Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Non-Tech : Amati investors -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JW@KSC who wrote (30738)	4/1/1998 2:39:00 PM
From: JW@KSC	Respond to of 31386

QoS Debate notes for the Thread Members To All, Sorry to clutter up the thread with this issue, but it was started online and I would like to see it to conclusion online. JW@KSC (DMT Writer) does have a reputation to uphold. This whole QoS debate issue arose when at the closure of a post to Charile Smith on Splitter-Less head aches, I stated: Pay no attention to my humble opinions, I'm from a different school of thought, QOS, do it right the first time, and you'll find yourself way ahead in the game. "How slow & cheap and lacking quality can they make it and still shove it down the consumers throat." Perhaps they can sell-em in third world countries, but not in my home. Message 2873742 The debate carried on here and then it was brought back up on the Westell thread. I tried being nice and end the debate on an good note, stating: " I'm sure you'll agree that we both had valid view points in our discussion/minor debate." Only to have Steve G. come back with: Well, even wanting to be generous, this is STILL not the case. The specific term "Quality of Service" (note caps) and especially the acronym "QoS", as has been amply clarified for you, has NOTHING to do with YOUR use of it to mean simply "good quality service". I did not respond, I was a little heated and did not want to blowup online at him. and as Tom Doughty stated. Hi SteveG: A note FWIW: you don't need to have the last word in every exchange. (Or do you?) I try never to miss one of your posts because they are (the early ones, anyway) heavy on informational content. But I confess I especially look forward to the exchanges that follow (with Pat or JW or whomever) where your responses become positively Clintonesque. I leave you the last word here. Message 2896668 Today I present him with a QoS White Paper, which in no uncertain terms is written with my point of view. Any comments from the Group here would be welcomed, Pro or Con to my side of this debate. Heading out to the Cape.... I Want My QoS JW@KSC Debate Links below: Message 2877451 Message 2885185 , Message 2888174 , Message 2888368 Message 2888755 Message 2889136 Over to the Westell Thread Message 3014615 I'm sure you'll agree that we both had valid view points in our discussion/minor debate. Mine from the Subscriber/Business Customer/User perspective, while I sit typing using an ISP services/ At work at the Cape, I would be looking at the Network and Backbone QOS issues, plus Mean-Time Between Failure (MTBF), Mean-Time Between Repair (MTBR), and how I will maintain an 98% Operational Ready Rate (OPRR). If our Future High-Speed Data Services are as reliable as that 4Khz of bandwidth used, out of the full 1.1Mhz of the copper twisted-pair we now use for our voice ransmissions has been. This is what I consider QOS to the customer, never having to call for Customer Service, unless I want to ad Options. Merry Christmas to you Sir! JW@KSC Message 3015825 Message 3018492 Well, even wanting to be generous, this is STILL not the case. The specific term "Quality of Service" (note caps) and especially the acronym "QoS", as has been amply clarified for you, has NOTHING to do with YOUR use of it to mean simply "good quality service".