Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Needed for VoIP (Score 1) 390

by blurryrunner (#33443594) Attached to: AT&T Says Net Rules Must Allow 'Paid Prioritization'
I'm all for net neutrality, but I will agree with AT&T on this. For VoIP providers, the difficulty of providing a high quality connection come from traffic flowing from the ISP to the subscriber in the last hop. This last hop is usually the most constrained and without prioritization, there is little an end user can do to prevent their file download from stomping all over their phone calls. Because the connection is constrained before it gets to the end user, the prioritization must happen on the ISP side. By the time it gets to the subscriber's router, it is already too late.

You say let's use the ToS or CoS bits in the packet. The problem is that you need to trust those value before you decide to use them. Nothing stops anybody from setting whatever they want on those. It only takes one end point to screw the whole connection up for everyone. For the successful prioritization of traffic you need policies on both sides of the bottleneck.

If the ISP wants to take a charge for setting up the trust policies according what the customers ask for, I'm all for it. Its better that the current situation where that is almost unheard of from ISPs short of doing a whole MPLS set up. I am, however, opposed to a VoIP company having to go pay ISPs to make sure that the traffic isn't dropped or degraded outright.

br/

Comment: Re:no exceptions for wireless! (Score 1) 254

by blurryrunner (#33197728) Attached to: Google & Verizon's Real Net Neutrality Proposal

Do you know you're going to always have good enough reception to guarantee call quality? Or are OS/firmware updates not more important than that stupid youtube of a dog who can't get up?

You still need prioritization on wire line even if you do get 30 Mbps. Backbones are already such that you can easily saturate a 30 Mbps connection and it will lay ruin to your VoIP telephone calls. You need prioritization both from ISP to you and you to ISP if you want your calls to sound clean while someone is downloading the latest OS update.

br/

Comment: Re:How many here have an iPhone 4? (Score 2, Informative) 282

by blurryrunner (#32721812) Attached to: iOS Update May Tackle iPhone 4's Antenna Problems
There are 4 iPhone 4s in our office. We all experience the issue. 3 came at the same time and was ordered through AT&T and the other came straight from apple.

I did see a theory about it being related to what is running the tower. This seems to fit for me since at work none of us have the problem, but at our homes we have the issue. It could also be that we have a tower 100 yards away in plain view...

br/

Comment: Re:Semantics, bah (Score 1) 853

by blurryrunner (#31911764) Attached to: Gizmodo Blows Whistle On 4G iPhone Loser
According to TFA, they made several attempts to contact someone at Apple.

He reached for a phone and called a lot of Apple numbers and tried to find someone who was at least willing to transfer his call to the right person, but no luck. No one took him seriously and all he got for his troubles was a ticket number.

It was only weeks later, after receiving no word back from Apple, that he decided to sell it to Gizmodo. I think Apple will have a hard time proving he was malicious. Apple has finally claimed it and Gizmodo's giving it back.

br/

"Atomic batteries to power, turbines to speed." -- Robin, The Boy Wonder

Working...