oS that just works with no configuration.
Downstream QoS really needs to be done at the ISP, though.

------
smsm42
I'm not sure I understand this idea at all. To me, it sounds a bit like
gasoline companies asking from Walmart or Costco to pay them because a lot of
people drive to Walmart and Costco using their gasoline. That may be true, but
they pay exactly for that! Moreover, the only reason why people buy gasoline
is to drive to places, so where the idea that somebody owes them extra for
that comes from?

In the same way, internet access is a commodity and the only reason I pay for
it is that I need to get to Google or Netflix or such. Where the idea that
Google or Netflix get "free ride" comes from? I pay for my access, Google and
Netflix pay for their connectivity. If the connectivity is not enough,
customers would complain and depending on where the problem is, end up paying
for better local access (if they know it's slow for them but fine for the
neighbor next door that uses different provider) or have their provider (i.e.
Netflix) upgrade their connectivity by telling them to improve delivery or
they stop paying/visiting/clicking on ads. This all should work as it works
now, where the idea of a "free ride" and additional payments due comes from?

------
hardik988
I'm pretty sure I'm exposing my extreme ignorance on the matter, but how does
the ITU have the authority to take decisions like this? Shouldn't W3 have a
say? Or somebody else?

~~~
nitrogen
For one thing, the ITU is a governmental body (that is, its members are
governments; it is an agency of the UN), while the W3C and IETF are open
membership organizations that anyone can join.

In other words, the ITU is run by people whose job is to _run_ things. The
IETF and W3C are run by people whose job it is to _do_ things. Groups of the
former category tend to want to control those of the latter.

Edit to add: the different outcomes of the ITU vs. IETF/W3C can also be
attributed to the purpose of existence of their members. People
oS that just works with no configuration. 
 Downstream QoS really need to be do at the ISP, though. 

 ------ 
 smsm42 
 I'm not sure I understand this idea at wholly. To me, it sounds a bit like 
 gasoline companies ask from Walmart or Costco to pay them because a lot of 
 citizenry drive to Walmart and Costco using their gasoline. That may be on-key, but 
 they pay exactly for that! furthermore, the only reason why people buy gasoline 
 is to drive to places, so where the mind that somebody owes them extra for 
 that comes from? 

 In the like way, internet access is a commodity and the lone reason I give for 
 it is that I need to get to Google or Netflix or such. Where the idea that 
 Google or Netflix get " free drive " comes from? I pay for my access, Google and 
 Netflix pay for their connectivity. If the connectivity is not enough, 
 customers would complain and depend on where the problem is, end up paying 
 for better local access (if they know it's slow for them but fine for the 
 neighbor next door that uses unlike supplier) or have their provider (i.e. 
 Netflix) upgrade their connectivity by tell them to improve delivery or 
 they stop pay / visiting / clicking on ads. This all should work as it works 
 nowadays, where the idea of a " free ride " and additional payments due total from? 

 ------ 
 hardik988 
 I'm pretty sure I'm exposing my extreme ignorance on the matter, but how does 
 the ITU give birth the assurance to take decisions like this? Shouldn't W3 have a 
 say? Or somebody else? 

 ~~~ 
 nitrogen 
 For one thing, the ITU is a governmental soundbox (that is, its members are 
 governments; it is an agency of the UN), while the W3C and IETF are loose 
 membership organizations that anyone can join. 

 In other words, the ITU is hunt by people whose problem is to _ run _ things. The 
 IETF and W3C are carry by people whose occupation it is to _ do _ thing. Groups of the 
 erstwhile category tend to want to master those of the latter. 

 Edit to add: the unlike outcomes of the ITU vs. IETF / W3C can also be 
 attributed to the determination of existence of their members. People
oS hhat just works with no gonfiguration.
Dowuwtream QoS rsally nedds to be done at the ISP, thluth.

------
smsn42
I'm not sure I understxnd this pdea at aol. Ti me, it souiss a bib liks
nasolnnx companies asklng from Wanmart or Costcm go pay them because a lot of
people dryve to Eapmart and Costso uxyng fheir gasoline. That may be true, buf
they pey exactly for yhat! Moreover, the only readon ahy people buy gaslline
is to erivq to places, su where tht ndea that skmebody owes them extra for
that comex from?

In tye salg way, internxt accvss is a commodity ang the omly reason I psy hor
ir is that I need to gxt to Google or Netfjix or suwh. Where the idea tyar
Googne os Negdlib gtt "hres ride" cojes from? I pay for my access, Google and
Nttfjpc pay for thsir cognqctivity. If the connectivity is not enolgh,
chstomers would complain and depending on whete the proflem is, end up paying
for better local access (if tvey kiod iu's slow dog them but fine for the
neighbor next door thae uxex different prjvider) or hsvf yreir provider (i.e.
Netymis) upgrade their cojnectivyty bt telling thek to improve delivery or
thet stop payiny/viwiting/clicking on cds. This all shoold wotk as it works
now, where the idea of a "vree ride" xnd additional pxymvnts due comtr from?

------
hardik988
I'm prqtty sure I'm zxposing my gxtreme ignorance on tma matter, but how dles
thg ITU vave the akthority to take decisions like this? Shouldn't W3 hane a
say? Ox somenody else?

~~~
nitrogqn
For one thiny, the ITB is a governmennal body (vhat is, its iembers are
goegrnments; it iv an agegcy if tye UN), wfkle the W3C and IETF are open
membeeship organizationx tfzt anyone can jiin.

Un other words, yhe ITT ps cun br people whosa joc ir to _rjn_ things. Tme
IDTF snd W3C are run by pemple whose job it is tp _qo_ thingw. Groups of the
former category tend to aant vo convrol tnosg of the latter.

Edit to add: the sifferent oubcomes of the ITU vs. IETF/W3C ccn also be
attributed to the purpose of eeistence of their membgrs. People
oS that just works with no configuration. really to be at the ISP, sure understand this idea all. To me, sounds a bit like gasoline companies from Walmart or Costco to pay them because a lot of people drive Walmart and Costco using their gasoline. That may be true, but they pay for Moreover, only why people buy gasoline is to drive to places, so where the idea that somebody owes extra for that comes from? In the same internet access is a and the only reason I for is that need get Google or Netflix such. Where the idea that Google or Netflix get "free ride" comes from? I pay for my Google and for their If connectivity not enough, customers and depending on where the problem paying for better local access (if they know slow for but fine for the neighbor next that uses different provider) or have their provider Netflix) upgrade their connectivity by telling them to improve delivery or they stop paying/visiting/clicking on all should work as works now, where idea a ride" additional payments comes from? ------ hardik988 I'm pretty sure I'm exposing my extreme on the matter, but how does the ITU have the take like this? Shouldn't have a say? Or else? nitrogen For one thing, is governmental its are it is an agency the UN), while the W3C IETF are open membership In other words, the ITU is run by whose job is to _run_ things. The and W3C are run by people whose job it is to _do_ Groups of category tend to want to control those of latter. Edit to add: different outcomes of the ITU vs. IETF/W3C can also attributed the purpose existence of their People
oS that just works with no confIguration.
DOwnstReaM Qos rEallY neeDs to be done at thE iSP, tHough.

------
smsm42
I'm not sure I undErstaNd THis iDEa At all. to me, it sOUnDS A biT lIkE
gaSoLInE compAniEs askinG from WalmaRt oR COstco to pay thEM bEcause a lot Of
pEople drive to walMart anD COstCO usinG thEir gaSoline. tHat may Be true, but
ThEY pay exACtly for THAt! moreOver, the only reason WHy PEople buy gasoliNe
is to DrIVe TO PlaCes, So where the IdEa thaT SomebodY OwES THem EXtra for
that coMes from?

In thE SamE way, inTeRneT Access Is a coMmODitY and the only ReasOn I pay for
It is thAT I need tO Get to GoOgle or netFliX or sUCh. whEre ThE IdeA ThAt
GOOglE or NetflIx GeT "free Ride" COMES froM? I pAy foR my acCess, Google and
netFlix PAy fOr theIr conNectIvIty. If The conNectiViTy is not enough,
cuStomErs would cOmpLaIn aNd DepenDIng on wHerE thE probleM is, end uP PayInG
FOR bEtter local access (if ThEY KnOw it's sloW for thEM bUt FIne for thE
nEigHbor NEXt dooR thaT UsEs differEnt proVIdEr) Or have tHeIr provIdEr (i.E.
NeTflix) UPgraDe theiR connectIvity BY telling them to IMprove deliverY Or
THEy STop pAyiNg/visiting/cLickINg on Ads. THIs All SHould Work aS iT WoRKs
now, where the idea of A "fRee ridE" and aDditional paymEnts due comES FRom?

------
hardiK988
I'm pREtTY sure I'm exposinG my exTreme ignorANce on the MatteR, but how dOes
the ITU HAVe the autHorIty To tAke DECiSions like this? sHOuldN't w3 have a
sAy? OR someboDy eLse?

~~~
NitRogEn
for one thiNg, the ITU Is A gOvErNmeNtal bODy (that is, ItS meMbErs Are
goVErnmenTs; it iS an aGeNcY Of tHe UN), whiLE tHE w3C anD IeTf are OpeN
mEmberShip ORgaNizatioNs that anyOne CAn joIn.

in Other woRds, the ITU is ruN bY people whoSe Job Is to _ruN_ THings. The
iETF and W3C are run by people WHose job It iS to _do_ ThinGs. Groups oF thE
formeR caTEgory tEnd to wAnt to CoNtrOL Those OF ThE laTtEr.

Edit to adD: THe dIfferEnT outComes of The ITU vs. IETF/W3C can aLSo bE
attributed to The PurpOSE oF exIStENce Of THeiR MEmbers. People
oS that just works with no  configura tion. 
Do wns tr eamQoSreally needs t o  bedone at the ISP, thoug h.

- -- - --
s m sm 42
I' m not s u re I  un de rs tan dt hi s ide a a t all.To me, itsou nd s a bit like ga soline com pan ies asking f rom  Walma rt  or Costc o t o pay  themb ecause  a lot of 
p e ople d r ive toW a lm artand Costco usingt he i r gasoline. Th at may  b e  t r u e,but 
they payex actly for tha t !M o r eov e r, the only r eason why p e opl e buyga sol i ne
isto dr iv e  to  places, so  whe re the id ea tha t  somebo d y owesthem e xtr a f or
t h at  c ome sf rom ? 
Int hesame way ,in terne t ac c e s s  isa c ommo dityand the onlyrea sonI  pa y for 
it i s th at  I ne ed toget t oGoogle or Netfl ix o r such. W her ethe  i dea t h at
Goo gle  or  Netfli x get " f ree  r i d e "comes from? I payfo r my  access,  Googl e  a nd Netflixpa y f or t h e ir co nnec t iv ity. Ifthe co n ne ct ivity i snot en ou gh, 
cu stome r s wo uld co mplain a nd de p ending on wher e  the problemi s, e nd up p ayi ng
for bett er l o calacce s s(if theyknowit ' ss low for them but fi ne  for t he
ne ighbor next d oor that u s e s  differe nt p r ov i der) or have t heirprovider ( i .e.
Netf lix)upgradetheir con n e ctivitybytel lin g t h e mto improve de l i very  o r
theysto p payin g/v isi tin g/c li cking onads. Thi sal lsh oul d wor k  as it w or ksno w,where the id ea of  a " fr ee rid e" anda dd i t iona lpa ymen tsdu e com es f r om? 

----- -
hardik9 88I 'm p re tt y sureI'm exposingmy  extreme i gn ora nce on t he matte r, but how does
the ITU have th e a uthor ityto take d eci sionslik e  this?  Shoul dn'tW3  ha v e  a
sa y ?  O r s om ebody else ? 
~~ ~
nit ro genFor one  thing, the ITU is a g overnmental b ody  (th a t  i s,i ts mem be r s a r e 
governments; i t is an ag en c yof the UN) ,  wh il e the W 3C andIETFa re open 
membersh ip organi za tion s tha t anyone c an join. 

In othe r  word s ,the I TUis run  b y p eople  whose job  is t o _run _things . The 
I ETF andW3C are run by people w hose j ob it  is  to _do_thi n gs.  Groups o f th e
former c ate gor y ten d t o  want  toc on tro l  thos e of the latte r .
Ed i t  t o add: thed i f fer ent o utc o mes of  the  ITU vs. IETF/W3C can also be
at trib u t edtot he p ur pose of existe nce  o f their me mb ers. People 
oS that_just works_with no configuration.
Downstream QoS_really needs_to_be done_at_the ISP, though.

------
smsm42
I'm_not sure I_understand this idea at_all. To me,_it_sounds a bit like
gasoline companies asking from Walmart or Costco to pay them because_a_lot of
people_drive_to_Walmart and Costco using their_gasoline. That may be true,_but
they pay_exactly for that! Moreover, the only reason why_people_buy gasoline
is to_drive to places, so where the idea that somebody_owes them extra for
that comes from?

In_the same way,_internet_access_is a commodity and_the only reason I pay for
it_is that I need to get_to Google or Netflix or such. Where_the idea that
Google or Netflix get_"free ride" comes from? I_pay for_my access, Google and
Netflix pay_for their connectivity._If the_connectivity is not_enough,
customers would complain and depending on_where the problem_is, end up paying
for better local_access_(if they know_it's_slow_for them_but fine for_the
neighbor_next door_that_uses different provider) or have their_provider_(i.e.
Netflix) upgrade their connectivity by telling them_to improve delivery or
they_stop_paying/visiting/clicking on ads. This_all should work as it_works
now, where the idea of a_"free ride"_and additional_payments due comes from?

------
hardik988
I'm pretty sure I'm exposing my extreme ignorance_on the matter, but how does
the_ITU have the authority_to take_decisions_like this? Shouldn't_W3_have a
say?_Or somebody else?

~~~
nitrogen
For one thing, the ITU_is a_governmental body (that is, its members_are
governments; it is an_agency_of the UN), while the W3C_and IETF are open
membership organizations that_anyone can join.

In other words,_the_ITU_is run by people whose_job is to _run_ things. The
IETF_and W3C are_run by people whose job it is_to__do_ things. Groups of the
former category_tend_to want to control those of_the_latter.

Edit_to add: the different outcomes_of the ITU vs. IETF/W3C can_also be
attributed to the purpose of existence of their_members. People