[tw]

Originally Posted by dar512

Even so, at levels in which it would be audible, you have to be losing a fair number of packets. Certainly enough to be subject to statistical analysis.

Let's say you are Skype. You find that your 'quality of service' using Skype on Comcast is inferior. So what do you do? Do you announce to the world that Comcast is a bad service? Of course not. No advertiser profits from such comments. Spin doctors will say that is a worst you can do. If you announce Skype service is poor on Comcast, then the consumer will use some other VoIP provider.

Will you change IP providers? Who? You only have two choices (in UT's case) - Comcast and Verizon. Others have even less choices. But both are doing things that may degrade Skype quality because - 1) it is legal, 2) they want Skype's customers, and 3) no one can for one minute claim a statistical poorer quality is intentionally due to what Comcast and Verizon are doing.

Yes, you can statistically measure a degradation of IP service - if you know what to look for. So what. That degradation also happens during normal internet operation. Statistical measurement becomes inconclusive if 'packet skewing' is performed intermittently. Furthermore, if you (Skype) complain to Comcast, et al, well, Comcast need not do anything but claim ignorance. You (Skype) have no legal options other than to build your own IP service network - from scratch.

Furthermore, we have only discussed service degradation using packet skewing. What about technique X, Y, and Z? How you measure for degradation by those other methods (X, Y, and Z) which are also legal and that you don't even know exists. Remember you must also prove such degradation is intentional and not due to inferior Skype design. And then how many years will you go about measuring quality of service everywhere? Remember, they can apply service degradation intermittently. You are assuming Skype is a large organization with money to burn on verifying quality of service.

The Baby Bell must provide minimal 'circuit switched' service quality. It’s the law. Unlike IP service providers - the 'last mile' providers - the circuit switched services have specific numerical targets that must be met - as stated in government regulations. IP service providers (ie Comcast and Verizon) are exempt from such standards. UT says they will provide good service anyway because the consumer will blame Comcast and not blame Skype.

UT says they will provide those standards due to consumer 'free market' choices. I say bull. IP providers are not required to, the competition does not exist, and manipulating those IP services for self serving gain is too easy, too difficult to detect, and too profitable. Furthermore the big IP service providers have already demonstrated that they will do such tricks to benefit their company at the expense of potential competition. Trying to prove they are doing so - even statistically - got those other victims squat. Why do you think you - Skype - doing a massive statistical analysis will be any bit more successful?

Even if you statistically detect service degradation, then what are you (Skype) going to do? Sue? Good luck. Consumers meanwhile will simply take the easy way out. Comcast and Verizon provide reliable VoIP service. Since consumers have even less understanding of what I have posted - the technicals - then they will simply shift to Comcast and Verizon for more reliable service.

But UT says those consumers will leave Comcast and Verizon instead - while still using Skype. Why would they? They - like some here - don't even understand these simple technical explanations. The consumer will first abandon Skype long before they will reread (to finally comprehend) what I have posted here. Doing a statistical analysis would cost too much, hopes you know what to look for, can identify such problems as intentional verses normal internet variations, AND assumes the results of that analysis will mean something to the consumer. Good luck meeting all those points.

How many times did I show a statistical analysis would provide little useful information? Eight? Fifteen? I lost count.