[ NNSquad ] Re: As predicted: The BitTorrent vs. "traffic shaping" arms race

["Dan Doyle" <dan.c.doyle@gmail.com>]

What I don't understand is why a technology requires a higher priority
because I do not agree with Kee that
4. ... I think everyone would agree that Voice services need to be
able to provide the ability to have an unbroken conversation if they
are to be competitive.[They do, it is called analog. In addition,
maybe the conversation can be broken and be more like walkie-talkies
because that is where the technology is at. You have failed to
convince me that VOIP needs to be unbroken except to expose your own
bias].

I do not want ISPs to de-prioritize my HD VOD download. I don't want
ISPs to de-prioritize my patch for World Of Warcraft. I want you to
prioritize my bits for Halo3 and Unreal Tournament because latency
does matter and I do not want my neighbors VOIP call to give another
player a leg up on me. I think FPS are way more important than VOIP
especially when I am not a VOIP user.

Why do we need to subsidize the VOIP industry by sacrificing the
quality of other services? It seems like the ulterior motive is to
develop a market that might not catch on in order to have a big payday
or cash cow for ISPs (can we all say, "appearance of a conflict of
interest".) If VOIP sucked, people would stick with old analog service
that happens to not infringe on my bits and the cash cow gets pushed
out to another day. But the industry has decided to artificially
create that market by making traffic management arguments and using
the P2P user as the poster child of abuse and, oh my god, pirating. I
am not sure if this has occurred to the ISPs, but maybe the market
does not care about VOIP relative to other markets that utilize the
Internet. ISPs need to get out of the game of shaping the Internet in
their image; damn, I keep forgetting that when you control the
transport of your customers, you get to play god.

Dan

On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 2:25 PM, Wes Felter <wesley@felter.org> wrote:
> Kee Hinckley wrote:
>
>  > Based on those assumptions, I see three main issues to address.
>
>
> > c) When services *can* get priority.
>  > You may want to download that movie to your TiVo right now, but if your
>  > neighbors are using VoIP, you're just going to have to wait.  Only the
>  > ISP can see the overall picture.
>
>  I am not sure about this part. Obviously my high-priority traffic should
>  have priority over my low-priority traffic, but why should my neighbor's
>  traffic (of any type) have priority over mine? I would suggest that
>  during times of congestion each customer should get a fair share of
>  bandwidth and then you should do prioritization within each of those
>  shares. This gives customers no incentive to cheat by marking all their
>  traffic as high-priority, nor does it penalize customers who send no
>  high-priority traffic. (As you may tell, I tend to think of this from an
>  implementation perspective.)
>
>  Wes Felter - wesley@felter.org
>