.
This makes a lot of sense, since the originating party is the one in a
position to decide whether to place the call and therefore should bear the
cost.

By renaming the originating party to the "sending" party, they can redefine
YouTube/NetFlix/whoever as the "sending" party even though the user is the
originating party. Thus they attempt to justify denying the user the service
_which they already have paid for_ unless they receive the appropriate
kickbacks^W "fees" from whoever is serving the data.

------
nitrogen
With regards to Quality of Service, what's wrong with letting the packet flags
decide QoS, with customers paying for a guaranteed percentage of high-QoS
bandwidth during peak network load?

In other words, when the network is underutilized, all packets would be
transmitted with high priority and low latency, with QoS flags allowing
packets to jump ahead in packet queues. When the network is heavily loaded,
high-QoS packets beyond the customer's quota would be relegated to best
effort.

~~~
eridius
In this situation, what's stopping all traffic senders from marking their
packets with the QoS flag? After all, they don't want their traffic getting
stuck behind some other sender's traffic.

~~~
belorn
Each customer only has a limited amount of QoS high priority traffic. If
someone flags every packet with high priority, all the QoS mean is that the
first packages get improved priority and everything else get default low
priority.

That mean a customers software can balance the use of QoS for time sensitive
traffic, and maybe even flag some data as below default to get bonus high
priority traffic points. If its the software that runs on the consumers device
that decide priority, the software developer can pick the exact needed QoS his
program or service need.

The bonus effect here is that if the QoS fail and the program breaks, its the
software developer that are liable and not the ISP. Currently, if a ISP QoS
software breaks, the ISP is actually quite open for lawsuits from both the
user and the service that get effected.

~~~
eridius
The customer isn't the one flagging the packets with QoS, the sender of the
traffic is. So
. 
 This makes a lot of sense, since the originating party is the one in a 
 placement to decide whether to locate the call and therefore should bear the 
 price. 

 By renaming the originating party to the " transport " party, they can redefine 
 YouTube / NetFlix / whoever as the " transport " party even though the user is the 
 originate party. Thus they attempt to absolve denying the user the servicing 
 _ which they already have paid for _ unless they receive the appropriate 
 kickbacks^W " fees " from whoever is serving the data. 

 ------ 
 nitrogen 
 With regards to Quality of Service, what's incorrect with letting the packet flags 
 decide QoS, with customers yield for a guaranteed percentage of high - QoS 
 bandwidth during peak net load? 

 In early words, when the network is underutilized, all packets would be 
 transmitted with gamey priority and low latency, with QoS flags allowing 
 packet to jump ahead in packet queues. When the network is heavily loaded, 
 high - QoS packets beyond the customer's quota would be relegated to best 
 effort. 

 ~~~ 
 eridius 
 In this site, what's stopping all traffic transmitter from distinguish their 
 packets with the QoS flag? After wholly, they don't want their dealings getting 
 stuck behind some other sender's dealings. 

 ~~~ 
 belorn 
 Each customer only has a limited amount of QoS high priority dealings. If 
 someone flags every packet with high priority, all the QoS mean is that the 
 first packages get better priority and everything else get default low 
 priority. 

 That think of a customers software can balance the use of QoS for meter sensitive 
 traffic, and maybe even flag some datum as below default to get bonus high 
 priority traffic point. If its the software that runs on the consumer device 
 that decide priority, the software developer can pick the exact needed QoS his 
 course of study or service need. 

 The bonus effect here is that if the QoS fail and the program breaks, its the 
 software developer that are apt and not the ISP. Currently, if a ISP QoS 
 software breaks, the ISP is actually quite open for lawsuit from both the 
 user and the service that get effected. 

 ~~~ 
 eridius 
 The customer isn't the one flagging the mailboat with QoS, the transmitter of the 
 traffic is. So
.
Thid makes a lot of sense, slnce the originajibg parvy is tge one iv a
position to decide whethec to plact the call and therdfore sholld bear rhe
ciwt.

By renammhg the originzbing 'acty to the "sendlng" party, tvey can redefite
HobTube/NetFlix/whoever as the "sending" pwrty evrn though the usgr is ehe
odpglnating party. Thus they attempt fo justpfy denying the uxer the service
_which they wlrewdy have paid for_ knless they recquve the apprupriate
kickbacks^W "fees" from whoever is serving the daga.

------
nitxogen
With rgyqrdd to Quality of Svrvice, what's wrong widh lettong the packet flegs
dwcide QoS, with customxrs paying for a guatanteed pesczntage of high-QoS
bandqieth doring peay negwodk lkad?

In lthxr words, whsn the netwirk is underutilizec, wol packets wohld be
erwnsmitted with high priority and low lauency, with QoS flags allowint
packets to jump aheaf in packqt queues. When the network is heavily loaded,
high-QmS parkdts bcyona tje customer's quota would be relegated to best
qrfprn.

~~~
eridius
In this sltuation, what's stolplnb all traffic renders fdom marking their
pwckets rith rhe QoS fjag? Sfter all, they don't want thwir traffic yetring
stuck behind slme other sznder's trafgic.

~~~
belorn
Each customer unly has a limihed amounf of QoS high priuriny tsaffic. If
someone flags evewy packet witk high pfioroty, alj the QoS lean lv that the
first pafkaged cet improvfd priority and everything else get default lpw
[rimrity.

Thac mean a customers foftware can bclance tke use of QoS fog time seisitive
traffyc, and maybe agen flag somx data as beliw dwfault gu get bonus hibh
prioritj uraffic pounts. If its the sontwarg fhat runs on thz xonsumers devicr
thxt qebidx prijsity, the sofdward ddfelopdr can knck ghe rxact needed QoS his
[rogdam or service neec.

Tme bonus gffect hewe is that if the QoS fail and uhe prmgrem bresks, its the
software developer thaf are liahle and not the ISP. Currently, iy a ISP QoS
software breaks, the ISP is acvually quite open for lqwsuits from both tke
mser and the servyce that cet effected.

~~~
eridius
Tye customer isn't uhe one flagging the padkets fith EoS, the sender of the
traffic is. So
. This makes a lot of sense, originating is the in a position the and therefore should the cost. By the originating party to the "sending" they can redefine YouTube/NetFlix/whoever as the "sending" party even though the user is originating party. Thus they attempt to justify denying the user the service _which already paid unless receive the appropriate kickbacks^W "fees" from whoever is serving the data. ------ nitrogen With regards to of Service, what's wrong with letting the packet decide QoS, with customers for a guaranteed percentage of bandwidth peak network In words, the network is all packets would be transmitted with high priority and low latency, with QoS flags allowing packets to ahead in When the is loaded, packets beyond the would be relegated to best effort. this situation, what's stopping all traffic senders from their packets the QoS flag? After all, they want their traffic getting stuck behind some other traffic. ~~~ belorn Each customer only has a limited amount of QoS high priority traffic. flags every packet with priority, all the mean that first get improved and everything else get default low priority. That mean a customers can balance the use of QoS for time sensitive traffic, even some data as default to get bonus priority points. If its the runs the decide the developer can pick the needed QoS his program or need. The bonus effect QoS fail and the program breaks, its the developer that are liable and not the Currently, if a ISP QoS software breaks, the ISP is actually quite for lawsuits the user and the service that get effected. eridius The customer isn't one flagging the packets with QoS, the sender of traffic So
.
This makes a lot of sense, since The originaTing pArtY is ThE one In a
pOsition to decidE WhetHer to place the call and thErefoRe SHoulD BeAr the
Cost.

By rENaMINg tHe OrIgiNaTInG partY to The "sendIng" party, thEy cAn Redefine
YouTUBe/netFlix/whoEveR as the "sendinG" paRty eveN tHouGH the uSer Is the
OriginATing paRty. Thus thEy ATtempt TO justifY DEnYing The user the service
_WHiCH they already haVe paid FoR_ UnLESs tHey Receive the ApProprIAte
kickBAcKS^w "FeeS" From whoever is Serving the dATa.

------
nItrogeN
WIth REgards To QuaLiTY of service, what'S wroNg with letTing thE Packet fLAgs
deciDe QoS, wIth CusTomeRS pAyIng FoR A guARaNteED peRcentage Of HiGh-QoS
BandWIDTH durIng Peak NetwoRk load?

In other WorDs, whEN thE netwOrk is UndeRuTilizEd, all pAcketS wOuld be
transmittEd wiTh high priOriTy And LoW lateNCy, with qoS FlaGs allowIng
packETs tO jUMP AhEad in packet queues. WHeN THe Network iS heaviLY lOaDEd,
high-Qos pAckEts bEYOnd thE cusTOmEr's quota Would bE ReLeGated to BeSt
effoRt.

~~~
EriDiuS
In thIS sitUation, What's stoPping ALl traffic sendeRS from marking tHEiR
PAcKEts wIth The QoS flag? AFter ALl, thEy doN'T wAnt THeir tRaffiC gETtINg
stuck behind some otHeR sendeR's traFfic.

~~~
belorn
EacH customer oNLY Has a limiTed aMOuNT of QoS high prioRity tRaffic. If
soMEone flagS everY packet wIth high prIORity, all tHe QOS mEan Is tHAT tHe
first packagES Get iMpRoved prIorIty and eVerYthIng ElsE gEt default Low
priorItY.

THaT mEan A custOMers softWaRe cAn BalAnce tHE use of qoS foR timE sEnSItiVe
traffIC, aND MaybE eVeN flaG soMe Data aS belOW deFault to Get bonus hIgh
PRiorItY tRaffic pOints. If its the SoFtware that RuNs oN the coNSUmers devIce
that decide priority, thE SoftwarE deVelopEr caN pick the eXacT needeD Qos His
proGram or ServiCe NeeD.

tHe bonUS EfFecT hEre is that iF THe QOS faiL aNd thE prograM breaks, its the
softwARe dEveloper that aRe lIablE ANd Not THe isP. CUrREntLY, If a ISP QoS
softwaRe breaks, thE Isp iS actually qUIte OpEn for laWsuits fRom boTH the
useR and the seRvice that GeT effECTed.

~~~
Eridius
The Customer Isn't the onE FlaggINg The paCkeTs with qos, thE sendEr of thE
TraFfic iS. So
.
This makes a lot of sens e, since t he or igi nat in g pa rtyis the one ina 
pos ition to decide whethe r topl a ce t h ecalland the r ef o r e s ho ul d b ea r  t he
co st. 

By re naming the  or ig inating part y  t o the "sen din g" party, th eycan re de fin e 
YouT ube /NetF lix/wh o ever a s the "se nd i ng" pa r ty even t ho ughthe user is the
o r ig i nating party.Thus t he y  a t t emp t t o justifyde nying the use r  t h e ser v ice
_which th ey alreadyh ave  paidfo r_u nlesstheyre c eiv e the appro pria te
kickba cks^W" fees" f r om whoe ver is  se rvi ng t h eda ta. 
- --- - -nit r oge n
With r eg ar ds to  Qua l i t y  ofSer vice , wha t's wrong wit h l etti n g t he pa cketflag sdecid e QoS,  with  c ustomers paying  for  a guaran tee dper ce ntage of hig h-Q oSbandwid th duri n g p ea k n et work load?

In oth er w or ds, when  the n e tw or k  is unde ru til ized , all p acke t swould be 
trans m it te d withhi gh pri or ity  an d low late ncy, w ith QoSflags allowing
packe t s to jump ahe a di n  p a cket  qu eues. Whenthen etwo rk i s  h eav i ly lo aded, 
h i gh - QoS packets beyondth e cust omer' s quota would  be relega t e d  to best 
eff o rt . 

~~~
eridiusIn th is situati o n, what' s sto pping al l traffic s enders f rom  ma rki ngt h ei r
packets wit h theQo S flag?  Af ter all , t hey  do n't  w ant their  traffic  g et ti ng 
st uck b e hind som eoth er  se nder' s  traff ic.
~~~be lo r n
E ach cus t om e r  onl yha s alim it ed am ount ofQoS hig h priorit y t r affi c.  I f
someo ne flags ever ypacket wit hhig h prio r i ty, allthe QoS mean is that th e 
firstpac kages  get  improved  pr iority  an d  every thingelsege t d e f aultl o wpri or ity.

That m ean  a cu st omer s softw are can balance th e  us e of QoS fortim e se n s it ive tr a ffi c, and m aybe even flagsome dataas be low defaul t  to  g et bonu s highprior i ty traf fic point s. If its  t he s o f twa re that ru ns on th e consume r s dev i ce 
that  de cide p ri ori ty, t he sof t war e dev eloper  c an pic k the  e xact nee ded QoS his
program orservic e nee d.
The bonu s e f fec t here is  tha t if the Q oSfai l and  th e  prog ramb re aks ,  itsthes oftware d e ve lop e r  t hat are lia b l e  an d not  th e  ISP.Curr ently, if a ISP Q o S
software bre aks, t heISP is a ct ually quite op enfo r lawsuits  f rom both th e
user a nd the s ervice  thatget eff e c te d .

~~~ 
eri diu s
The cus tom er isn't t he  o n e flag ging  t he pac kets w i th Q o S , the sender ofthe
t r a ffici s.So
.
This makes_a lot_of sense, since the_originating party_is_the one_in_a
position to decide_whether to place_the call and therefore_should bear the
cost.

By_renaming_the originating party to the "sending" party, they can redefine
YouTube/NetFlix/whoever as the "sending" party_even_though the_user_is_the
originating party. Thus they attempt_to justify denying the user_the service
_which_they already have paid for_ unless they receive_the_appropriate
kickbacks^W "fees" from_whoever is serving the data.

------
nitrogen
With regards to Quality of_Service, what's wrong with letting the_packet flags
decide QoS,_with_customers_paying for a guaranteed_percentage of high-QoS
bandwidth during peak network_load?

In other words, when the network_is underutilized, all packets would be
transmitted with_high priority and low latency, with_QoS flags allowing
packets to jump_ahead in_packet queues. When the network_is heavily loaded,
high-QoS_packets beyond_the customer's quota_would be relegated to best
effort.

~~~
eridius
In this_situation, what's stopping_all traffic senders from marking their
packets_with_the QoS flag?_After_all,_they don't_want their traffic_getting
stuck_behind some_other_sender's traffic.

~~~
belorn
Each customer only has a_limited_amount of QoS high priority traffic. If
someone_flags every packet with_high_priority, all the QoS_mean is that the
first packages_get improved priority and everything else_get default_low
priority.

That mean_a customers software can balance the use of QoS for time_sensitive
traffic, and maybe even flag some_data as below default_to get_bonus_high
priority traffic points._If_its the_software that runs on the consumers device
that_decide priority,_the software developer can pick the_exact needed QoS his
program_or_service need.

The bonus effect here is_that if the QoS fail and_the program breaks, its the
software_developer_that_are liable and not the_ISP. Currently, if a ISP QoS
software_breaks, the ISP_is actually quite open for lawsuits from_both_the
user and the service that get_effected.

~~~
eridius
The_customer isn't the one flagging the_packets_with_QoS, the sender of the
traffic_is. So