is this like a peering war somehow?


As far as sports go, there is no timely coverage of rugby in North
America anyway, I can't imagine why anybody would waste their time
watching inferior games like football, hockey, baseball or basketball
at all, never mind in real time.


Joe, I must take issue with the above.

You omitted a comma after "baseball".

Correct communications are essential, eh? :wink:

Michael Painter wrote:

From: "Doug Marschke" <>
Subject: RE: is this like a peering war somehow?

If something like the slingbox catches on....

From the sling community forum:

Hello before yall get to excited about verizon it looks like they are cancelling users who use too much bandwith.

" Unlimited NationalAccess/BroadbandAccess services cannot be used (1) for uploading, downloading or streaming of movies, music or games, (2) with server devices or with host computer applications, including, but not limited to, Web camera posts or broadcasts, automatic data feeds, Voice over IP (VoIP), automated machine-to-machine connections, or peer-to-peer (P2P) file sharing, or (3) as a substitute or backup for private lines or dedicated data connections. "

I believe those are the rules for Verizon Wireless and not for Verizon DSL etc. Verizon Wireless and Verizon are actually separate.


Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 00:49:12 -0500
From: Daniel Golding

The RBOCs need to get over this - they are floundering around to try and
find a way to recoup network costs. This is one front. IMS is another. I

It's not just RBOCs. Approximately five years back I approached a
cableco about peering. They wanted to charge more for peering than what
they did for transit. Justification? "It's priority access to our

Note that it was NOT due to transit costs. They still wanted the higher
fee if one ran a private line directly to their POP.

This was for a mostly-content network. So much for content/eyeball


Well, since content/eyeball is a two-way street and goes both ways, I
would not be surprised when some major content network starts telling
access networks to pay up to peer or otherwise to gain access to their

BellSouth is better off buying transit from Cogent and forget this
"how do we make the most money off of our access network" mantra :wink:


And the real question is if the money is better spent on implementing preferential treatment or upgrading the infrastructure as a whole.


If you have an 8meg ADSL line and want to deliver IPTV you need some kind of preferential treatment to the TV packets on this access line to ensure quality, for instance in the case of the user doing a file transfer at the same time they're watching TV.

Should anyone be able to request this preferential treatment, perhaps even without a contract? Should we trust TOS values across the net? If not, who should we trust?

The argument that QoS in the core is a moot point or not can be left behind, if you're talking access, then some kind of intelligent queueing is needed to ensure low packetloss for realtime services. Giving each customer a 100M pipe might sound good but it's not really economically feasable in the short term.

Provided that IPTV or VoIP are the only [large] datagram streams in
progress, this is not difficult to do on the CPE end -- in fact, this sort
of thing is already available as a QoS option in some home router
appliances. It involves scaling back TCP streams so that they leave enough
headroom for the in-progress IPTV or VoIP.

Doing QoS on the CPE side of the access link is always risky, you can't really create any guarantees there since it's already "too late", you're not the one doing the buffering. Especially since a lot of L2/L3 DSLAMs don't have a lot of buffers (40ms on ADSL2+ 24meg in one of my tests), you really have to strangle TCP in order to guarantee that you TV packets aren't dropped. (Petri Helenius) writes:

And the real question is if the money is better spent on implementing
preferential treatment or upgrading the infrastructure as a whole.

the former, in the current and following quarter.

the latter, in the current and following year.

(can you all guess which timescale harvard business school teaches american
executives and politicians to think and act within?)