It’s okay everyone! They were simply blocking ALL VOiP traffic, not just one company!
That’s not a very compelling argument.
That’s not a rebuttal.
Here is what you said:
I’m sure you can find cites that Internet Core Routers use QoS. Can you provide a cite that they base those QoS setting on traffic content?
Or is that not what you meant?
But ISPs are not making these decisions. The resistance to latency is built into the protocols.
It is when your argument is “Your citation’s first link incorrectly claims that Madison River blocked Vonage”
Because Madison River did, in fact, block Vonage.
I used the word “core,” but that was a poor choice on my part, since it’s not remotely crucial to my argument. If your complaint relates to the customer experience, then the relevant question is whether QoS is used along the end-to-end route, not whether it is specifically used in the core topology.
So if “core,” is the hill upon which you are massing your calvary, I cheerfully withdraw the claim.
Now, QoS is always based on traffic content. There is literally no other way to use QoS other than to treat different types of traffic differently. Every QoS implementation classifies traffic by some aspect and treats it differently.
“Content,” in this case does not mean the movie you’re watching being a Rob Reiner film as opposed to a Nora Ephron film, but rather the packet contents that identify a packet as a particular type.
Did they? They passed other VOIP traffic, but blocked the Vonage VOIP?
I’ve one choice - Hughes satellite. Not fast, but workable. I DO have a download limit on the biggest package I can buy which is 50Gb a month. Over that I get throttled. I understand that. It’s ok as the satellite has limited bandwidth.
Don’t dare allow them to charge more for specific types of data. Sure streaming a movie eats up data. That’s MY CHOICE. Ending Net Neutrality would give Hughes the option of charging more (or throttling) for Netflix over say Amazon (or Hughes own streaming if they chose to do so).
Ending Net Neutrality just opens up back door deals that will ultimately screw the consumer. Especially those that have no other choice.
Net Neutrality promotes competition that is good for everyone.
But this is?
A gratuitous assertion can always be equally gratuitously denied.
That’s not what “blocked” means. People couldn’t access Vonage. The fact that that wasn’t the only thing affected doesn’t change that basic fact.
Please point out in the cite where it says “They passed other VOIP traffic, but blocked the Vonage VOIP”
Answer:
Bullshit. “Vonage” is a company. VOIP is traffic over TCP.
They blocked all VOIP. They didn’t “block Vonage.” Vonage web traffic, Vonage SMTP traffic, and Vonage ftp traffic was unaffected. And VOIP from other companies was blocked.
How does that apply here? I gave a valid hypothetical that you completely failed to address.
That was a question to you, not a claim of mine.
None of the hypotheticals in post #26 are valid, since none of them describe any remotely likely scenario, and certainly don’t describe any real life events that have happened.
The examples were gratuitous. I gratuitously dismissed them.
Okay then. The answer is no.
And since we are nitpicking instead of discussing the main issue, the first link does not claim that Madison River “blocked Vonage”. You are incorrect in this assertion.
I’m still waiting for something other than “Regulations are bad” from the people who think this is a good idea.
Discussing protocol ports and exact quotes from news stories is exciting and all, but please, I’d like to hear one good thing from this that benefits the consumer.
They’re hypothetical examples of companies using monopolistic control over a means of distribution to privilege certain players in a market over others. It doesn’t matter if they are “remotely likely.” Whether they are “real life events that have happened” is so completely irrelevant to the current discussion I can only assume you typed that by accident.
Now, you’ve been presented with two hypotheticals that undeniably similar to the behavior we have seen ISPs engage in when they are not constrained by net neutrality rules. Do you have any response? If the answer is no then I find it unlikely you are interested in having honest debate regarding this issue.