^
-2
^
Richard Bennett 3/13/2016
Permalink|Reply
Private. Collaborators only.
Selection made on Version 8
There is a perennial call to “make the network smart.” Someone always wants to optimize it, establish “quality of service” mechanisms – for example, to make voice calls more reliable. But whenever you optimize the network for one thing, you risk de-optimizing it for another. It turns out that just adding more bandwidth has been cheaper than making the network “smarter” (This argument - that you fix networks by making them faster, not smarter - is key to understanding net neutrality).
There is a perennial call to “make the network smart.” Someone always wants to optimize it, establish “quality of service” mechanisms – for example, to make voice calls more reliable. But whenever you optimize the network for one thing, you risk de-optimizing it for another.
Quality of Service is not a question of “optimizing” the network for one and only one service, it’s a matter of allowing the network to provide treatment for each class of application that is appropriate to the needs of the class. It’s primary function is mediating resource contention that arises between pairs of application classes that impose disparate patterns of load on the network when the loads are not necessary to end user Quality of Experience. This whole section has nothing to do with either Bitcoin or Copyright enforce and adds nothing to main argument. The people would be more coherent and credible if the (essentially religious) misrepresentation of Quality of Serivce were removed.