nanog mailing list archives
Re: Two Tiered Internet
From: "Fergie" <fergdawg () netzero net>
Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 17:24:25 GMT
Bingo. What they are really saying is: "We're _telling_ you that you need it because we need new ways to generate additional revenue." ;-) Cheers, - ferg -- Alexander Harrowell <a.harrowell () gmail com> wrote: 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=I Mash Skype. And, I suspect, "QoS" for SBC customer broadband will mean "the speed we advertise so long as you are paying us for VoIP/video/whatever, shite if you aren't". [snip] -- "Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson Engineering Architecture for the Internet fergdawg () netzero net or fergdawg () sbcglobal net ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/
Current thread:
- Re: Two Tiered Internet, (continued)
- Re: Two Tiered Internet JC Dill (Dec 14)
- RE: Two Tiered Internet Scott Weeks (Dec 14)
- Re: Two Tiered Internet Fergie (Dec 14)
- Re: Two Tiered Internet Fergie (Dec 14)
- RE: Two Tiered Internet Hannigan, Martin (Dec 14)
- RE: Two Tiered Internet Randy Bush (Dec 14)
- RE: Two Tiered Internet Michael Loftis (Dec 19)
- RE: Two Tiered Internet Randy Bush (Dec 14)
- RE: Two Tiered Internet Hannigan, Martin (Dec 15)
- Re: Two Tiered Internet Alexander Harrowell (Dec 15)
- Re: Two Tiered Internet Blaine Christian (Dec 15)
- Re: Two Tiered Internet Fergie (Dec 15)
- Re: Two Tiered Internet Alexander Harrowell (Dec 15)
- BTW, have I mentioned my "perfect storm hypothesis"? David Meyer (Dec 15)
- Re: BTW, have I mentioned my "perfect storm hypothesis"? David Meyer (Dec 15)
- Re: Two Tiered Internet Alexander Harrowell (Dec 15)