South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
stoke said:On the priority service issue ... these idiots are going to end up realising what telkom should have realised long ago ... just make it wider ... get more throughput ... better service and people will be happy. No need to spend money on expensive routing and control just to get a few extra cents, which will just be eaten by the infrastructure costs ... silly.
"The next great idea, the next Google or eBay or Napster or whatever, won't have the capital to get themselves in the fast lanes right away," said Ben Scott at Free Press, a nonprofit that promotes freedom of speech. "The reason the big e-companies were so successful were that they started on the same level playing field as everyone else."
Another objection to packet prioritization is technical.
The Internet2 association assumed that prioritization was the way to go when it started building a super-fast next-generation network connecting universities.
However, engineers abandoned that notion after a few years, concluding that it's more effective simply to expand the network's capacity for all traffic -- adding lanes to the highway instead of a parallel toll road.
antowan said:The above says it all for me. This is a DUMB idea by rich ass companies trying to own something they shouldn't.
albert123 said:true true, its like taking the N1 between jhb - pta and saying fast lane only for cars with more than 1 person in it. great idea!! however try implementing it? waste of effort. use the same money and build another highway (or a lot of money and build a train that looks nice)
antowan said:Not sure if you are being serious or not.![]()