& cplSiteName &
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View        ADD A COMMENT
<<   <   Page 10 / 18   >   >>
paolo.franzoi
paolo.franzoi
12/5/2012 | 4:08:48 AM
re: QOS Fees Could Change Everything

BigBrother,

I have been saying in this article that QoS makes sense because of the P2P phenomenon (as an example) that you quote. If QoS is not deployed, companies like BellSouth can not offer video. Once they have the QoS capability, it makes sense to offer it to others.

But the point of this missive is to discuss your comment. You have quoted a prime example of the 80/20 rule. That a small group uses most of the bandwidth. My question goes back to what I was arguing about earlier in the thread. So what? Do they not deserve to use every bit of bandwidth all the time? I believe that what has been sold is port rate. There is a huge grey area about actual throughput coming up. Does anybody think say in 5 years we will not be discussing port rate as a metric but throughput?

I personally am not sure. If carriers (and I include MSOs here) can sell the QoS process, then that is one answer. If not, do we think that having deeper guarantees is a better idea?

seven
rjmcmahon
rjmcmahon
12/5/2012 | 4:08:47 AM
re: QOS Fees Could Change Everything
Thanks for the info seven.
unlimited
unlimited
12/5/2012 | 4:08:46 AM
re: QOS Fees Could Change Everything
That's the right response from Google.

They already pay for connectivity. To then have to pay multiple times is rediculous. Of course under a fair scheme Google would need to make a reciprocal charge to access providers sending packets to them!
unlimited
unlimited
12/5/2012 | 4:08:46 AM
re: QOS Fees Could Change Everything
"Unfortunately, over the years, there have been many studies to show that P-P traffic takes up about 60-70% of the telco bandwidth, and the top 10-15% of the users take up the 90% of the bandwidth. So that is why QoS."

The conclusion here needs more support. What "telco bandwidth" is this. Is this a measure of the uplink capacity or a percentage of traffic volume? Same question with the second stat. This is a glass half full/empty issue. Is the problem that some users are taking what they were offered or users not making use of their allowance?
OldPOTS
OldPOTS
12/5/2012 | 4:08:45 AM
re: QOS Fees Could Change Everything
The following two posted questions raise the key issues;

seven- G«£Does anybody think say in 5 years we will not be discussing port rate as a metric but throughput?G«•

unlimited- G«£This is a glass half full/empty issue. Is the problem that some users are taking what they were offered or users not making use of their allowance?G«•

The answer to unlimitedG«÷s question is truly about trusting others sharing the BW of behaving in a civilized manner and not abusing others. My many years of working with packet networks, including IP, I learned that this is not a very good expectation, even within an enterprise.

The scenario usually goes;
A new packet link is installed with plenty of BW, by request of the G«ˇsqueaky wheelG«÷. The G«ˇsqueaky wheelsG«÷ gets the BW they want and the others do not initially need all the shared BW they purchased. But as time goes on those others find new applications that can take advantage of their share of BW, only to find that others are now using their share of the BW that they thought they paid for. So in the beginning the answer is that some G«£taking what they were offered and users not making use of their allowanceG«•. But later some use more than their share and the other G«£users not making use of their allowanceG«• demand that the SP/carrier provide what they bought. How can this be rectified? More free BW or QoS?

Now with convergence, my answer to 5 years from now is that we will fall back to something similar to the Frame Relay pricing model. In that model you purchased G«ˇPort SpeedG«• for high burstiness and G«ˇQoS -statistically shared BWG«÷ to secure consistent throughput for premium services. The rest is left to BE. This becomes the business/marketing answer for all those that thought more than their share was free. Unless they want to spend $$$ money to further upgrade their network.

OldPOTS

Can Bursty and Consistent users be converged?
Avoid Congestion @ a network routing point.
Queuing and Scheduling packets matters
IsnG«÷t this a Traffic Management Problem?
Just Remember G«ˇbusy hourG«÷ & G«ˇCCSsG«÷ for packets?

unlimited
unlimited
12/5/2012 | 4:08:42 AM
re: QOS Fees Could Change Everything
Spelurker,

"So maybe these 1000 users share 1Gb or 100Mb. This allows the SPs to economically build arbitrarily large networks. "

That would be sweet but to give you a more realistic figure for consumer broadband today, 1000 users will have more like 10Mb of Internet downstream bandwidth to share. I don't know but the subscriber connection assymmetry may actually give a better sharing ratio for upstream traffic if the Internet links are symmetrical.

What is the simplest solution that can help with fairness, because that seems to be the main concern? A fair sharing scheme would allow users to have more bandwidth if it is available but not starve the others when they need it. Any such mechanism should not differentiate between applications.
paolo.franzoi
paolo.franzoi
12/5/2012 | 4:08:42 AM
re: QOS Fees Could Change Everything

unlimited,

You are still hung up on the Internet. BellSouth will shortly be offering video services that will share the access network with Internet services. This is the well documented "IPTV" that is being rolled out. Since these share the same access network, there is the issue of congestion.

These video customers pay more money for their access to receive this video offering. This video offering does not lie behind the Internet but in a Private IP network that is being built by BellSouth. To ensure proper operation of this video service offering, the video traffic that enters the access network from the private IP network will have priority over internet traffic. This will be true for all users, including the video customer (i.e. The video customer's internet traffic will traverse the access network at a lower priority than the video customer's video traffic).

This is going to happen. It is not a question of if it is going to happen. The amount of it that will happen and at what timescale are in question, but it will be 2006.

These elements of QoS, which allow this video traffic to work, are being offered to people who have content. If these content owners wish to bypass the Internet, then they can create services that are differentiated from those that can ONLY come from the Internet.

People can yell and scream about this, but unless there is a change in regulation this year (Congress will not act during an election year for sure.), this type of functionality will exist.

seven
spelurker
spelurker
12/5/2012 | 4:08:42 AM
re: QOS Fees Could Change Everything
This is not necessarily a measure of uplink BW (it depends on topology). The landmark P-P survey was measuring at the network peering point. (actually, a university/SP node) The traffic studied was Napster/Kazaa/Gnutella, not gaming. The relevant things that the public at large are not going to understand (or react well to) is service provider topology and P-P behavior.

An SP may provide you with a 2Mb service. They provide the same service to your 1000 closest neighbors. All of these links are dumped onto a common network. Does that network support 2Gb per neighborhood? No. These networks are designed around a model where most of the users are not active at the same time, especially in the 'upstream' direction. So maybe these 1000 users share 1Gb or 100Mb. This allows the SPs to economically build arbitrarily large networks.

The P-P (filesharing) traffic breaks that model, since it is always on and acts in the upstream direction. And it also uses very large amounts of bandwidth. (boo-hoo-hoo, the SPs will need to deal with that). Now most P-P traffic is not real time. Does it really matter if an offline movie download takes 1 hour or 2? Not very much. (not to mention the transfer is almost certainly illegal...) What DOES matter is if your Vonage packets get delayed by amounts which exceed a few 10's of milliseconds. (clicks, hiss, dropped connections) To make Vonage (or gaming, etc) work reliably without a QoS agreement, the SPs actually need to actively throttle large traffic flows such as P-P file sharing traffic. With a QoS agreement, the SP can identify the desired traffic's profile and mark it for preferred service. If this model works, the SP then can just leave P-P traffic alone, and let it grow to use the rest of available bandwidth, with the confidence that the network will not allow the preferred service to be impaired.
--------------------------------------------------
"Unfortunately, over the years, there have been many studies to show that P-P traffic takes up about 60-70% of the telco bandwidth, and the top 10-15% of the users take up the 90% of the bandwidth. So that is why QoS."

The conclusion here needs more support. What "telco bandwidth" is this. Is this a measure of the uplink capacity or a percentage of traffic volume? Same question with the second stat. This is a glass half full/empty issue. Is the problem that some users are taking what they were offered or users not making use of their allowance?
stephencooke
stephencooke
12/5/2012 | 4:08:41 AM
re: QOS Fees Could Change Everything
OK, let me see if I have this right...

Unlimited wants a totally free IP network that supplies as much bandwidth as you can grab but is not willing to pay for it. Incidentally, 'unlimited' Internet access is not 'unlimited' in the amount of traffic you use, check your agreement. Taking the highway system as an analogy, Unlimited seems to want the government to add extra lanes on all highways without a corresponding increase in taxation or presumably loss of other services.

The people who own the network have said, fairly plainly, that they are going to implement the equivalent of toll lanes to the existing system because there are people willing to pay for this service.

Unless Unlimited can present a better business case that guarantees the services that people are willing to pay for, I can't see it happening (or more accurately, staying the way it is). As I have said before, the people with the authority to make the decision for the networks in question have made it and unless you can build your own network to compete by offering the service you want, it is moot. The better business case is to offer products and services to these carriers to help them implement their vision.

Steve.
unlimited
unlimited
12/5/2012 | 4:08:41 AM
re: QOS Fees Could Change Everything
"This is the well documented "IPTV" that is being rolled out. Since these share the same access network, there is the issue of congestion."

Seven,

You make a good argument for going with Cable Internet or an independent DSL provider. Hopefully this will help ISPs like Earthlink.
<<   <   Page 10 / 18   >   >>


Featured Video
Upcoming Live Events
November 5, 2019, London, England
November 7, 2019, London, UK
November 14, 2019, Maritim Hotel, Berlin
December 3-5, 2019, Vienna, Austria
December 3, 2019, New York, New York
March 16-18, 2020, Embassy Suites, Denver, Colorado
May 18-20, 2020, Irving Convention Center, Dallas, TX
All Upcoming Live Events