What really boggles my mind is how you stick up for the same cable companies that strong arm you. This model is dying and you better figure out the new paradigm if you want to stay successful. I and almost everyone here would love to see a day when I could pay YOU directly for a subscription to YOUR content to be delivered without prejudice over my ISP to my TV. That day could be tomorrow if people in positions such as yours would sack up and help us push for change. Don’t like TWC kicking you off their lineup? Just cut out the middle man. They’ll make money off the connection fees I gladly pay to my ISP, and you’ll make money off subscription fees I gladly pay to you and off advertising fees. We both win…..you get MORE money than before, and I only pay for what I want and nothing more.

The cable TV industry, much like the newspaper and music industries, is just going to have to come to terms with the fact that an inevitable paradigm shift is occurring. They can resist, but cannot stop it. For them to remain viable, they’ll have to find another way in this new world. One that doesn’t artificially prop up their dying cable TV model at the expense of consumer choice and through monopolistic extortion.

Good argument? When traffic is handled perfectly now without any problems whatsoever? Also, let’s pretend that what you are saying is right, ok is that the end of online video? Why not download the whole file to begin with and then watch it or buffer 20 minutes of it? As download speeds progress, downloading large files will be nothing. I have a 12Mb connection and downloading a 4GB movie takes what 45 minutes or so. Downloading a 700MB tv show takes what 7 minutes.

Costs for supplying internet service are down, profits are up. If they have to invest some money to keep their network under control… then they have to invest some money to keep their network under control. If things were so ridiculously out of control I’d think they could have come up with another protocol suite by now, you know with all the billions of dollars they collectively make.

One such way to mitigate DDOS is through http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps5888/
and there are other ways to go about it at the network admin level.

Ultimately you have to stop DDOS at the ISP level. DDOS exists today, and so does QoS. I don’t see ISPs going broke over it. You offer an imperfect service, do a bit of maintenance on what you offer.

I’m still waiting on you to present an issue we don’t already deal with, that is a result from net neutrality.

The reason that QOS is a problem is that networks that peer are competitors. They want to be able to say that customers should work with them because their networks are better.

In addition, the bigger issue with QOS isnt technical, its financial. How much should one network get paid for retaining the levels of QOS that their competitor network sold to a customer ?

And what if you have events like today, where a DOS attack occurs. Who takes financial responsibility when QOS levels are violated \?

And what are “reasonable network management” measures to take when you have attacks like today ?

Im still waiting for someone to put up a good argument to my blog post

Might want to read up on these too.

Cyclic Redundancy Check
MD5 Checksum
Parity Checking
SFV

On Usenet, I deal with incomplete data all the time. If you have repair files, PAR2, then even heavily damaged files can be restored.

There is plenty of incentive for QoS, the main one being the fact you kinda have to have some sort of QoS for anything to work smoothly. Net neutrality isn’t some scheme for total chaos over the internet and the complete abandonment of network administration strategies. You are full of shit honestly.