Quote:
|
Originally Posted by theblueraja
You see QOS as some sort of overlord of the internet, and its far from it. QOS works by assigning bandwidth where it is NEEDED, WHEN it is needed. Why have a huge bandwidth pipe which is only used to its potential when someone transmits Voice or Video over it. Its a waste.
|
No I see QoS as having the potential to allow the gains (for users), of having the control layer removed from the internet infrastructure (what TCP/IP does) to be reversed - at the expense of users of the network and to the benefit of the owners of the network. It is based on a false premise that bandwidth is scarce - a false premise it is in the interests of the network owners tomaintain as long as they can get away with it.
Why have a huge pipe? - Because when it costs billions to dig up the road to lay the pipe and yet costs the same to put in 'unlimited' capacity as it does to put in 'tiny capacity' it is a waste to not put in 'unlimited' capacity. Which is exactly why over 90% of all the fiber already in the ground in the UK is simply UNUSED at the moment.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by theblueraja
Think of a broadband connection, say you have a 600k link, how much of the time is that maxed out? Very rarely for most people i would argue. QOS allows providers to assign bandwidth where it is needed at the TEMPORARY expense of non time critical applications.
|
You have said it yourself. QoS will allow the PROVIDER to assign bandwidth. That is the problem with QoS. If the internet from day one had allowed for the network owner and not the user to control what the connection could be used for, then we would not have a whole raft of applications. We would certainly not have online gaming like we do now (no network owner would allow such frivolous wastage of it's 'precious' resource). Email would be an anethma - as it would eat into 'fax' profits. Even when it was relesased by the network owner it would only work on thier network and require a 'roaming' deal with other operators to pass it between themselves, all with appropriate charges. VoIP - forget it. P2P - hah! Just look at the mobile networks to get an idea how a controled internet might look.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by theblueraja
In addition to your argument about the cost of bandwidth, how much has the price of NTL's connections come down over the last couple of years?
|
[/QUOTE]
I can not help it if NTL decided to build the 'wrong' kind of network and now want us to pay for it. The cost of bandwidth IS falling year on year and faster than processor prices are falling and has done so steadily and consistently for the last 20-30 years. It is certainly a valid question as to why these benefits have not been passed onto the end users, and one I am constanly asking myself.
Imaginr you have a coroporate LAN. It's current shared capacity is 1Mbs. You want to be able to have good quality voice and video links over this network. Do you
a) Spend loads of time money and resources (say amount X) on building in sophistciated network level controls, in hardware and sw that allow a 'central controller' to decide who and what should have priority and allow them to 'slice up' this limited bandwidth on an as and when basis (so that when the MD wants to talk / video then eveything else is put on hold).
or
b) Spend 1/2 X upgrading the network to a dumb, uncontrolled 100Mbs (or even gig ethernet) network - and just let the users get on with it.
Both soloutions allow decent quality voice and video. If your objective is to 'serve' the user of the network then option b is the best. If your objective is to control the users then option a has its merits.