More enlightened Cox subscribers will just tunnel all their traffic. Problem solved.

TCP/IP over carrier pigeon anyone?

Seriously, the ISP is doing something to try to get some crude QoS filtering done and if the download for Ubuntu or the warz or whatever you are legally download — like Microsoft’s Tuesday security updates — takes a minute or two rather than 45 seconds, WHY SHOULD IT MATTER?

VoIP, streaming, and videoconferencing should, in theory, get a boost from delaying file transfers and mass data moves.

And most of you guys want to call it a Bad Thing because instead you want ALL BITS to be treated equal, so your VoIp calls run crummy, your videos stutter and slow, just so you can gain 15 seconds on the Ubuntu distro. This is just sillyness. It’s knee jerk and thoughtless.

All bits ARE NOT EQUAL. Some are time sensitive and Cox has taken a (crude) step to recognize that… You go girl!

Sure, blanket rules on what is time-sensitive vs what isn’t is ugly, and there are always exceptions. But I’d contend that treating VOIP and FTP traffic as equals is flat out inefficient to begin with, and that adding general rule favoring VOIP over FTP is a huge step in the right direction.

Yes, but the issue is how does one decide what is delay sensitive. Do we trust applications to label packets correctly? Is it as simple as saying UDP is higher priority than TCP? Does it come down to the ISP doing deep packet inspection and deciding based on what is in their own best interest what is high priority (clearly stuff they consider competition will not be)? That is what it sounds like Cox is going to do. Or does the ISP just have pay to play where they grant priority to services based on who is willing to pay for it (yet still charge the users for access)? A bunch of ISPs talked about doing this in 2006 and that is what sparked the whole Net Neutrality firestorm. Personally, I don’t like any of those options as they are all rife with possibilities for abuse. In the end, isn’t it just safest to treat all Internet traffic equally and use an end-to-end private network for what needs service guarantees? Don’t charge users for something you claim is Internet access and then subject it to a bunch of management techniques that are designed for private networks. If what your customers really want is a managed private network, sell them that. I think there would actually be plenty of takers for such a service, so there is no need to pretend you are selling one thing and then give your customers something else.

Thoughtful, evolved societies have long ago come to the conclusion that what goes on in the privacy of your own home–or internet connection–can sometimes justifiably be the proper business of that larger society–especially when the abuse of these rights have such far reaching impact on digital creators lives, industry, the basic human notions of simple fair play in the marketplace, sales and tax creation, the damage goes on and on and on.

I don’t like to see the fundamental principles of bandwidth throttling any more than anyone else does and Kopelman makes a crucial point.

But if piracy leads to bandwidth hogging by a minority and the eventual slowing of the online experience for the vast law-abiding majority, then place me on the side of the majority in this case. Pirates and bandwidth hogs (the 24/7 illegal DL crowd) couldn’t care less the damage they do, and are in this solely for themselves. Don’t be surprised when the loyal opposition fights fire with fire, then, and that’s where Mr. Fisk has this wrong.

Bandwidth will be continuously improved for streaming and voip and such, but the containment of illegal bandwidth use is a net improvement for the masses, at a cost. The negative aspects are regrettable, but unavoidable and the slippery slope has begun.

Nicely done, illegal downloaders.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=11893