-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, 17 Mar 2005, Joe Abley wrote:
On 17 Mar 2005, at 19:51, David Zanetti wrote:
Maybe I misunderstand what Telecom is allegedly doing, but mucking about with TCP won't do much.
I don't know anything more than what was in the article, but I presumed that the author had used "TCP" when in fact "IP" would have been more sensible. If "TCP" is just shorthand for "TCP/IP", then your analysis is probably over-literal.
Probably, although I would still argue it's a lot of CPU, and they probably can't do that easily out at the edge to distribute it.
Unless they're mucking with latency on _all_ packets, but that'd kill a ton of other stuff off as well.
A 500ms delay is easy to pick up on a telephone, and is about the right amount to make a conversation stilted and annoying. It's probably not obvious in many other (mainstream) protocols, though (although it'd hurt TCP performance, which people might pick up on).
I think it'd seriously hurt lots of usage. 500ms on, say, the three way TCP handshake would make web-browsing really sluggish. Worse than dialup. 1.5 seconds to open a connection to request the umpteenth image of a page, you might as well not bother. (I know people go on about bandwidth and websites, but it's the latency people! Lots of images, high latency, you can have the bandwidth of gods and it'll still feel slow.. HTTP/1.1 pipelining notwithstanding..) And I'm certain there would be threads as long as my arm on nzgames.com about the total inablity to use DSL for games. :) There has been already, hasn't there?
How about a differential queuing approach, whereby voice calls are normally fine, but suddenly sound like crap as soon as someone uses a web browser?
Back to the old "stop using the 'net, I want to use the phone" :)
- --
David Zanetti | (__)
#include