North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: Two Tiered Internet

  • From: Alexander Harrowell
  • Date: Thu Dec 15 12:19:40 2005
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta;; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=MlAPSB9gndKhoucsNop1eiPhC+wMiWzqNGAMHTF9ENn5m8sZ78G6IHgJVPETrB8GnMCH3dg8FqVI9yeWULoYFo6yYZArva3HVdI7xDvn+d8lF2vWhfss8dzs18GKucaWTVUS7kzxjI8O8IaNilXl1FdgpIrWhwQ+9XUoStIo+ew=

The whole QoS/2 tier Internet thing I find deeply, deeply 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".

On 12/15/05, Hannigan, Martin <[email protected]> wrote:

[ SNIP ]

> This is not directed at Sean, but please -- as a fomer Cisco
> engineering flunky, I can distinguish between marketing fluff
> (even when disguised as a 'case study') and real figures, and
> the truth is, there are no figures, because there is dismal
> adoption of the services. Go figure. Whatever.

Sean recently joined Cisco marketing hence the quoting of
vendor cruft as policy. It would be nice to fess up to that
with an @cisco or at least an "I work for Cisco Marketing"