[87375] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Two Tiered Internet
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Alexander Harrowell)
Thu Dec 15 12:16:52 2005
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 17:16:11 +0000
From: Alexander Harrowell <a.harrowell@gmail.com>
To: "Hannigan, Martin" <hannigan@verisign.com>
Cc: nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <A206819EF47CBE4F84B5CB4A303CEB7A01444E83@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
------=_Part_5110_20984915.1134666971621
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
The whole QoS/2 tier Internet thing I find deeply, deeply suspicious...here
in the mobile space, everyone is getting obsessed by IMS (IP Multimedia
Subsystem) and explaining to each other that they need it so they can offer
"Better QoS, like the subscribers want". What they really mean, I suspect,
is killing third party applications that compete with their own. IMS=3DI Ma=
sh
Skype. And, I suspect, "QoS" for SBC customer broadband will mean "the spee=
d
we advertise so long as you are paying us for VoIP/video/whatever, shite if
you aren't".
On 12/15/05, Hannigan, Martin <hannigan@verisign.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> [ SNIP ]
>
> > This is not directed at Sean, but please -- as a fomer Cisco
> > engineering flunky, I can distinguish between marketing fluff
> > (even when disguised as a 'case study') and real figures, and
> > the truth is, there are no figures, because there is dismal
> > adoption of the services. Go figure. Whatever.
>
> Sean recently joined Cisco marketing hence the quoting of
> vendor cruft as policy. It would be nice to fess up to that
> with an @cisco or at least an "I work for Cisco Marketing"
> disclaimer.
>
> -M<
>
>
------=_Part_5110_20984915.1134666971621
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
The whole QoS/2 tier Internet thing I find deeply, deeply
suspicious...here in the mobile space, everyone is getting obsessed by
IMS (IP Multimedia Subsystem) and explaining to each other that they
need it so they can offer "Better QoS, like the subscribers want"=
. What
they really mean, I suspect, is killing third party applications that
compete with their own. IMS=3DI Mash Skype. And, I suspect, "QoS"=
for SBC
customer broadband will mean "the speed we advertise so long as you ar=
e
paying us for VoIP/video/whatever, shite if you aren't". <br>
<br>
<br><br><div><span class=3D"gmail_quote">On 12/15/05, <b class=3D"gmail_sen=
dername">Hannigan, Martin</b> <<a href=3D"mailto:hannigan@verisign.com">=
hannigan@verisign.com</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote=
" style=3D"border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0=
.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br><br>[ SNIP ]<br><br>> This is not directed at Sean, but please -- as=
a fomer Cisco<br>> engineering flunky, I can distinguish between market=
ing fluff<br>> (even when disguised as a 'case study') and real figures,=
and
<br>> the truth is, there are no figures, because there is dismal<br>>=
; adoption of the services. Go figure. Whatever.<br><br>Sean recently joine=
d Cisco marketing hence the quoting of<br>vendor cruft as policy. It would =
be nice to fess up to that
<br>with an @cisco or at least an "I work for Cisco Marketing"<br=
>disclaimer.<br><br>-M<<br><br></blockquote></div><br>
------=_Part_5110_20984915.1134666971621--
