How to organise a queue

That is why I think open source and creative commons are the future. But the reactionaries will first go to war against us all in order to have their doomsday's say. But to follow them in their trail is not the way to go - because it is a dead end alley.

The establishment is not used to user activity. They are used to consumers and audiences, politely listening. There is fright here to be taken into account, often a point that is missed. In the end, it comes down to the question of free speech. It is also about building dependence rather than independence. So what people should do is to take command and create their own internets. Because that is probably the only way to save the net now, legislation being as it is. The Telecoms package killed the net as we know it.
Perhaps it is like changing the Shakespearean Globe theatre into the modern stage theatre with silenced spectators.

Anyone interested in the technical details can read more here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality_of_service

And yes, the QoS working group came to the same conclusion as this blog post.

"internet2 QoS Working Group concluded that increasing bandwidth is probably more practical than implementing QoS"

You see, in any big organisation where employees run things, there are not many visions, just administration. Obeying employees licking up to their boss, trying to look good and maybe get a promotion. Among people like that, any investment is always seen as a cost, and as a bonus, they do not have to weigh in and manage any risk involved, just administer what they have. Any investment that can be avoided is also seen by this kind of people as a saving. So naturally, they save money by not having to meet the demand, and they avoid risk and do not have to take responsibility, so what to with the queue? Of course, manage it.. somehow.

This is very obvious in old industries. Old machinery gets repaired in absurdum, until the absolute top management just have to do something to avoid a crisis. For the floor manager it is much more comfortable to just have things repaired, things just go on as everyday. Alarming about outdated machinery and begging top management for money is.. well, i think you see my point. For the company it would be much better to take the investment, but all those gray administrators just see it as a cost, not their responsibility.

Organisations with visions on the other hand, they see more profits ahead if they do the investment, to them an investment is not a cost, it is an investment.

The technical people who designed the Internet were very strong in their convictions that there would be a lot of benefit to humanity if bandwidth would grow so that it always stayed beyond demand. They understood that by setting the price tag on the bandwidth available to the customer and not on de facto usage demand would grow and would create opportunities for new applications and services.

This made the big telephone companies very angry, because they could no longer base their business models on scarcity. It used to be that they could charge 100 times cost for a phone call. Nowadays they can only charge 3 times cost for the bandwith they provide, because there is real competition in the market. Bandwidth is a commodity. People buy it from the vendor that has adequate quality at the lowest price possible.

Now, if you can differentiate your service, you can target your service at people with special demands, and start charging more. For instance, you can introduce higher rates for contacting sites that are in other operators networks, and you can start charging for traffic instead of bandwidth. This would restore the golden days of enormous profits.

I discussed this with some of the people building the Internet about 10 years ago. They foresaw this fight coming up back then.