Originally Posted by mstone
Last week in a similar thread, Soli was discussing that FaceTime is not like regular data which is not prioritized. FaceTime actually needs to be the same priority as voice because dropped data packets are not really acceptable for real time communication. Because it is a higher priority it costs more.
It's not the same data
. It doesn't use very specific protocols that you won't encounter unless you are using other VC or telephony apps, save for H.264 and AAC but those are just the most efficient codecs for the task. If it was the same data then you have to wonder why SIP,
STUN, TURN, ICE, RTP and SRTP are needed in the first place and why these technologies are typically used over UDP instead of TCP.
It's fundamental to to the service that these packets are delivered as close to real time as possible and even just a small difference is annoying. I'm sure you've had a video encoded where the sound is a fraction of a second off and the lips don't line up or seen a satellite interview where there was an irritating pause between a question asked and a response. This is more likely
to happen without QoS.
If your company isn't using QoS that will put file transfers at a lower priority than IP phones then they're doing something wrong. This isn't some crazy hypothesis this is real shit that we've had since the 90s.
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Except there is absolutely no reason at this time to believe that FaceTime will receive any QoS priority, so that argument doesn't fly.
And, even if it did, it would mean that AT&T would degrade other traffic, so while you FT traffic might (and, again, there's no reason to think it will) receive higher priority, your other traffic, as an inevitable consequence, will be degraded. So, it really evens out, and you aren't getting any additional bandwidth, so the whole QoS argument is just a red herring.
The bottom line is that AT&T doesn't want to upgrade their network to support new technologies, when they can get away with not doing it but simply raising rates. In other words, AT&T, and other carriers, are, through well orchestrated collusion (is it really a coincidence that AT&T and Verizon are pushing people into pretty much exactly the same sorts of data plans?), choking the life out of innovation in mobile. And the Feds don't have the spine to do anything about it.
1) I said was that AT&T and Apple could do this which does cost money. I also said it's a nominal cost which would seem to hurt them more than they'd ever gain and that I was very much against AT&T for charging for this for any cellular-based FT. I also stated that they already do QoS for voice traffic but you've oddly ignored that.
2) Jobs mentioned the lack of FT over cellular was that they need the carriers to update their services. Why is the usability of a service important to Apple but not now? What do you think is meant by that outside of making sure SIP, RTP, et al. get a priority on their network instead of FIFO? Of course, the real reason for that could be contractual and that contract will be expired by the time iOS 6 arrives but then that doesn't explain how AT&T could stop FT from even being activated.
3) You've eluded many times that AT&T hasn't upgraded their network yet that's axiomatically wrong as you can see by the speeds now supported.
4) If you're so against certain data
being delivered before other data then never make a phone call on your cellphone again. QoS is real and it's spectacular.