Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > Circuit-Switched vs Packet-Switched

Reply
Thread Tools

Circuit-Switched vs Packet-Switched

 
 
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-16-2009
The packet-switchers have won.

<http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=11496>
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
news2.thing@gmail.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-16-2009
On Jan 16, 2:07*pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
> The packet-switchers have won.
>
> <http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=11496>


It was lost years ago....the pricing differential was and is the
telcos downfall, a packet is a packet no matter what is inside
it...Telcos might claim otherwise but no one listens....

regards

Thing
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Richard
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-16-2009
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> On Jan 16, 2:07 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
> central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
>> The packet-switchers have won.
>>
>> <http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=11496>

>
> It was lost years ago....the pricing differential was and is the
> telcos downfall, a packet is a packet no matter what is inside
> it...Telcos might claim otherwise but no one listens....


The thing is with QOS etc you are virtually at the stage where you are
setting up a circuit with the reservation of bandwidth for the voip etc.
Sure, its easier for it to be used by something else when there is no
voip call present, but they are not "just packets" as the internet was
when IP was first invented.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-16-2009
In message <gkpmp7$9iq$(E-Mail Removed)>, Richard wrote:

> The thing is with QOS etc you are virtually at the stage where you are
> setting up a circuit with the reservation of bandwidth for the voip etc.


QoS doesn't necessarily mean bandwidth reservation. An application like VoIP
is "lumpy", anyway, so reserving fixed bandwidth for it is wasteful.
Instead it's all about priorities: better to lose a VoIP packet altogether
than to deliver it late.
 
Reply With Quote
 
news2.thing@gmail.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-18-2009
On Jan 16, 11:17*pm, Richard <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> (E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> > On Jan 16, 2:07 pm, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
> > central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
> >> The packet-switchers have won.

>
> >> <http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=11496>

>
> > It was lost years ago....the pricing differential was and is the
> > telcos downfall, a packet is a packet no matter what is inside
> > it...Telcos might claim otherwise but no one listens....

>
> The thing is with QOS etc you are virtually at the stage where you are
> setting up a circuit with the reservation of bandwidth for the voip etc.
> Sure, its easier for it to be used by something else when there is no
> voip call present, but they are not "just packets" as the internet was
> when IP was first invented.


telcos have been packet sharing for years....they just break the
multiple voice into segments and squirt it down the pipe....

All that has really happened is this tech has got to us the end
consumer.

regards

Thing

 
Reply With Quote
 
news2.thing@gmail.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-18-2009
On Jan 17, 9:46*am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
> In message <gkpmp7$(E-Mail Removed)>, Richard wrote:
>
> > The thing is with QOS etc you are virtually at the stage where you are
> > setting up a circuit with the reservation of bandwidth for the voip etc..

>
> QoS doesn't necessarily mean bandwidth reservation. An application like VoIP
> is "lumpy", anyway, so reserving fixed bandwidth for it is wasteful.
> Instead it's all about priorities: better to lose a VoIP packet altogether
> than to deliver it late.


QoS generally is a rip off IMHO....What it does is prioritize some
packets at the expense of others, except there is an overhead to pay
and the non-prioritized traffic pays it....Cisco love it as they get
to sell more powerful routers which cost a shed load more.....instead
its usually cheaper to activate the massive amount of un-used fibre
that's been laid....except of course ISPs get to sell a "value-added"
service at a premium...."Not happy with your non-prioritized traffic
preformance sir? not a problem we can upgraded it to a QoS for only a
small extra charge...."

Its one huge scam....

regards

Thing





 
Reply With Quote
 
oneofus
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-19-2009
(E-Mail Removed) wrote:
> On Jan 17, 9:46 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
> central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
>> In message <gkpmp7$(E-Mail Removed)>, Richard wrote:
>>
>>> The thing is with QOS etc you are virtually at the stage where you are
>>> setting up a circuit with the reservation of bandwidth for the voip etc.

>> QoS doesn't necessarily mean bandwidth reservation. An application like VoIP
>> is "lumpy", anyway, so reserving fixed bandwidth for it is wasteful.
>> Instead it's all about priorities: better to lose a VoIP packet altogether
>> than to deliver it late.

>
> QoS generally is a rip off IMHO....What it does is prioritize some
> packets at the expense of others, except there is an overhead to pay
> and the non-prioritized traffic pays it....Cisco love it as they get
> to sell more powerful routers which cost a shed load more.....instead
> its usually cheaper to activate the massive amount of un-used fibre
> that's been laid....except of course ISPs get to sell a "value-added"
> service at a premium...."Not happy with your non-prioritized traffic
> preformance sir? not a problem we can upgraded it to a QoS for only a
> small extra charge...."
>
> Its one huge scam....
>
> regards
>
> Thing
>
>

We use QoS switches to combine Cobranet multi channel audio traffic with
TCP/IP control.
You might have applications where it is a scam IYHO, but it works for me.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Lawrence D'Oliveiro
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-19-2009
In message
<(E-Mail Removed)>,
(E-Mail Removed) wrote:

> telcos have been packet sharing for years....


In the early days of the development of packet-switching technologies,
AT&T's telephone engineers were adamant it would never work.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off




Advertisments