Circuit-Switched vs Packet-Switched

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jan 16, 2009.

  1. The packet-switchers have won.

    <http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=11496>
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jan 16, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Guest

    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
    , Jan 16, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Richard Guest

    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.
    Richard, Jan 16, 2009
    #3
  4. In message <gkpmp7$9iq$>, 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.
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jan 16, 2009
    #4
  5. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Guest

    On Jan 16, 11:17 pm, Richard <> wrote:
    > 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
    , Jan 18, 2009
    #5
  6. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    Guest

    On Jan 17, 9:46 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
    central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
    > In message <gkpmp7$>, 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
    , Jan 18, 2009
    #6
  7. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    oneofus Guest

    wrote:
    > On Jan 17, 9:46 am, Lawrence D'Oliveiro <l...@geek-
    > central.gen.new_zealand> wrote:
    >> In message <gkpmp7$>, 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.
    oneofus, Jan 19, 2009
    #7
  8. In message
    <>,
    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.
    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Jan 19, 2009
    #8
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Andre Beck
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    876
    Andre Beck
    Oct 19, 2003
  2. Chris
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    671
    shope
    Apr 15, 2004
  3. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    657
    Steinar Haug
    Nov 8, 2004
  4. lfnetworking
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    4,853
    lfnetworking
    Aug 27, 2006
  5. mediumkuriboh
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,465
    mediumkuriboh
    Feb 9, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page