
You know, I sent an idiotic response to a serious topic,
and I shouldn't have -- it is a serious issue which deserves
a serious response.

Anyone within earshot of The Great State of Texas (tm) should
know that the sickening machinations of the incumbent teclo(s)
and Cable Co.(s), and their trance-dance lobbying with Texas
state legislature in the past year would leave a really, really
bad taste in anyone's mouth. Now, before you turn a deaf ear
to this, realize that Texas is very much asn incubator for
every state in the union, and their PUC's, legislatures, etc.,
when it comes to overcoming existing obstacles in the
incumbent telecommunications marketplace.

What we're talking about here has NOTHING to do with technology,
but EVERYTHING to do with protecting a revenue stream in the
face of dispruptive technolog(y)(ies) that threaten the incumbents.

So stop acting like it's a matter of actually introducing REAL
methods of traffic metering, QoS, or other REAL technical methods
to offer better-than-best effort.

What these guys are talking about is penalization. Don't pretend
otherwise. To do so is truly disingenious.

Also, it's been kind of fun to watch all of the QoS experts come
out of the woodwork on this thread to offer their technical genius
on how to solve the proverbial problem. Please.

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.

In a previous life I also worked for Sprint, so I know what its
like for a service provider's marketing department trying to create
revenue streams -- they try toi shove stuff down everyone's throat.
Some good technology, mostly bad.

In any event, this whole 'distinguished service offering' is
nothing more than a ruse.

- ferg



-- "Fergie" <fergdawg@netzero.net> wrote:

Marketing. Bah.

- ferg


-- Sean Donelan <sean@donelan.com> wrote:

On Wed, 14 Dec 2005, Tony Li wrote:
> I believe it when it gets to my street.  So far, the reality is
> Really Slow DSL, with service and installation times measured in weeks
> at costs that aren't competitive.  So yes, I missed all of that.

There are currently a couple of million IPTV users worldwide. Imagine how
much more useful the conversation would be if it included people who have
actually used it and could say what their experience has been instead of
people leaping to conlusions based on inaccurate reports.

http://www.cisco.com/application/pdf/en/us/guest/netsol/ns610/c647/cdccont_0900aecd80375b69.pdf

--
"Fergie", a.k.a. Paul Ferguson
 Engineering Architecture for the Internet
 fergdawg@netzero.net or fergdawg@sbcglobal.net
 ferg's tech blog: http://fergdawg.blogspot.com/


