Net Neutreality

Draco_Argentum · Post by **Draco_Argentum** » Sun Apr 05, 2009 3:35 am

Heath Robinson wrote:That fact isn't even relevant. You are always charged on both sides, under the assumption that you actually choose most of your down and up traffic.

Not in Australia. Most ISPs let you download x GB per month. Telstra counts your uploads against your quota as well. This is separate from the actual per second bandwidth that you get as part of your contract.

RandomCasualty2 · Post by **RandomCasualty2** » Mon Apr 06, 2009 8:26 pm

Probably the only thing you could maybe do is divide things into high speed and high bandwidth. High speed packets must be small, but arrive quickly and at high priority. High bandwidth packets would allow greater size (or quanitity), but would not receive priority routing.

I'm not sure if such a thing would be possible to set up, but it'd be an idea.

Crissa · Post by **Crissa** » Tue Apr 07, 2009 12:24 am

No, I do not misunderstand latency and packet loss. A packet whose latency is above the expected bounds is 'lost'.

-Crissa

CatharzGodfoot · Post by **CatharzGodfoot** » Tue Apr 07, 2009 8:20 pm

RandomCasualty2 wrote:Probably the only thing you could maybe do is divide things into high speed and high bandwidth. High speed packets must be small, but arrive quickly and at high priority. High bandwidth packets would allow greater size (or quanitity), but would not receive priority routing.

I'm not sure if such a thing would be possible to set up, but it'd be an idea.

The problem would be when people use lots of small packets to send large chunks of data at higher bandwidth than "high bandwidth" allows. The net result would be an even greater drop in overall efficiency than if they could just make big packets high speed in the first place.