Oddly, the New York Times' Bit blog found something to complain about
in the application-neutral management system. Their blogger, Saul
Hansell, calls it a "Black List" that will relegate heavy users to the
slow lane for hours at a time. Now just when I thought Comcast had
devised a system that would satisfy its harshest critics, one of the
critics has ratcheted up his rhetoric.
The takeaway is that you can't please everybody, so you may as well not
even try.
RB
Livingood, Jason wrote:
Umm ... whence comes the idea that Comcast should decide among a
*particular* end-user's traffic what traffic to degrade when
it decides that a particular user is overloading the network?
That's the role of "DPI" proposed in this thread.
There is no role for DPI in the trials that Comcast is conducting, FWIW.
Those folks may not include people like small ISPs - small
ISPs can't afford DPI equipment, and can't do NebuAd-style
ad-insertion, or for that matter, support billing services
that monetize VoIP as a special value add service, blocking
it otherwise. Small ISPs (like some here) would prefer that
their customers prioritize their own traffic in response to
resource reductions, using standard endpoint-based congestion
control, I would think.
Customer-prioritization of traffic was one of the interesting
discussions at the IETF P2Pi workshop.
Regards
Jason
|