3. Either the incumbent stalls the project in court while it sneaks in and builds its own network to preempt the publicly funded one, or the incumbent some how strong arms the government to give the operating contract to it.
The original cable company in my area had an exclusive contract under some law allowed a locally owned business to be granted exclusivity. However, they were later bought by a conglomerate, so lost the exclusivity clause of the franchise.
It happens. I've seen it. I recently rescued 15m of usable RG-6 coax from a dumpster after a cable company tech had to replace it because it had been chewed by squirrels. Was more than enough to replace the cheap RG-59 coax the was previously installed in my house.
The issue here is actually network hops. Regardless of geographic distance, the fewer hops from router to router from the client to content server is generally better. IF a CDN can put their servers near your ISP's upstream feed point - or, even better, in your ISP's network, then you theoretically get better download performance if you use the ISP's DNS. A 3rd party DNS relay may refer you to CDN server that is more hops away from your client.
Which is fine. The cable and telcos will still only be paying the cost after the fact - and in installments Eventually, the carriers will need even more bandwidth, so why not let Allied take the risk of building it.. Though I suspect another poster is correct in predicting someone will buy Allied, so will gain control over the new fiber.
Up to a point, the US government did - through grants to universities and such - pay for all the routers and cable. For a long time, connecting to the internet was a privilege reserved for schools and key government contractors. Eventually, others were allowed to connect, opening the way for small, local ISPs. Then, eventually, these local ISPs were bought up by companies that ultimately became today's incumbent carriers.
I doubt Allied cares who leases the bandwidth. And I would be surprised if they managed to build more than the combined purchasing power of the incumbents can afford to lease.
In my area, the cable and telephone cables are strung on the electric utility's poles. Several years ago, within a month of the one cable operator's exclusive franchise expiring, the 2nd cable operator extended its cables into my neighborhood. As for getting another ISP, the county, in its most recent news letter, claims it is still soliciting bids, but there have been no submissions.
(Not that having 2 (3 including the phone company) ISPs has actually provided competition. The internet (and TV) service rates from both companies (as well as the phone company) are the same - as well as the yearly rate increase. And the switch-over discount is now only for the 1st 3 months - assuming I make a 12 month commitment. The utility board just says there is no hard evidence of collusion.)
As I said in my post, the ISP's routers were redirecting DNS requests to the IPS's own DNS servers. I don't know if that one still does this, but my current ISP currently does not.
At the least, more backhaul bandwidth. Ideally, it would allow new ISPs to enter the market and compete with the current conglomerates. However, I suspect the incumbents to buy up all the access to the new bandwidth.
None of this considers the fact that very few DNS operators would actually even implement this standard.
I take it that you and the other big DNS providers use custom DNS software? Still, I wonder how many others use BIND (though I suppose they might be part of the "old guard", so would not implement the feature).
Actually, I was thinking in terms of some intermediate DNS provider between the 1st responder (which sees the client's DNS request directly) and the final destination, which may or may not also be the authoritative DNS provider. That is, either the first responder forwards the request to another non-authoritative provider rather than directly to the authoritative provider. or the authoritative DNS provider is a 4th party providing DNS on behalf of the final destination. Either could result in disclosing the client's IP address unnecessarily to a 4th party.
(Or maybe I should say 5th party, since the client's, destination's and any intermediate ISPs are 4th parties who will see the client's IP address anyway.)
Most disagree since the ultimate authority will see the clients IP eventually,
I think the concern could be about unnecessary disclosure to 4th parties. (The 1st responder DNS being the 3rd party and the "ultimate authority" being the 2nd party)
Assuming your ISP doesn't sniff your DNS requests. Having DNSSEC on the root servers only serves to detect DNS high-jacking. As I understand it, the actual DNS requests and responses are still open to monitoring.
Supposedly my ISP of 2 years ago consolidated its servers into 2 data centers about 3 years go. About 2.5 years ago, their DNS servers in 1 center went off line and the servers in the other center were overloaded, so they went down, too. Fortunately, my local head end still had a machine they could use for DNS and did so (allowing only local subscribers, of course). The nest major DNS outage they had, the local head end no longer that resource, and their routers were forcing all DNS requests to their servers, so we suffered the outage along the rest of their subscribers. I was lucky in that I was able to get the IP address of my (then current) client's VPN server, so I was still able to work (but no Slashdot that day).
When are the earliest Mickey Mouse copyrights currently due to expire? I suspect 5 years before that is when the real push for another extension will begin.
Actually, it is connected to the baby's blood vessels. The branch vessels that they connect to collapse shortly after birth to seal off the cord.
Just after the birth of my daughter, the blood continued flowing in the cord for several minutes, leaving mother and child connected. Once the flow stopped, my wife's body started to try to expel the placenta even as I was trying to cut the cord.
Yes, I noted that, too. All 3 of the ISPs I have used over the last several years offer some kind of speed boost for the first 5 to 10 seconds after a few seconds of little to no data transfer. From my informal observations, the speed quickly ramps down below 1 Mbps after that and often much lower.
As another poster pointed out, eircom owns the "last mile" copper that other ISPs depend on to deliver service to subscribers, so they would not be in a position to de-peer from eircom. Indeed, eircom may be in a position to force the other ISPs to follow its policy.
It's likely very easy to find names of people working for the record/movie companies. And, unless the company has implemented some kind of sender authentication that the ISP accepts, it's likely easy to fake the origin of the email.
Slashdot Mirror
3. Either the incumbent stalls the project in court while it sneaks in and builds its own network to preempt the publicly funded one, or the incumbent some how strong arms the government to give the operating contract to it.
The original cable company in my area had an exclusive contract under some law allowed a locally owned business to be granted exclusivity. However, they were later bought by a conglomerate, so lost the exclusivity clause of the franchise.
It happens. I've seen it. I recently rescued 15m of usable RG-6 coax from a dumpster after a cable company tech had to replace it because it had been chewed by squirrels. Was more than enough to replace the cheap RG-59 coax the was previously installed in my house.
The issue here is actually network hops. Regardless of geographic distance, the fewer hops from router to router from the client to content server is generally better. IF a CDN can put their servers near your ISP's upstream feed point - or, even better, in your ISP's network, then you theoretically get better download performance if you use the ISP's DNS. A 3rd party DNS relay may refer you to CDN server that is more hops away from your client.
Which is fine. The cable and telcos will still only be paying the cost after the fact - and in installments Eventually, the carriers will need even more bandwidth, so why not let Allied take the risk of building it.. Though I suspect another poster is correct in predicting someone will buy Allied, so will gain control over the new fiber.
Up to a point, the US government did - through grants to universities and such - pay for all the routers and cable. For a long time, connecting to the internet was a privilege reserved for schools and key government contractors. Eventually, others were allowed to connect, opening the way for small, local ISPs. Then, eventually, these local ISPs were bought up by companies that ultimately became today's incumbent carriers.
I doubt Allied cares who leases the bandwidth. And I would be surprised if they managed to build more than the combined purchasing power of the incumbents can afford to lease.
In my area, the cable and telephone cables are strung on the electric utility's poles. Several years ago, within a month of the one cable operator's exclusive franchise expiring, the 2nd cable operator extended its cables into my neighborhood. As for getting another ISP, the county, in its most recent news letter, claims it is still soliciting bids, but there have been no submissions.
(Not that having 2 (3 including the phone company) ISPs has actually provided competition. The internet (and TV) service rates from both companies (as well as the phone company) are the same - as well as the yearly rate increase. And the switch-over discount is now only for the 1st 3 months - assuming I make a 12 month commitment. The utility board just says there is no hard evidence of collusion.)
As I said in my post, the ISP's routers were redirecting DNS requests to the IPS's own DNS servers. I don't know if that one still does this, but my current ISP currently does not.
Why would do that when they can just buy up all the access to the new bandwidth?
At the least, more backhaul bandwidth. Ideally, it would allow new ISPs to enter the market and compete with the current conglomerates. However, I suspect the incumbents to buy up all the access to the new bandwidth.
None of this considers the fact that very few DNS operators would actually even implement this standard.
I take it that you and the other big DNS providers use custom DNS software? Still, I wonder how many others use BIND (though I suppose they might be part of the "old guard", so would not implement the feature).
Actually, I was thinking in terms of some intermediate DNS provider between the 1st responder (which sees the client's DNS request directly) and the final destination, which may or may not also be the authoritative DNS provider. That is, either the first responder forwards the request to another non-authoritative provider rather than directly to the authoritative provider. or the authoritative DNS provider is a 4th party providing DNS on behalf of the final destination. Either could result in disclosing the client's IP address unnecessarily to a 4th party.
(Or maybe I should say 5th party, since the client's, destination's and any intermediate ISPs are 4th parties who will see the client's IP address anyway.)
Most disagree since the ultimate authority will see the clients IP eventually,
I think the concern could be about unnecessary disclosure to 4th parties. (The 1st responder DNS being the 3rd party and the "ultimate authority" being the 2nd party)
Bean counters refusing to approve more and/or better machines to host DNS.
avoids any DNS tracking on the part of my ISP
Assuming your ISP doesn't sniff your DNS requests. Having DNSSEC on the root servers only serves to detect DNS high-jacking. As I understand it, the actual DNS requests and responses are still open to monitoring.
Supposedly my ISP of 2 years ago consolidated its servers into 2 data centers about 3 years go. About 2.5 years ago, their DNS servers in 1 center went off line and the servers in the other center were overloaded, so they went down, too. Fortunately, my local head end still had a machine they could use for DNS and did so (allowing only local subscribers, of course). The nest major DNS outage they had, the local head end no longer that resource, and their routers were forcing all DNS requests to their servers, so we suffered the outage along the rest of their subscribers. I was lucky in that I was able to get the IP address of my (then current) client's VPN server, so I was still able to work (but no Slashdot that day).
When are the earliest Mickey Mouse copyrights currently due to expire? I suspect 5 years before that is when the real push for another extension will begin.
Actually, it is connected to the baby's blood vessels. The branch vessels that they connect to collapse shortly after birth to seal off the cord.
Just after the birth of my daughter, the blood continued flowing in the cord for several minutes, leaving mother and child connected. Once the flow stopped, my wife's body started to try to expel the placenta even as I was trying to cut the cord.
Yes, I noted that, too. All 3 of the ISPs I have used over the last several years offer some kind of speed boost for the first 5 to 10 seconds after a few seconds of little to no data transfer. From my informal observations, the speed quickly ramps down below 1 Mbps after that and often much lower.
As another poster pointed out, eircom owns the "last mile" copper that other ISPs depend on to deliver service to subscribers, so they would not be in a position to de-peer from eircom. Indeed, eircom may be in a position to force the other ISPs to follow its policy.
It's likely very easy to find names of people working for the record/movie companies. And, unless the company has implemented some kind of sender authentication that the ISP accepts, it's likely easy to fake the origin of the email.
Get the internet cut off to most government buildings and they might start to rethink this policy.
Are you seriously implying the ISPs don't know which IP addresses belong to government contracts?
Also, maybe they don't know the home IP addresses of MPs and government officials, but I sure bet they know the IP addresses of their own executives.
Any distro that can play DVDs or decode MP3s or rip a CD or a DVD will be flagged as a problem
Then MS Windows will have to flagged as well.
And you got away with that excuse twice?