Nicely said. I agree. kitepi...@kitepilot.com wrote: > I think that this is being taken out of context... > I manage a small wireless network with around a hundred victims... > er... > CUSTOMERS! :) > > Being a wireless network, we face challenges that wired networks don care > about, and when the traffic spikes, we have to "manage". > > Let me state in here that we don't do false advertising (in fact most of our > customers are word-of-mouth), and we explain people that we "shape" the > line. > > I am not defending Cox and I don't know what they are doing, but having seen > how "journalists" makeup overblown aviation news for the sake of "yellowish > journalism" (or sometimes blatant ignorance of the subject and laziness to > get informed), I don't have any doubt that they will grab a few words from a > manager, and run to the nearest keyboard to type away something that > "sells"... > Unfortunately, "truth" doesn't sell very well... > > With that said, and after donning my asbestos suit, I want to change one > word that probably got misplaced here: Throttle. > > For all I know (not much indeed), and from what I gather from the obvious > ignorance of the reporter (again, nothing new after I see how they convey > aviation "news") Cox is not doing "Throttling", Cox is doing "Shaping". > > You cannot run a network pipe without some kind of management, or everything > is going to go Hell. > > The way this is done, is by inspecting packets to determine priority. > VoIP packets will be expedited and FTP packets will be sent after. > Latency is not an issue in an FTP transfer. > Latency will kill a VoIP connection. > At the expense or extending the FTP connection a few seconds. > > This is not unfair, this is necessary, albeit unpopular... > > And IS NOT TRIVIAL. > In fact, it is complex enough when you can inspect the packets, never mind > if you are dealing with an encrypted connection... > > Finally, even though I don't prevent P2P in "my valley", I do severe or > throttle the outbound connections when they become a burden for the network. > Most of the network is used by rural people that simply doesn't have other > options. > > I can't just tell them that they can't use Internet just because Joe Hacker > downloaded the latest hacked motion picture and 37 thousand hackers over the > World are banging in the line THEY (my customers) PAY FOR! to get their > share... > > It's a limited resource. > I explain that to my people too... > > Finally, please understand that I am not defending Cox. > But I believe that the whole discussion is falling down the wrong path. > Enrique > > PS: Who knows here about shaping? > I need help... :( > > > > > > Stephen P Rufle writes: > >> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/01/cox-opens-up-throttle-for-p2p-non-time-sensitive-traffic.ars >> --------------------------------------------------- >> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us >> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: >> http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
-- -Eric 'shubes' --------------------------------------------------- PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
