Are you actually on AT&T? Although, I was in fact being sarcastic, but quality and service are not words I'd use together in describing AT&T's voice traffic.
Quality of Service does not mean that the service will be quality. All it means is that certain data will be given special treatment. This is usually for telephony purposes because of the real time nature of the data a half second delay or out of out packet for a website isn't an issue for people but for real time audio and video it's everything.
Imagine getting to board a plane first because you're in First Class or whatnot. But then imagine that the plane can't leave the gate or is taxing on the runway, or can't land for whatever reason thus resulting in your plane being late. Now let's say that's all the fault or the airline or airport and that it all could have been prevented if they invested more into their service and weren't so incompetent. That's what AT&T is in this analogy. Their voice call packets are getting First Class service but if things fall down elsewhere it doesn't make the experience good.
Quality of Service does not mean that the service will be quality. All it means is that certain data will be given special treatment. This is usually for telephony purposes because of the real time nature of the data a half second delay or out of out packet for a website isn't an issue for people but for real time audio and video it's everything.
Imagine getting to board a plane first because you're in First Class or whatnot. But then imagine that the plane can't leave the gate or is taxing on the runway, or can't land for whatever reason thus resulting in your plane being late. Now let's say that's all the fault or the airline or airport and that it all could have been prevented if they invested more into their service and weren't so incompetent. That's what AT&T is in this analogy. Their voice call packets are getting First Class service but if things fall down elsewhere it doesn't make the experience good.
I'm aware of what quality of service means, but, sarcasm often involves some license in the use of language.
However, the bottom line is, AT&T has made no statement at all regarding QoS for FT, so it's nothing but idle speculation to talk about that as a justification for forcing people to pay more if they want to use it.
I'm aware of what quality of service means, but, sarcasm often involves some license in the use of language.
However, the bottom line is, AT&T has made no statement at all regarding QoS for FT, so it's nothing but idle speculation to talk about that as a justification for forcing people to pay more if they want to use it.
This is a rumour site. Pretty much everything we talk about has some degree of speculation with it. Have I not qualified my statements accordingly to note that it's speculative? Is it not speculative that AT&T will charge for this service for non-unlimted data plans simply because we've seen what we presume is a legit screenshot from iOS 6 that might be part of a different scenario, like unlimited data plans?
PS: I've been happy enough with AT&T because they offered the best service for my needs but I'll be switching to Verizon under the speculation of an LTE iPhone with simultaneous V&D. Verizon's LTE network is pretty well built out now, especially in my area(s), and I expect 3rd gen LTE chips to be used in the upcoming iPhone, also something I speculate will be announced and released in the next month or so.
This is a rumour site. Pretty much everything we talk about has some degree of speculation with it. Have I not qualified my statements accordingly to note that it's speculative? Is it not speculative that AT&T will charge for this service for non-unlimted data plans simply because we've seen what we presume is a legit screenshot from iOS 6 that might be part of a different scenario, like unlimited data plans?
PS: I've been happy enough with AT&T because they offered the best service for my needs but I'll be switching to Verizon under the speculation of an LTE iPhone with simultaneous V&D. Verizon's LTE network is pretty well built out now, especially in my area(s), and I expect 3rd gen LTE chips to be used in the upcoming iPhone, also something I speculate will be announced and released in the next month or so.
There's speculation and then there's utterly baseless speculation. Does AT&T charge extra for tethering? Does it have anything to do with QoS? Do we have any reason to think there would be anything of actual benefit for paying extra?
Pretending that data isn't data isn't data isn't data is a slope covered in axle grease, banana peels, marbles, and anti-friction spray.
Is it unethical? Yes. Is it illogical? Yes. But with no real alternatives (Verizon and AT&T have most of the U.S. market and basically copy each other's pricing) and a Congress unwilling to take on big companies like this, they'll be able to get away with it. It will most certainly not lead to their demise until the day that WiFi is ubiquitous (which will never happen because we refuse to build the infrastructure) and even then, they'll find some way to stop people from using Skype and other apps to make phone calls.
Another reason I'm bailing on AT&T after going with them for my iPhone 3G back in 2008. I stayed with them for the iPhone 4 two years ago...and then my wife got a 4S last xmas. Screw them..their network is a pile of crap and there is no LTE where I live (there is on Verizon, however). Bye bye, dicks!
Presumably, with the FaceTime feature on AT&T's network you get QoS that will put your FT traffic before all other traffic. Whether people want to believe it or not this does cost money and is needed for a quality realtime audio and/or video.
That said they should (at least) just let FT be the same FIFO as regular web traffic with no QoS for those that don't want to pay for it. FT may or may not always work well and they can offer the better plan as an option without making it a requirement for those that want it. By being the only carrier not offering this as part of your regular service they just make themselves look stingy. As I said, it costs money for QoS on equipment that can handle the load but it's not so much that they can't absorb the cost into their tiered plans they are charging for data. I expect them to drop this after they lose plenty of users. If the next iPhone has LTE I'll be switching to Verizon for the increased performance and simultaneous V&D option.
I have never heard the term QoS used in the sense of allowing greater bandwidth. In IT vocabulary it is synonymous with throttling. Are you sure they open up the stream for video and FT?
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Well, they haven't made any commitments along those lines, so that would be, at this point, just a baseless speculation. The real problem is that AT&T simply doesn't want to invest in infrastructure, so they try to keep anything data intensive off their network and price data exorbitantly to discourage use. They do, however, want to milk their existing infrastructure to maximize profit without further investment.
Meanwhile, the carriers become an obstacle to technological advancement, which essentially means that they are working to stifle innovation by other companies. The only solution is for the government to step in and start forcing them to operate the public radio spectrum in the public interest. Otherwise, we'll always have a situation where the carriers decide which technologies will be allowed and which won't.
At&T is actively trying to build more towers but it is not that easy. Even with the lease rates they are offering for land there are many zoning and regulatory restrictions, especially in the more densely populated areas. They are spending billions on their LTE rollout. Perhaps Verizon is spending a bit more but it is a complicated process. The carriers payed for use of the spectrum and there are laws regarding it's usage. If you want to change the laws then get into politics of sue the government.
As much as I support thoughtful use of our Federal tax revenue, nationalizing communications is not what I would consider a prudent course of action. We have 3-4 major networks with many smaller ones in competition already. I'm not against government involvement in building out and maintaing infrastructure such as highways and bridges but I prefer utilities to be market driven until they step outside the law such as what happened in 2000s with the power brokers from Enron. I say let the free market play out. Perhaps Apple should get into the network business as well. If they deployed fiber and WiFi throughout my city I would definitely switch and pay them the same or more monthly fee that I'm paying to wireless and cable now. Then they could deploy iMessage for voice as well.
I mean really in terms of the government stepping in to right the supposed wrongs of big corporations we would eventually be a socialist state. Why not take over the oil refineries then as well since they are opposing the progress of electric vehicles, it goes on and on. Careful what you wish for.
Incoming text sound: "AT&T billing; your account ([xxx-xxx-xxxx]) has been terminated without refund due to unauthorized data access. Thank you for shopping with AT&T. Also, as this text is 242 characters, you have been charged for two of them, as that's over 160."
Why does somebody always post something silly like this?
Won't happen. I've been jailbroken since I got my iPhone 3g years ago, have jailbroken every iPhone I've had since then, and I use it for tethering. Unlimited tethering, without ever paying them for it. I don't use it that much, but I've got a good friend who uses a jailbroken unlimited tethered ATT iPhone as his primary internet connection. He regularly gets throttled (and sometimes with enough yelling at them gets them to unthrottle him) but they've never tried to terminate his account.
I already use facetime over 3g. Have been for a long time.
They forcibly add data plans to accounts without them. They reserve the right to terminate accounts at any time, for any reason, including tethering. It may not have happened, but they can do it.
Why does somebody always post something silly like this?
Won't happen. I've been jailbroken since I got my iPhone 3g years ago, have jailbroken every iPhone I've had since then, and I use it for tethering. Unlimited tethering, without ever paying them for it. I don't use it that much, but I've got a good friend who uses a jailbroken unlimited tethered ATT iPhone as his primary internet connection. He regularly gets throttled (and sometimes with enough yelling at them gets them to unthrottle him) but they've never tried to terminate his account.
I already use facetime over 3g. Have been for a long time.
What you're suggesting simply does not happen.
I just want to point out that the fact that it hasn't happened to you doesn't mean that it hasn't happened.
<p id="user_yui_3_4_1_1_1345330588388_831" style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;">I have never heard the term QoS used in the sense of allowing greater bandwidth.
On a semi-related question, are all 4G LTE phones able to do voice and data at the same time? (It's the differentiating factor why I've stayed with AT&T for iPhone)
If I can do voice and data simultaneously on iPhone "5" on Sprint or Verizon, I'll definitely consider jumping.
Why does somebody always post something silly like this?
Won't happen. I've been jailbroken since I got my iPhone 3g years ago, have jailbroken every iPhone I've had since then, and I use it for tethering. Unlimited tethering, without ever paying them for it. I don't use it that much, but I've got a good friend who uses a jailbroken unlimited tethered ATT iPhone as his primary internet connection. He regularly gets throttled (and sometimes with enough yelling at them gets them to unthrottle him) but they've never tried to terminate his account.
I already use facetime over 3g. Have been for a long time.
What you're suggesting simply does not happen.
AT&T dropped me from Unlimited to a metered plan because of tethering outside my contractual agreement. I had jallbroken had bought no less two apps on the Cydia (can't recall if that was the newer or older store), the newer one stating that Apple couldn't tell how the data was being used. Regardless, I had some months pushing 100GB and averaging around 12GB so I think it was pretty obvious what I was doing.
Did I dislike that I got bumped? Sure. Do I blame them and claim they treated me unfairly? Absolutely not. I had that going for many years. I tried to find ways around it when they first called and warned me but ultimately I lost that plan. The penalty wasn't severe so the effort was well worth the risk.
FUÇK you, AT&T. I'm deaf and was impressed of Steve Jobs for thinking about deaf and hard of hearing (he show it on his keynote with iPhone 4). I'm on 5GB data plan with tethering (to avoid being busted by AT&T). I don't have voice plan, just data plan. My sister and I dont want to share data plan because it cost a lot for extra GB that my sister and I both will use a lot of data. My sister use Facebook for her "business" and text. She's hearing. Me, since I'm deaf, I only use data plan. Why the fuçk ain't AT&T support this plan for FaceTime?! I'm so pissed off. I can't jump the ship and join other carrier because of stupid ass credit check with expensive deposit! So FUÇK YOU, AT&T!!!!
Posted via my IPhone 4S with stupid ass AT$T. I'm not going to use AT&T from now on. AT$T that is!!
Edit: change the character from ? to Ç
Sounds like a Mifi would be a good option for you.
[QUOTE]I have never heard the term QoS used in the sense of allowing greater bandwidth. In IT vocabulary it is synonymous with throttling. Are you sure they open up the stream for video and FT?[/QUOTE]
QoS is about traffic shaping, not bandwidth, and traffic shaping is all about scheduling priorities. When a network is congested, traffic shaping can make certain kinds of services more or less reliable or fast depending on their priority rules, so yes, traffic shaping can do both throttling and acceleration in proportion to the natural contention caused by the congestion. With traffic shaping you can effectively make FaceTime fast on a congested network by giving it a high priority; likewise you can make it very slow by giving it a low priority. Network neutrality proponents usually only focus on the negative consequences of traffic shaping while ignoring the positive ones, which is why people tend to associate QoS with throttling (I have no opinion on the matter, and my protocol is designed to avoid traffic shaping altogether).
QoS is about traffic shaping, not bandwidth, and traffic shaping is all about scheduling priorities. When a network is congested, traffic shaping can make certain kinds of services more or less reliable or fast depending on their priority rules, so yes, traffic shaping can do both throttling and acceleration in proportion to the natural contention caused by the congestion. With traffic shaping you can effectively make FaceTime fast on a congested network by giving it a high priority; likewise you can make it very slow by giving it a low priority. Network neutrality proponents usually only focus on the negative consequences of traffic shaping while ignoring the positive ones, which is why people tend to associate QoS with throttling (I have no opinion on the matter, and my protocol is designed to avoid traffic shaping altogether).
Even more important points, neglected in the discussion of whether AT&T has any plans to make FT traffic higher priority on their network. (Which we have no indication of.) It's not about bandwidth, it's simply a question of prioritizing traffic. There is no significant additional cost of setting QoS higher for some traffic. It's just a matter of improving throughput on certain traffic by effectively degrading other traffic (if there is congestion). Even if FT traffic is assigned a higher QoS than, say, web traffic, that alone doesn't automatically justify forcing customers to pay more.
What this is really about is that AT&T a) doesn't want unlimited users using FT, and b) wants anyone using it paying the highest possible rates.
I reread all your comments and it definitely appears as though you are associating the term QoS with increased quality which the opposite of what it really means. In IT terminology it means that no service is allowed to hog all the bandwidth thus crippling the other services. Instead the data hogging service is throttled so that everyone can share the available resources. The "quality" in QoS comes from everyone being throttled. If a service is not controlled by QoS that means they have a wide open pipe.
I reread all your comments and it definitely appears as though you are associating the term QoS with increased quality which the opposite of what it really means. In IT terminology it means that no service is allowed to hog all the bandwidth thus crippling the other services. Instead the data hogging service is throttled so that everyone can share the available resources. The "quality" in QoS comes from everyone being throttled.
I clearly used the word priority. That has no barring on the bandwidth. It has no barring on performance. It has no barring on an achieved service quality. I'm simply referring to data getting a higher priority over other data based on the kind of traffic it is. This is imperative for proper telephony services.
The "quality" in QoS comes from everyone being throttled. If a service is not controlled by QoS that means they have a wide open pipe.
That is axiomatically incorrect. Check out Vaelian's post above.
I clearly used the word priority. That has no barring on the bandwidth, it means that regardless of the bandwidth higher priority traffic gets sent before lower priority traffic.
After reading Vaelian remarks, perhaps my view of QoS is on the negative side which is the way it is used on our own network. In the case of AT&T imagine that regular voice calls have no QoS other than audio compression so they can be sent as close to real time as possible. Since FT would also require real time speed to be usable, I can see how it would need a similar priority however, it does seem like a luxury version of personal communication so it probably should only be available when/if network conditions permit. Using your air passenger analogy, when flying a twin prop commuter flight there is no first class seating.
Comments
Quality of Service does not mean that the service will be quality. All it means is that certain data will be given special treatment. This is usually for telephony purposes because of the real time nature of the data a half second delay or out of out packet for a website isn't an issue for people but for real time audio and video it's everything.
Imagine getting to board a plane first because you're in First Class or whatnot. But then imagine that the plane can't leave the gate or is taxing on the runway, or can't land for whatever reason thus resulting in your plane being late. Now let's say that's all the fault or the airline or airport and that it all could have been prevented if they invested more into their service and weren't so incompetent. That's what AT&T is in this analogy. Their voice call packets are getting First Class service but if things fall down elsewhere it doesn't make the experience good.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Quality of Service does not mean that the service will be quality. All it means is that certain data will be given special treatment. This is usually for telephony purposes because of the real time nature of the data a half second delay or out of out packet for a website isn't an issue for people but for real time audio and video it's everything.
Imagine getting to board a plane first because you're in First Class or whatnot. But then imagine that the plane can't leave the gate or is taxing on the runway, or can't land for whatever reason thus resulting in your plane being late. Now let's say that's all the fault or the airline or airport and that it all could have been prevented if they invested more into their service and weren't so incompetent. That's what AT&T is in this analogy. Their voice call packets are getting First Class service but if things fall down elsewhere it doesn't make the experience good.
I'm aware of what quality of service means, but, sarcasm often involves some license in the use of language.
However, the bottom line is, AT&T has made no statement at all regarding QoS for FT, so it's nothing but idle speculation to talk about that as a justification for forcing people to pay more if they want to use it.
This is a rumour site. Pretty much everything we talk about has some degree of speculation with it. Have I not qualified my statements accordingly to note that it's speculative? Is it not speculative that AT&T will charge for this service for non-unlimted data plans simply because we've seen what we presume is a legit screenshot from iOS 6 that might be part of a different scenario, like unlimited data plans?
PS: I've been happy enough with AT&T because they offered the best service for my needs but I'll be switching to Verizon under the speculation of an LTE iPhone with simultaneous V&D. Verizon's LTE network is pretty well built out now, especially in my area(s), and I expect 3rd gen LTE chips to be used in the upcoming iPhone, also something I speculate will be announced and released in the next month or so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
This is a rumour site. Pretty much everything we talk about has some degree of speculation with it. Have I not qualified my statements accordingly to note that it's speculative? Is it not speculative that AT&T will charge for this service for non-unlimted data plans simply because we've seen what we presume is a legit screenshot from iOS 6 that might be part of a different scenario, like unlimited data plans?
PS: I've been happy enough with AT&T because they offered the best service for my needs but I'll be switching to Verizon under the speculation of an LTE iPhone with simultaneous V&D. Verizon's LTE network is pretty well built out now, especially in my area(s), and I expect 3rd gen LTE chips to be used in the upcoming iPhone, also something I speculate will be announced and released in the next month or so.
There's speculation and then there's utterly baseless speculation. Does AT&T charge extra for tethering? Does it have anything to do with QoS? Do we have any reason to think there would be anything of actual benefit for paying extra?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Pretending that data isn't data isn't data isn't data is a slope covered in axle grease, banana peels, marbles, and anti-friction spray.
Is it unethical? Yes. Is it illogical? Yes. But with no real alternatives (Verizon and AT&T have most of the U.S. market and basically copy each other's pricing) and a Congress unwilling to take on big companies like this, they'll be able to get away with it. It will most certainly not lead to their demise until the day that WiFi is ubiquitous (which will never happen because we refuse to build the infrastructure) and even then, they'll find some way to stop people from using Skype and other apps to make phone calls.
Originally Posted by zoetmb
…even then, they'll find some way to stop people from using Skype and other apps to make phone calls.
Don't really see how they could when I would be in control of the Wi-Fi…
If Apple wanted to take down the telecoms, they'd put out 802.22 chips in all their computers and an 802.22 AirPort family.
Another reason I'm bailing on AT&T after going with them for my iPhone 3G back in 2008. I stayed with them for the iPhone 4 two years ago...and then my wife got a 4S last xmas. Screw them..their network is a pile of crap and there is no LTE where I live (there is on Verizon, however). Bye bye, dicks!
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Presumably, with the FaceTime feature on AT&T's network you get QoS that will put your FT traffic before all other traffic. Whether people want to believe it or not this does cost money and is needed for a quality realtime audio and/or video.
That said they should (at least) just let FT be the same FIFO as regular web traffic with no QoS for those that don't want to pay for it. FT may or may not always work well and they can offer the better plan as an option without making it a requirement for those that want it. By being the only carrier not offering this as part of your regular service they just make themselves look stingy. As I said, it costs money for QoS on equipment that can handle the load but it's not so much that they can't absorb the cost into their tiered plans they are charging for data. I expect them to drop this after they lose plenty of users. If the next iPhone has LTE I'll be switching to Verizon for the increased performance and simultaneous V&D option.
I have never heard the term QoS used in the sense of allowing greater bandwidth. In IT vocabulary it is synonymous with throttling. Are you sure they open up the stream for video and FT?
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Well, they haven't made any commitments along those lines, so that would be, at this point, just a baseless speculation. The real problem is that AT&T simply doesn't want to invest in infrastructure, so they try to keep anything data intensive off their network and price data exorbitantly to discourage use. They do, however, want to milk their existing infrastructure to maximize profit without further investment.
Meanwhile, the carriers become an obstacle to technological advancement, which essentially means that they are working to stifle innovation by other companies. The only solution is for the government to step in and start forcing them to operate the public radio spectrum in the public interest. Otherwise, we'll always have a situation where the carriers decide which technologies will be allowed and which won't.
At&T is actively trying to build more towers but it is not that easy. Even with the lease rates they are offering for land there are many zoning and regulatory restrictions, especially in the more densely populated areas. They are spending billions on their LTE rollout. Perhaps Verizon is spending a bit more but it is a complicated process. The carriers payed for use of the spectrum and there are laws regarding it's usage. If you want to change the laws then get into politics of sue the government.
As much as I support thoughtful use of our Federal tax revenue, nationalizing communications is not what I would consider a prudent course of action. We have 3-4 major networks with many smaller ones in competition already. I'm not against government involvement in building out and maintaing infrastructure such as highways and bridges but I prefer utilities to be market driven until they step outside the law such as what happened in 2000s with the power brokers from Enron. I say let the free market play out. Perhaps Apple should get into the network business as well. If they deployed fiber and WiFi throughout my city I would definitely switch and pay them the same or more monthly fee that I'm paying to wireless and cable now. Then they could deploy iMessage for voice as well.
I mean really in terms of the government stepping in to right the supposed wrongs of big corporations we would eventually be a socialist state. Why not take over the oil refineries then as well since they are opposing the progress of electric vehicles, it goes on and on. Careful what you wish for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Incoming text sound: "AT&T billing; your account ([xxx-xxx-xxxx]) has been terminated without refund due to unauthorized data access. Thank you for shopping with AT&T. Also, as this text is 242 characters, you have been charged for two of them, as that's over 160."
Why does somebody always post something silly like this?
Won't happen. I've been jailbroken since I got my iPhone 3g years ago, have jailbroken every iPhone I've had since then, and I use it for tethering. Unlimited tethering, without ever paying them for it. I don't use it that much, but I've got a good friend who uses a jailbroken unlimited tethered ATT iPhone as his primary internet connection. He regularly gets throttled (and sometimes with enough yelling at them gets them to unthrottle him) but they've never tried to terminate his account.
I already use facetime over 3g. Have been for a long time.
What you're suggesting simply does not happen.
Originally Posted by DarkVader
What you're suggesting simply does not happen.
They forcibly add data plans to accounts without them. They reserve the right to terminate accounts at any time, for any reason, including tethering. It may not have happened, but they can do it.
I just want to point out that the fact that it hasn't happened to you doesn't mean that it hasn't happened.
I'm not using it that way.
On a semi-related question, are all 4G LTE phones able to do voice and data at the same time? (It's the differentiating factor why I've stayed with AT&T for iPhone)
If I can do voice and data simultaneously on iPhone "5" on Sprint or Verizon, I'll definitely consider jumping.
AT&T dropped me from Unlimited to a metered plan because of tethering outside my contractual agreement. I had jallbroken had bought no less two apps on the Cydia (can't recall if that was the newer or older store), the newer one stating that Apple couldn't tell how the data was being used. Regardless, I had some months pushing 100GB and averaging around 12GB so I think it was pretty obvious what I was doing.
Did I dislike that I got bumped? Sure. Do I blame them and claim they treated me unfairly? Absolutely not. I had that going for many years. I tried to find ways around it when they first called and warned me but ultimately I lost that plan. The penalty wasn't severe so the effort was well worth the risk.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexDeafy
FUÇK you, AT&T. I'm deaf and was impressed of Steve Jobs for thinking about deaf and hard of hearing (he show it on his keynote with iPhone 4). I'm on 5GB data plan with tethering (to avoid being busted by AT&T). I don't have voice plan, just data plan. My sister and I dont want to share data plan because it cost a lot for extra GB that my sister and I both will use a lot of data. My sister use Facebook for her "business" and text. She's hearing. Me, since I'm deaf, I only use data plan. Why the fuçk ain't AT&T support this plan for FaceTime?! I'm so pissed off. I can't jump the ship and join other carrier because of stupid ass credit check with expensive deposit! So FUÇK YOU, AT&T!!!!
Posted via my IPhone 4S with stupid ass AT$T. I'm not going to use AT&T from now on. AT$T that is!!
Edit: change the character from ? to Ç
Sounds like a Mifi would be a good option for you.
QoS is about traffic shaping, not bandwidth, and traffic shaping is all about scheduling priorities. When a network is congested, traffic shaping can make certain kinds of services more or less reliable or fast depending on their priority rules, so yes, traffic shaping can do both throttling and acceleration in proportion to the natural contention caused by the congestion. With traffic shaping you can effectively make FaceTime fast on a congested network by giving it a high priority; likewise you can make it very slow by giving it a low priority. Network neutrality proponents usually only focus on the negative consequences of traffic shaping while ignoring the positive ones, which is why people tend to associate QoS with throttling (I have no opinion on the matter, and my protocol is designed to avoid traffic shaping altogether).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vaelian
QoS is about traffic shaping, not bandwidth, and traffic shaping is all about scheduling priorities. When a network is congested, traffic shaping can make certain kinds of services more or less reliable or fast depending on their priority rules, so yes, traffic shaping can do both throttling and acceleration in proportion to the natural contention caused by the congestion. With traffic shaping you can effectively make FaceTime fast on a congested network by giving it a high priority; likewise you can make it very slow by giving it a low priority. Network neutrality proponents usually only focus on the negative consequences of traffic shaping while ignoring the positive ones, which is why people tend to associate QoS with throttling (I have no opinion on the matter, and my protocol is designed to avoid traffic shaping altogether).
Even more important points, neglected in the discussion of whether AT&T has any plans to make FT traffic higher priority on their network. (Which we have no indication of.) It's not about bandwidth, it's simply a question of prioritizing traffic. There is no significant additional cost of setting QoS higher for some traffic. It's just a matter of improving throughput on certain traffic by effectively degrading other traffic (if there is congestion). Even if FT traffic is assigned a higher QoS than, say, web traffic, that alone doesn't automatically justify forcing customers to pay more.
What this is really about is that AT&T a) doesn't want unlimited users using FT, and b) wants anyone using it paying the highest possible rates.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
I'm not using it that way.
I reread all your comments and it definitely appears as though you are associating the term QoS with increased quality which the opposite of what it really means. In IT terminology it means that no service is allowed to hog all the bandwidth thus crippling the other services. Instead the data hogging service is throttled so that everyone can share the available resources. The "quality" in QoS comes from everyone being throttled. If a service is not controlled by QoS that means they have a wide open pipe.
I clearly used the word priority. That has no barring on the bandwidth. It has no barring on performance. It has no barring on an achieved service quality. I'm simply referring to data getting a higher priority over other data based on the kind of traffic it is. This is imperative for proper telephony services.
That is axiomatically incorrect. Check out Vaelian's post above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
I clearly used the word priority. That has no barring on the bandwidth, it means that regardless of the bandwidth higher priority traffic gets sent before lower priority traffic.
After reading Vaelian remarks, perhaps my view of QoS is on the negative side which is the way it is used on our own network. In the case of AT&T imagine that regular voice calls have no QoS other than audio compression so they can be sent as close to real time as possible. Since FT would also require real time speed to be usable, I can see how it would need a similar priority however, it does seem like a luxury version of personal communication so it probably should only be available when/if network conditions permit. Using your air passenger analogy, when flying a twin prop commuter flight there is no first class seating.