h a l f b a k e r y
"Bun is such a sad word, is it not?" -- Watt, "Waiting for Godot"
idea:
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, best, random
meta:
news, help, about, links, report a problem
account:
Browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
or Create a new account.
|
|
| Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
| |
Fine, if coupled to a payment system (so that the selfish don't simply label everything top priority). |
|
| |
Your payment system won't work, at least for companies. It would take way too much paperwork for teams in a company to financially justify every piece of high-priority traffic. |
|
| |
Baked on mainframes for the last 40-50 years, at least. |
|
| |
The thing is... your boss's Youtube is much more important than your conference call with major new clients. Because he is the boss. Perhaps it could then be simplified so that QoS comes with rank... office boy at 0 and CEO at 10. |
|
| |
Network admin priorities for network traffic already exist, both within company networks and, controversially, at large on the Internet. |
|
| |
We already pay for different bandwidth levels, why would paying for different access levels be any more complicated? |
|
| |
It used to be common sense "back in the day" - all users had a priority and users could set their separate tasks with priorities. This was for cost accounting and efficient machine-usage purposes. |
|
| |
<insert standard rant about current industry "priorites" having nothing to do with the customer> |
|
| |