Cogent admits to QoSing down streaming
Wayne E Bouchard
web at typo.org
Thu Nov 6 18:57:54 UTC 2014
I agree. There's nothing wrong with it at all.... unless you claim
you're not doing that and then do it secretly in order to forward an
On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 12:12:43PM -0600, Blake Hudson wrote:
> If I were a Cogent customer I would like to have seen more transparency
> (an announcement at least). However, I don't see anything wrong with
> their practice of giving some customers "Silver" service and others
> "Bronze" service while reserving "Gold" for themselves. Even if
> applications like VoIP do not function well with a Bronze service level.
> Now, a customer that was under the impression they were receiving equal
> treatment with other customers may not be happy to know they were
> receiving a lower class of service than expected. This is not a net
> neutrality matter, it's a matter of expectations and possibly false or
> deceptive advertising.
> I would much rather see an environment where the customer gets to choose
> Gold, Silver, and Bronze levels of service for his or her traffic as
> opposed to an environment where the provider chooses fast/slow lane
> applications at their own discretion.
> Patrick W. Gilmore wrote on 11/6/2014 10:12 AM:
> >This is interesting. And it will be detrimental to network neutrality
> >supporters. Cogent admits that while they were publicly complaining about
> >other networks congesting links, they were using QoS to make the problem
> >look worse.
> >One of the problems in "tech" is most people do not realize tone is
> >important, not just substance. There was - still is! - congestion in many
> >places where consumers have one or at most two choice of providers. Even
> >in places where there are two providers, both are frequently congested.
> >Instead of discussing the fact there is no functioning market, no choice
> >for the average end user, and how to fix it, we will now spend a ton of
> >time arguing whether anything is wrong at all because Cogent did this.
> >Wouldn't you rather be discussing whether 4 Mbps is really broadband?
> >(Anyone else have flashbacks to "640K is enough for anyone!"?) Or how many
> >people have more than one choice at 25 Mbps? Or whether a company with a
> >terminating access monopoly can intentionally congest its edge to charge
> >monopoly rents on the content providers their paying customers are trying
> >to access? I know I would.
> >Instead, we'll be talking about how things are not really bad, Cogent just
> >made it look bad on purpose. The subtlety of "it _IS_ bad, Cogent just
> >shifted some of the burden from VoIP to streaming" is not something that
> >plays well in a 30 second sound bite, or at congressional hearings.
> >It's enough to make one consider giving up the idea of having a
> >functioning, useful Internet.
web at typo.org
More information about the NANOG