More on the FCC, Comcast and BitTorrent

Let's bear in mind that the Internet is a packet-switched network in which we share communication facilities, not a circuit-switched network in which each user has a fixed portion of bandwidth. The ultimate problem for any ISP is to allow users to share the available bandwidth in such a way that many users can enjoy many uses simultaneously, enjoying the benefits of shared bandwidth without regressing into a circuit-switched model of wasted capacity and artificially limited capacity.

What the ISP needs to do then is to harmonize the needs of the multiple users and their multiple uses, and do to so efficiently and sensibly. There are three dimensions to this puzzle:

1. Each user needs something like a fair share of all the facilities he shares with others; and

2. Each application needs to get something close to its fundamental requirements;

3. Costs need to be apportioned fairly, such that light users don't subsidize heavy users.

There are a few ways to solve this puzzle, but they tend to encompass the following elements:

* Bandwidth has to allocated among multiple users as a fair share of the available pool at any given moment, up to the limits of each user's plan.

* Each user can prioritize his traffic according to its unique requirements and within the limits of his plan and traffic conditions at the given moment (these vary).

* Heavy users are entitled to purchase additional bandwidth consistent with their needs.

This is complicated, of course, but nobody said packet-switching was simple.

Discussions about Internet access networks emphasize bandwidth, but that's only one part of the engineering formula for packet switching; the other part is delay or latency. Given enough delay, any level of bandwidth consumption is OK on the networks that we share with our neighbors.

I anticipate a day when Internet access plans are sold on a tiered service model, where users purchase chunks of bandwidth with bounded delay and are allowed to use unlimited bandwidth with variable (and often high) delay.

Your plan should allow you to have 1 or 2 VoIP sessions going at any given time, in combination with 2 to 4 web browsing sessions, and these should perform as expected: VoIP with no pops and hisses, and web pages loading in under a second. And while that's going on, you should be able to download all the HDTV you want and share it with the world if you desire. But you have to accept that the delay for the HDTV is going to be greater than the delay for VoIP and web browsing. For most people that's not troublesome, as the HDTV streaming is a file transfer, and it completes when it completes.

This scheme solves the technnical problem, and it does so without going to unpredictable billing. The problem it poses is marketing, however. How do we explain this system to the average dingbat? Maybe some simple numbers will do it: a plan that permits one VoIP and two webs is a "1-2 plan", and one that permits 2 VoIPs and 4 webs is a "2-4 plan," etc.

Users not currently on the VoIP can use the low-delay VoIP priority for quicker web access, and users not currently using either VoIP or web will get faster HDTV downloads.

It seems fair to me, but people and phone companies tend to be stupid, so it may never catch on.

I'm with Jake. If the ad says X capacity, that's what the service has to deliver. If users need Y capacity, they find a provider who advertises that number. This is not a complicated problem.

The only complication is that the ISPs are working the ref. They want to be able to advertise higher capacity than they really support, for which they deserve zero sympathy.

Let's clear a few things up. First of all, you offer a service, provide it. Don't punish your subscribers because the administrators of this "money making" concept backfired since they were to focused on the money and not focused on the service being provided.

Some people don't have these issues and these people are like me: DSL Users. Here's why. DSL [created orginally by US West, who was later destroyed by Qwest: the corporate anti-christ of the communications industry] is genious and has no issues delivering what you purchased in a safe manner because your connection to DSLAM [located in a central office processing location] is private and dedicated. It doesn't matter how many people are on, or when, I've paid for 5mb up and down and that is exactly what i'm established with. Never changes, and further more, is more secure in such an astounding number of ways, that cable internet seems like technological suicide, and a fated for distaster.

Think about it. You have the isp's linked in to the DSLAM, which is heavily guarded by corporate level security protocals for preventing backward tunneling by hackers. The next level of protection is at your modem and/or router if you have a router hooked in. This leads to your final level at your own personal PC firewall. With cable, you go from your cable modem directly to a central node with unknown hundreds, and in some case thousands of other users. Since Cable service providers would rather over extend themselves offering services they can't hope to offer to everyone [bankng on the fact that not all their clientel will be online at the same time] it's kind underhanded to be frank.

In short their backpeddling trying to cover their 'ass'ets by choking out the bandwidth availability. it's about the almighty dollar. And if you're going to try and say "DSL isn't available in all area's" well there's a reason for that. Because the technologies that previously allowed for quick expansion of urban planning projects for phone service happend to prevent the DSL from getting to them. They're called UDC Splitters. Long thick Cylinder like items on a line before the phone lined enters a neighbo hood and it splits the capacity of the voice line. These were in place 10 or more years before the concept of DSL even became a reality. The phone companies recognize that and have been removing them as quickly as they can find an alternative to them that allows for DSL throughput without eliminating voice connectivity. Enter the age of Fiber Optic Interface Switches.

A bit off the beaten path, but really, stop feeding the hand that just continues to bastardize the community with repedative financially abusive practices. Screw Cable. Cable is how Ebay's PayPal corporation was hacked in 2003, causing the release of 250,000 account records (mine was one of them) to be released through the open internet. Had they not been on a cable system, 250,000 cases of identity fraud wouldn't continue to be ongoing and unstopable. [sorry, still a little bitter about that.. good thing i'm no alone]

Screw the cable company, they lied. over extended themselves, and have reached the edge of the cliff with their excuses. I need some coffee.

Peace