think it's fair that you should have to pay more for overnight mail or certified mail?
  - loup-vaillant 16y ago
    I think some of your assumptions are technically wrong. The only role of an ISP is to let you send (& receive) IP datagrams to (& from) any machine with a public IP. Now, one packet could cost more than another, depending on its destination, its provenance, and its size. But not its content. Not a chance. For instance, the TCP port number of an ISP shouldn't influence the cost of an IP datagram: they're not even part of the Internet Protocol. Now, if I want to send packet faster than another, I would just use a private network that is not the internet. And if I want to send "certified" packet, I'd just use an SSH tunnel, which will naturally consume more bandwidth anyway. But if my internet provider do those choices for me, I tend to complain.

by shasta 16y ago

loup-vaillant 16y ago

First, I'm assuming that they can't track usage. Now they can, but if everyone encrypts everything, it will no longer be possible. And filtering or slowing down TLS is not really feasible, because of e-commerce. I'm not certain of this point, but I'm reasonably sure. Second, why the hell should one bit cost me more than another? Or come slower than another? Because it's part of bittorent transaction instead of a video stream? Third, why the freaking hell should it be okay for my ISP to spy on me? (Just in case it's not clear: spying is requiered for prioritization)

shasta 16y ago
Ideally, packet class identification would be at the network or transport layer. I don't like the idea of an ISP doing payload inspection ("spying"), either. But your argument about all bits being the same is naive. Do you think it's fair that you should have to pay more for overnight mail or certified mail?
- loup-vaillant 16y ago
  I think some of your assumptions are technically wrong. The only role of an ISP is to let you send (& receive) IP datagrams to (& from) any machine with a public IP. Now, one packet could cost more than another, depending on its destination, its provenance, and its size. But not its content. Not a chance. For instance, the TCP port number of an ISP shouldn't influence the cost of an IP datagram: they're not even part of the Internet Protocol. Now, if I want to send packet faster than another, I would just use a private network that is not the internet. And if I want to send "certified" packet, I'd just use an SSH tunnel, which will naturally consume more bandwidth anyway. But if my internet provider do those choices for me, I tend to complain.