5 ms·

I think that offering a range of diffrent models of threwput and latancy can only be good for the internet as a hole. What I am conserned with is this, I want

by nickik 12y ago

I think that offering a range of diffrent models of threwput and latancy can only be good for the internet as a hole. What I am conserned with is this, I want to tell the ISP what packets should run with what characterisitcs. I am completly against the ISP making deep packet inspection and deciding the selfs what packets to drop or dely. I think like in everything else, when you have a finite resources you need a market. Having every packet be the same and then just randomly drop them, is just bad for the internet as a hole. We need QoS we need to be able for some services to run with priority. When I play video games or skype I dont wanne wait, if I torrent every episode from a podcast the latency does not intrest me so much. So Im am PRO net neutrality in this sence, the ISP is not allowed to look into my packets and change there priority.

jacquesm 12y ago
It's 'throughput', not 'threwput'. That aside, it's not about what you tell the ISP, it's what the ISP tells the company you're trying to connect to or that tries to connect to you. We need QoS but on the core of the net to avoid congestion, not on the edges to artificially induce congestion! You paid for flat-rate X bits per second up/down internet service then that is what you should get! So DPI and QoS have a spot but only where they are used to improve the service. The ISPs are now essentially trying to sell their bandwidth twice, once to you - the subscriber - and then again to the companies that those subscribers wish to communicate with. If they didn't want us to communicate then they should get out of the ISP business. What I pay for I should be able to use.
- nickik 12y ago
  Like I said, they should not be allowed to make choices about my packeges this includeds looking at where Im sending them and slowing it down or speeding it up based on destination. Maybe I defined it to narrowly when I said deep packege inspection, I really meant any choices about my packeges speed should be based on what terms I sent it out. I think a good buissness model would sell me a standard flat rate and some low latancy GBs. If a ISP does not improve there network, then I can switch to another one.
- gress 12y ago
  It's froopught actually.

by nickik 12y ago

jacquesm 12y ago

It's 'throughput', not 'threwput'. That aside, it's not about what you tell the ISP, it's what the ISP tells the company you're trying to connect to or that tries to connect to you. We need QoS but on the core of the net to avoid congestion, not on the edges to artificially induce congestion! You paid for flat-rate X bits per second up/down internet service then that is what you should get! So DPI and QoS have a spot but only where they are used to improve the service. The ISPs are now essentially trying to sell their bandwidth twice, once to you - the subscriber - and then again to the companies that those subscribers wish to communicate with. If they didn't want us to communicate then they should get out of the ISP business. What I pay for I should be able to use.

nickik 12y ago
Like I said, they should not be allowed to make choices about my packeges this includeds looking at where Im sending them and slowing it down or speeding it up based on destination. Maybe I defined it to narrowly when I said deep packege inspection, I really meant any choices about my packeges speed should be based on what terms I sent it out. I think a good buissness model would sell me a standard flat rate and some low latancy GBs. If a ISP does not improve there network, then I can switch to another one.
gress 12y ago
It's froopught actually.