That’s a fair plan.
Simple me came up with this one,
Don’t say you offer 3mb if you only
offer 20k.
Simple enough, I think a big problem is
that sales is saying they offer all this bandwidth, but the reality is no one
gets it. You can blame P2P all you want, but realistically if users are offered
say 3MB then they have the right to expect it. Its not their fault or the
networks fault if its not realistic.
You could say that you have no way of
knowing how many users are on the network but that’s not true, I bet you
could figure out how many users you can handle at what bandwidth guarantee.
Sorry if this seems simplistic, but hey
its fun to make things simple J even if it can be unrealistic a bit.
How about a system where
I tell my customers that for a given plan X at price Y they get U bytes of
"high priority" upload per month (or day or whatever) and after that
all their traffic is low priority until the next cycle starts.
Now here's the fun part. They can mark the priority on the packets they
send (diffserv/TOS) and decide what they want treated as high priority and what
they want treated as not-so-high priority.
If I'm a low usage customer with no p2p applications, maybe I can mark ALL my
traffic high priority all month long and not run over my limit. If I run
p2p, I can choose to set my p2p software to send all it's traffic marked low
priority if I want to, and save my high priority traffic quote for more
important stuff.
Maybe the default should be high priority so that customers who do nothing but
are light users get the best service.
low priority upstream traffic gets dropped in favor of high priority, but users
decide what's important to them.
If I want all my stuff to be high priority, maybe there's a metered plan I can
sign up for so I don't have any hard cap on high priority traffic each month
but I pay extra over a certain amount.
This seems like it would be reasonable and fair and p2p wouldn't have to be
singled out.
Any thoughts?
On 10/22/07, Joe
Greco <[email protected]>
wrote:
> I wonder how quickly applications and network gear would implement QoS
> support if the major ISPs offered their subscribers two queues: a default
> queue, which handled regular internet traffic but squashed P2P, and then a
> separate queue that allowed P2P to flow uninhibited for an extra $5/month,
> but then ISPs could purchase cheaper bandwidth for that.
>
> But perhaps at the end of the day Andrew O. is right and it's best off to
> have a single queue and throw more bandwidth at the problem.
A system that wasn't P2P-centric could be interesting, though making it
P2P-centric would be easier, I'm sure. ;-)
The idea that Internet data flows would ever stop probably doesn't work
out well for the average user.
What about a system that would /guarantee/ a low amount of data on a low
priority queue, but would also provide access to whatever excess capacity
was currently available (if any)?
We've already seen service providers such as Virgin UK implementing things
which essentially try to do this, where during primetime they'll limit the
largest consumers of bandwidth for 4 hours. The method is completely
different, but the end result looks somewhat similar. The recent
discussion of AU service providers also talks about providing a baseline
service once you've exceeded your quota, which is a simplified version of
this.
Would it be better for networks to focus on separating data classes and
providing a product that's actually capable of quality-of-service style
attributes?
Would it be beneficial to be able to do this on an end-to-end basis (which
implies being able to QoS across ASN's)?
The real problem with the "throw more bandwidth" solution is that at
some
point, you simply cannot do it, since the available capacity on your last
mile simply isn't sufficient for the numbers you're selling, even if you
are able to buy cheaper upstream bandwidth for it.
Perhaps that's just an argument to fix the last mile.
... JG
--
Joe Greco - sol.net Network Services - Milwaukee, WI
- http://www.sol.net
"We call it the 'one bite at the apple' rule. Give me one chance [and]
then I
won't contact you again." - Direct Marketing Ass'n position on e-mail
spam(CNN)
With 24 million small businesses in the US alone, that's way too many
apples.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------