[129697] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Did Internet Founders Actually Anticipate Paid,
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Chris Woodfield)
Thu Sep 16 14:36:06 2010
From: Chris Woodfield <rekoil@semihuman.com>
In-Reply-To: <5A6D953473350C4B9995546AFE9939EE0A52AD81@RWC-EX1.corp.seven.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2010 11:35:51 -0700
To: George Bonser <gbonser@seven.com>,
NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Sep 16, 2010, at 10:57 07AM, George Bonser wrote:
>>=20
>=20
> Hi Chris,
>=20
> Since prioritization would work ONLY when the link us saturated
> (congested), without it, nothing is going to work well, not your
> torrents, not your email, not your browsing. By prioritizing the
> traffic, the torrents might back off but they would still continue to
> flow, they wouldn't be completely blocked, they would just slow down.
> QoS can be a good thing for allowing your VIOP to work while someone
> else in the home is watching a streaming movie or something. Without
> it, everything breaks once the circuit is congested.
>=20
>=20
Your statement misses the point, which is, *who* gets to decide what =
traffic is prioritized? And will that prioritization be determined by =
who is paying my carrier for that prioritization, potentially against my =
own preferences? For some damn reason, I might *prefer* that my torrent =
traffic get prioritized over, say, email. Or, I might not appreciate the =
eventuality that a stream I'm watching on hulu.com stutters because my =
neighbor's watching a movie on Netflix and it just happens that Netflix =
has paid my carrier for prioritized traffic.
The other point, as mentioned previously, is that paid prioritization =
doesn't mean a thing unless there's congestion to be managed. It's not a =
far stretch to see exec-level types seeing the potential financial =
benefits to, well, ensuring that such congestion does show up in their =
network in order to create the practical incentives for paid =
prioritization.
-C=
