Maybe if his income depended on it. This is kind of a 'tragedy of the commons" in reverse. Factory owner A does not suffer when he cuts pay in half. He has a lot more money! But when EVERY factory cuts their pay to slave wages all of a sudden no one has any customers.
My opinion also. When everyone is greedy, no one wins.
1.4tb/s is slow, unless over really old fiber or really long distances. The record distance for 1tb/s over a single fiber is almost 13,000km without repeaters/regerators. https://www.infinera.com/j7/se...
Nov. 27, 2012
8 Terabits per second (Tb/s) capacity using production ready super-channels across 800 kms
You have no clue what you are talking about. The "legally required" shit is already being done. There's no need to do any IETF crap.
This is for ISPs to do it to you, without you being able to prevent it.
Really? Because the draft says that the end user must explicitly given permission for every session(no "always agree" option). You really think FireFox and Chrome will not prompt the user and ask them if they want to use the proxy? If they didn't, I guarantee that someone would immediately fork the projects and make them work that way.
There's no reason for private companies to profit off the basic requirements of a functioning society
So there should be no private energy companies? No private guards / security companies? No private education and no private health care? What a crock of shit.
Yes, lets have mercenaries instead of police and judges. Sounds great.
Bandwidth is the cheapest part of being an ISP(decent sized). You're talking about reducing the cost of something that makes up less than 10% of your bill
It made no such claim. It said that "reading" code activates language processing.. Wow, imagine that. It's nice to know this as a fact instead of assumption, but it was an obvious one. Who would have ever thought that reading used language processing?
100 years ago, nothing supports H.264 in hardware either, yet here it is. I know, lets waste money making hardware for codecs that are not standards yet!
Someone has to make the trip and take the risk. Stay on Earth is also "tantamount to committing suicide", because Earth will also perish. Are they trying to say that they want all the reward without the risk? I would argue that is pure selfishness. There is a good case to argue that just being alive is an act of suicide, and anything that you don't do to keep yourself alive longer is an act of suicide.
I've always wanted someone to explain to me why 0.7C matters. I know its a measure of average global temperatures. But still, isn't that a very minor fluctuation?
As the average changes, the highs and lows become more extreme. Back in the 1800s, there was a global cooling for a year caused by a volcano. It caused the Earth's average temp to drop about 0.5c. This small difference meant the ground was still frozen in July and even had snow in Massachusetts, when it's normally 80f and the crops are growing.
Net Nuetrality should only affect Layer2/3. People are free to use other mail services. We're targeting the infrastructure of the Internet for regulation, not the services that use the infrastructure.
Well, then, it's a good thing that the government hasn't forbidden anyone else from laying fiber, although fiber is not the only medium that can be used for internet service.
In many areas, an ISP cannot get right of way access without being a common carrier, which means cable or telcom. So yes, ISPs are not allowed to compete with telcom or cable companies on equal footing.
I must add that QoS is only useful when a link is congested. Many commercial grade devices will only enable QoS when a link buffer is 90% full. QoS many times will actually reduce transmission speeds, which makes congestion worse. Some times the act of enabling QoS is the sole reason there is congestion in the first place, kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy. QoS is not free, except in the case of slow speeds, like 10gb and slower.
Many 10gb devices forego QoS because the additional processing reduces the throughput to less than link speed, and instead just monitor link load. With throw-away cheap 1tb fiber coming out around the corner, we won't be able to process process QoS within even a magnitude of the link speed. Yes, they are currently working on retooling for 1tb/s fiber that is cheap enough to integrate into those $20 cell phones you buy at Walmart. There have been some major break throughs with integrated fiber. How long until this trickles down into the rest of the industry?
It won't be long until everything in your computer is connected via fiber, even memory. BTW, they have shown fully functional production ready 2tb/s fiber speeds over 90nm silicon and it only costs pennies to make and the silicon be be directly integrated. They expect higher speeds with smaller processes. The biggest hurtle is retooling factories to integrate fiber into circuit-boards instead of copper traces, but it is estimated that it will be cheaper to produce these fiber links than copper traces and more power efficient. This was by a reputable company, like IBM or HP. I forget which.
As long as they lower my bill. I already pay for dedicated bandwidth and it's probably less than what many pay for their crappy bandwidth. Many ISPs charge quite a bit above the cost of dedicated bandwidth. There is no reason they can't provide it, in most cases.
If I'm by myself and no one is nagging me to go faster and no one else is stuck behind me, I'll go 5-10mph under the speed limit on highways. If people are stuck behind me, I tend to go 5 over. Wind resistance scales quickly past 45mph.
Oversubscribed always means "congested sometimes".
Oversubscribed means there is a chance of congestion, but an ISP should never allow it to happen, except in exceptional cases like DDOS or sudden demand growth faster than their upstream can provision. The backbone of the Internet is massively oversubscribed relative to all of the edge inputs, but companies like Level 3 manage to keep congestion off their networks except in rare cases.
Bandwidth consumption is very predictable in large amounts. Large trunks can have less than 5% day-to-day differences in peak bandwidth, and if you never let your links get over 50% usage, you should almost never have a situation where the peak suddenly grows 100% before you can provision more, when the 99% norm is with-in 5%.
Yes, fraud is a moral issue. Not often you get to pay "up to" the amount on the sticker, then randomly decide that some products are worth less to you, so you may pay a small fraction of what you think it's worth.
An ISP is free to oversubscribe, but as soon as they push it to its limit and it starts to affect the end user, then the ISP is at fault for not being able to actually provide what they're selling. As long as the customer's traffic is on their ISP's network, the traffic should not be degraded.
People who want to take advantage of this and disrupt the ISP's network, can, and the ISP will be powerless to monitor, diagnose, and prevent such abuse.
There is a huge difference between managing your network and snooping on peoples traffic. Network diagnosing and troubleshooting would not be limited. An ISP running snort on a network is not an issue, but an ISP trying to classify your data streams and manipulating them for profit is an issue. Any legal traffic should be left unfettered, but detecting and responding to illegal or malicious traffic is normal operations.
Otherwise, that you're saying is something analogous to a public park not able to kick someone out because they pose a threat. If someone is chasing people around with a knife, you don't just go "well, it's a public place". It also means you can still have police at public parks. An ISP that monitors their network is like a park with police, and someone doing something disruptive is like that crazy man chasing people around with a weapon.
"Oversubscribed" does not mean "congested". If your network is congested, then you're overselling it to the point that you are no longer providing what you're advertising. For wireless networks, I could see throttling until a better design or management solution is available, but fixed line should not do throttling. If an ISP needs to state two speeds, one for "Internal" ISP network speeds and "External" Internet speeds, so be it, but a customer should not have to guess what speeds they will have.
If an ISP sells a 10mb connection, they should not be the bottle neck. I repeat, the ISP should not have congestion on their networks. They cannot control other networks, but they can control their own. If you don't have it, don't sell it. If the competition is marketing faster speeds that you can't support, tough luck.
It really just comes down to false advertisement. You don't see people selling cars with "up to 40mpg", then you only get 5mpg in normal driving conditions.
That's great until you have several people playing the same game and you don't know which port will go to which device until run-time. Bad program design? Yes, but what are you going to do about it? you must support this case when you're talking about a general idea that must work for everyone.
The reason for this many times is that if you have several people sharing the same IP all using the same program and all of them need to accept an incoming port but it can't be the same port, how is the program supposed to know which port it's assigned? It can't, unless you config the program some how, but most end users don't know what a port even is. what ever solution you propose, it should be 100% transparent to the end user.
NAT is a general concept, not a standard. One NAT may implement exactly that, but others may not. This is something hard for programmers to design for.
You should try some of the many console games that use peer-to-peer. Most PC games connect back to a central server, so no forwarding needed, but many console games have the clients connect directly to each other to keep server costs down. Even if you play console games that don't do this, it's only you anecdotal evidence. There are large numbers of games that need ports opened, and many require quite a few ports. You never know which port it will choose, so you either need to open a large port range or let uPNP do it on demand.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe if his income depended on it. This is kind of a 'tragedy of the commons" in reverse. Factory owner A does not suffer when he cuts pay in half. He has a lot more money! But when EVERY factory cuts their pay to slave wages all of a sudden no one has any customers.
My opinion also. When everyone is greedy, no one wins.
I've been told not to count those.
1.4tb/s is slow, unless over really old fiber or really long distances. The record distance for 1tb/s over a single fiber is almost 13,000km without repeaters/regerators.
https://www.infinera.com/j7/se... Nov. 27, 2012
8 Terabits per second (Tb/s) capacity using production ready super-channels across 800 kms
You have no clue what you are talking about. The "legally required" shit is already being done. There's no need to do any IETF crap.
This is for ISPs to do it to you, without you being able to prevent it.
Really? Because the draft says that the end user must explicitly given permission for every session(no "always agree" option). You really think FireFox and Chrome will not prompt the user and ask them if they want to use the proxy? If they didn't, I guarantee that someone would immediately fork the projects and make them work that way.
There's no reason for private companies to profit off the basic requirements of a functioning society
So there should be no private energy companies? No private guards / security companies? No private education and no private health care? What a crock of shit.
Yes, lets have mercenaries instead of police and judges. Sounds great.
Bandwidth is the cheapest part of being an ISP(decent sized). You're talking about reducing the cost of something that makes up less than 10% of your bill
The article claimed that programming activated
It made no such claim. It said that "reading" code activates language processing.. Wow, imagine that. It's nice to know this as a fact instead of assumption, but it was an obvious one. Who would have ever thought that reading used language processing?
100 years ago, nothing supports H.264 in hardware either, yet here it is. I know, lets waste money making hardware for codecs that are not standards yet!
It's a feature if it's working as intended.
Someone has to make the trip and take the risk. Stay on Earth is also "tantamount to committing suicide", because Earth will also perish. Are they trying to say that they want all the reward without the risk? I would argue that is pure selfishness. There is a good case to argue that just being alive is an act of suicide, and anything that you don't do to keep yourself alive longer is an act of suicide.
I've always wanted someone to explain to me why 0.7C matters. I know its a measure of average global temperatures. But still, isn't that a very minor fluctuation?
As the average changes, the highs and lows become more extreme. Back in the 1800s, there was a global cooling for a year caused by a volcano. It caused the Earth's average temp to drop about 0.5c. This small difference meant the ground was still frozen in July and even had snow in Massachusetts, when it's normally 80f and the crops are growing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y...
A 0.5c increase would be the exact opposite.
Net Nuetrality should only affect Layer2/3. People are free to use other mail services. We're targeting the infrastructure of the Internet for regulation, not the services that use the infrastructure.
Well, then, it's a good thing that the government hasn't forbidden anyone else from laying fiber, although fiber is not the only medium that can be used for internet service.
In many areas, an ISP cannot get right of way access without being a common carrier, which means cable or telcom. So yes, ISPs are not allowed to compete with telcom or cable companies on equal footing.
I must add that QoS is only useful when a link is congested. Many commercial grade devices will only enable QoS when a link buffer is 90% full. QoS many times will actually reduce transmission speeds, which makes congestion worse. Some times the act of enabling QoS is the sole reason there is congestion in the first place, kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy. QoS is not free, except in the case of slow speeds, like 10gb and slower.
Many 10gb devices forego QoS because the additional processing reduces the throughput to less than link speed, and instead just monitor link load. With throw-away cheap 1tb fiber coming out around the corner, we won't be able to process process QoS within even a magnitude of the link speed. Yes, they are currently working on retooling for 1tb/s fiber that is cheap enough to integrate into those $20 cell phones you buy at Walmart. There have been some major break throughs with integrated fiber. How long until this trickles down into the rest of the industry?
It won't be long until everything in your computer is connected via fiber, even memory. BTW, they have shown fully functional production ready 2tb/s fiber speeds over 90nm silicon and it only costs pennies to make and the silicon be be directly integrated. They expect higher speeds with smaller processes. The biggest hurtle is retooling factories to integrate fiber into circuit-boards instead of copper traces, but it is estimated that it will be cheaper to produce these fiber links than copper traces and more power efficient. This was by a reputable company, like IBM or HP. I forget which.
As long as they lower my bill. I already pay for dedicated bandwidth and it's probably less than what many pay for their crappy bandwidth. Many ISPs charge quite a bit above the cost of dedicated bandwidth. There is no reason they can't provide it, in most cases.
If I'm by myself and no one is nagging me to go faster and no one else is stuck behind me, I'll go 5-10mph under the speed limit on highways. If people are stuck behind me, I tend to go 5 over. Wind resistance scales quickly past 45mph.
Oversubscribed always means "congested sometimes".
Oversubscribed means there is a chance of congestion, but an ISP should never allow it to happen, except in exceptional cases like DDOS or sudden demand growth faster than their upstream can provision. The backbone of the Internet is massively oversubscribed relative to all of the edge inputs, but companies like Level 3 manage to keep congestion off their networks except in rare cases.
Bandwidth consumption is very predictable in large amounts. Large trunks can have less than 5% day-to-day differences in peak bandwidth, and if you never let your links get over 50% usage, you should almost never have a situation where the peak suddenly grows 100% before you can provision more, when the 99% norm is with-in 5%.
Yes, fraud is a moral issue. Not often you get to pay "up to" the amount on the sticker, then randomly decide that some products are worth less to you, so you may pay a small fraction of what you think it's worth.
An ISP is free to oversubscribe, but as soon as they push it to its limit and it starts to affect the end user, then the ISP is at fault for not being able to actually provide what they're selling. As long as the customer's traffic is on their ISP's network, the traffic should not be degraded.
Provisioning != throttling
People who want to take advantage of this and disrupt the ISP's network, can, and the ISP will be powerless to monitor, diagnose, and prevent such abuse.
There is a huge difference between managing your network and snooping on peoples traffic. Network diagnosing and troubleshooting would not be limited. An ISP running snort on a network is not an issue, but an ISP trying to classify your data streams and manipulating them for profit is an issue. Any legal traffic should be left unfettered, but detecting and responding to illegal or malicious traffic is normal operations.
Otherwise, that you're saying is something analogous to a public park not able to kick someone out because they pose a threat. If someone is chasing people around with a knife, you don't just go "well, it's a public place". It also means you can still have police at public parks. An ISP that monitors their network is like a park with police, and someone doing something disruptive is like that crazy man chasing people around with a weapon.
"Oversubscribed" does not mean "congested". If your network is congested, then you're overselling it to the point that you are no longer providing what you're advertising. For wireless networks, I could see throttling until a better design or management solution is available, but fixed line should not do throttling. If an ISP needs to state two speeds, one for "Internal" ISP network speeds and "External" Internet speeds, so be it, but a customer should not have to guess what speeds they will have.
If an ISP sells a 10mb connection, they should not be the bottle neck. I repeat, the ISP should not have congestion on their networks. They cannot control other networks, but they can control their own. If you don't have it, don't sell it. If the competition is marketing faster speeds that you can't support, tough luck.
It really just comes down to false advertisement. You don't see people selling cars with "up to 40mpg", then you only get 5mpg in normal driving conditions.
This is how UPNP works. People are saying UPNP is bad, which means they also think PCP is bad.. "Drugs are bad, m'kay"
That's great until you have several people playing the same game and you don't know which port will go to which device until run-time. Bad program design? Yes, but what are you going to do about it? you must support this case when you're talking about a general idea that must work for everyone.
The reason for this many times is that if you have several people sharing the same IP all using the same program and all of them need to accept an incoming port but it can't be the same port, how is the program supposed to know which port it's assigned? It can't, unless you config the program some how, but most end users don't know what a port even is. what ever solution you propose, it should be 100% transparent to the end user.
NAT is a general concept, not a standard. One NAT may implement exactly that, but others may not. This is something hard for programmers to design for.
You should try some of the many console games that use peer-to-peer. Most PC games connect back to a central server, so no forwarding needed, but many console games have the clients connect directly to each other to keep server costs down. Even if you play console games that don't do this, it's only you anecdotal evidence. There are large numbers of games that need ports opened, and many require quite a few ports. You never know which port it will choose, so you either need to open a large port range or let uPNP do it on demand.