What's needed is sensible regulation like: all internet connectable devices must be able to upgrade the software components in the field. all internet connectable devices must be supported for reasonable periods after last customer shipment. Where reasonable periods is 10 years for TVs, routers, fridges, DVRs.
Today it is ridiculous that buy a internet connectable TVs etc. and you get no bug fixes for from then manufacturers. We know that there will be bugs given the cost tradeoffs to be build the devices at a reasonable price and timeline but that is no excuse to not supply software fixes for the inevitable bugs that will be discovered.
So what is fair about penalising someone for using something in the past that would just go to waste if it wasn't used? You can't save up cell time on a tower to be used later. You either use it when it is available or it is gone.
As for these so called data hogs they aren't. This is the Sprint CEO using emotive words to get you to buy into his attempt to con you which appears to have succeeded.
If the unlimited data users were being given priority then you would have a valid complaint but they are not. They were being given a equal share to airtime compared to everyone else trying to use the system at the same time. Now they are being discriminated against.
They paid to be able to send/request data whenever they want regardless of how much other data they have sent in the month on a equal basis to every other user attempting to send at the same time.
The Sprint CEO is rewarding the cheap skates that didn't shell out for a unlimited plan.
Lets say the user used the 23G watching netflix at night and now needs the internet to be doing work during the day. Is it really fair that his work usage gets penalised because he watched netflix at night when he bought a unlimited contract.
If he bought a 23G contract which said "If you are over 23G and there is congestion we will speed limit you." then I would have no complaint as he mismanaged the data he has purchased.
And you get that by sharing out the resource (air time) over the *current* users. It doesn't matter how much someone used yesterday or even 5 minutes ago. They used their fair share at those times. If you are on at 2 in the morning and you are the only customer on the tower then your fair share is the entire capability of the tower. If there are 5000 customers using the tower at once then your fair share is 1/5000th of the tower. The only really grey area is do you measure this over the second, minute or 3 minutes? Beyond that what you used verses what everyone else is using becomes irrelevant to the fairness of sending the next packet.
They can be cut off by not renewing the contract when its term is up. That is the legal way for Sprint to deal with this issue. As long as Sprint keeps renewing the contract then they must keep abiding by the contract. Unlimited means not applying limits in any shape or form.
It is not up to you to decide how someone uses the data they have purchased.
Which is apply a limit above and beyond those inherent in the system. Unlimited means unlimited. If a packet comes there will be a attempt to transmit it. If the buffer overflow on the transmitting path then it overflow. This is expected behaviour of a IP system.
If you preferentially drop packets because the destination has a unlimited plan then you are applying a limit. It may be a soft limit but it is a limit.
Which isn't the issue. The issue is that they are applying a limit to those customers above and beyond the inherent limits in the system. They are getting special negative treatment.
Given this is with a phone that is transmitting to the world saying "I am here", you are taking my statement out of context.
Last I looked most equipment doesn't broadcast to the world saying "I am here" to within a couple of feet which is what I'm lead to believe is the resolution of the triangulation. Phones and the right triangulation equipment gets that resolution.
Does the car stereo say to the world "I am here"? Phones talk to the world. They are not passive devices.
If the music is up too loud do the police / council rangers come and knock on the door saying turn the music down. You can broadcast in the EM spectrum or in the audio spectrum. With the right equipment you can hear both.
Perhaps you should look at what I am saying rather than your preconceptions of what is being said.
What civil liberties are being broken when they search for a piece of stolen property? That property could be in a bin, ditch etc. Now to enter a premise they need reasonable suspicion that the property is in that premise. Triangulation of a signal from stolen property gives that suspicion at which time they need to get a warrant. The act of searching for a stolen device electronically itself shouldn't require a warrant.
This really is no different than seeing a stolen car in the driveway of a premise. The phone / car is visible to the world.
If you drive around in a stolen car you can expect to be pulled over. If you are carrying a stolen phone and it is turned on you can expect to be located. This doesn't require technology that is unknown to the general public. Triangulation of signals has been done for the last century. The precision of that triangulation has improved all that tine.
Putting a phone in a pocket does not hide it. Turning it off and putting it in a pocket hides it.
There are some uses that should require a warrant, some uses that don't require a warrant.
Searching for stolen property without knowing the person who stole the property shouldn't require a warrant. Searching for stolen property when you know the person who stole the property should require a warrant.
Searching for a phone of a presumed abductee with/without a warrant depends on the circumstances. Searching for a phone of a presumed felon should require a warrant.
Attempting to correlate phone presence with a event or a sequence of events should require a warrant.
The whole secrecy issue is basically bogus these days as the technology has been disclosed.
Firstly servers don't need DHCPv6 to assign them a address. They can just pick a address and register it in the DNS themselves. They really don't need a DHCP server to do it for them. HTTP/S doesn't care about the IP address that a machine has.
Secondly SLAAC is not only used with link locals.
Just because you want to do things one way doesn't make it a requirement.
You can charge for stuff and still be a not-for-profit. It all depends on where the proceeds of the sales go to or potentially got to. Paying reasonable salaries is ok. Paying dividends even potentially is not.
The IPv6 solution is ULA and GUA addresses running in parallel so you have stable internal addresses and globally unique addresses when talking to the world.
You do realise that this is complete garbage. The reason that we need IPv6 is that IPv4 was never designed to scale to every household in the world. 4 billion addresses was never enough for that. We have extended IPv4 by about 2 decades through the use of address sharing but the amount of sharing is now going from 1 addresses per household to less than 1 address per household and the tricks that allow address sharing at the household level without to much administrative pain don't work between households.
Because 255.255.255.255.255.255.255.255.255.255.255.255.255.255.255.255. is actually harder to deal with than ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff: ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff.
IPv4 will mostly be gone on the Internet as a whole in 10 years. The only thing that will hold that back is people buying IPv4 only devices today. It is Sony, Samsung shipping IPv4 only TVs etc. that are the real problems today.
Yes. Comcast comes with IPv6 on by default, as do other ISPs.
1 in 5 homes in the US has IPv6 enabled today. See the IPv6 presentations at NANOG from a couple of days ago.
IPv6 is already here. It is measurably faster. It is easier to configure and manage. The cellular carriers are going IPv6 only. If you are using a modern Android or Windows phone you are talking IPv6 only from the phone. Facebook is IPv6 only. Microsoft are going IPv6 only. Google is going IPv6 only. Lots of data centres are going IPv6 only internally.
Thats if the band lasts. Mine's broken after 5 years. The metal loop the pin goes through has broken off. Just the wear and tear of taking it on and off once a day.
Slashdot Mirror
What's needed is sensible regulation like:
all internet connectable devices must be able to upgrade the software components in the field.
all internet connectable devices must be supported for reasonable periods after last customer shipment. Where reasonable periods is 10 years for TVs, routers, fridges, DVRs.
Today it is ridiculous that buy a internet connectable TVs etc. and you get no bug fixes for from then manufacturers. We know that there will be bugs given the cost tradeoffs to be build the devices at a reasonable price and timeline but that is no excuse to not supply software fixes for the inevitable bugs that will be discovered.
So what is fair about penalising someone for using something in the past that would just go to waste if it wasn't used? You can't save up cell time on a tower to be used later. You either use it when it is available or it is gone.
As for these so called data hogs they aren't. This is the Sprint CEO using emotive words to get you to buy into his attempt to con you which appears to have succeeded.
If the unlimited data users were being given priority then you would have a valid complaint but they are not. They were being given a equal share to airtime compared to everyone else trying to use the system at the same time. Now they are being discriminated against.
They paid to be able to send/request data whenever they want regardless of how much other data they have sent in the month on a equal basis to every other user attempting to send at the same time.
The Sprint CEO is rewarding the cheap skates that didn't shell out for a unlimited plan.
This isn't a food line.
Lets say the user used the 23G watching netflix at night and now needs the internet to be doing work during the day. Is it really fair that his work usage gets penalised because he watched netflix at night when he bought a unlimited contract.
If he bought a 23G contract which said "If you are over 23G and there is congestion we will speed limit you." then I would have no complaint as he mismanaged the data he has purchased.
And you get that by sharing out the resource (air time) over the *current* users. It doesn't matter how much someone used yesterday or even 5 minutes ago. They used their fair share at those times. If you are on at 2 in the morning and you are the only customer on the tower then your fair share is the entire capability of the tower. If there are 5000 customers using the tower at once then your fair share is 1/5000th of the tower. The only really grey area is do you measure this over the second, minute or 3 minutes? Beyond that what you used verses what everyone else is using becomes irrelevant to the fairness of sending the next packet.
They can be cut off by not renewing the contract when its term is up. That is the legal way for Sprint to deal with this issue. As long as Sprint keeps renewing the contract then they must keep abiding by the contract. Unlimited means not applying limits in any shape or form.
It is not up to you to decide how someone uses the data they have purchased.
Which is apply a limit above and beyond those inherent in the system. Unlimited means unlimited. If a packet comes there will be a attempt to transmit it. If the buffer overflow on the transmitting path then it overflow. This is expected behaviour of a IP system.
If you preferentially drop packets because the destination has a unlimited plan then you are applying a limit. It may be a soft limit but it is a limit.
Which isn't the issue. The issue is that they are applying a limit to those customers above and beyond the inherent limits in the system. They are getting special negative treatment.
Given this is with a phone that is transmitting to the world saying "I am here", you are taking my statement out of context.
Last I looked most equipment doesn't broadcast to the world saying "I am here" to within a couple of feet
which is what I'm lead to believe is the resolution of the triangulation. Phones and the right triangulation equipment gets that resolution.
Military grade GPS gets that sort of resolution.
Does the car stereo say to the world "I am here"? Phones talk to the world. They are not passive devices.
If the music is up too loud do the police / council rangers come and knock on the door saying turn the music down. You can broadcast in the EM spectrum or in the audio spectrum. With the right equipment you can
hear both.
Perhaps you should look at what I am saying rather than your preconceptions of what is being said.
Triangulating the location of a stolen phone is not "ransacking every inch of your house".
If you know stolen property is in a house then searching that house, with a warrant, is reasonable even if you don't know who stole it.
Federal law says not to add a pen register. It doesn't say you can't triangulate a signal from a stolen device.
What civil liberties are being broken when they search for a piece of stolen property? That property could be in a bin, ditch etc. Now to enter a premise they need reasonable suspicion that the property is in that premise. Triangulation of a signal from stolen property gives that suspicion at which time they need to get a warrant. The act of searching for a stolen device electronically itself shouldn't require a warrant.
This really is no different than seeing a stolen car in the driveway of a premise. The phone / car is visible to the world.
If you drive around in a stolen car you can expect to be pulled over. If you are carrying a stolen phone and it is turned on you can expect to be located. This doesn't require technology that is unknown to the general public. Triangulation of signals has been done for the last century. The precision of that triangulation has improved all that tine.
Putting a phone in a pocket does not hide it. Turning it off and putting it in a pocket hides it.
There are some uses that should require a warrant, some uses that don't require a warrant.
Searching for stolen property without knowing the person who stole the property shouldn't require a warrant.
Searching for stolen property when you know the person who stole the property should require a warrant.
Searching for a phone of a presumed abductee with/without a warrant depends on the circumstances.
Searching for a phone of a presumed felon should require a warrant.
Attempting to correlate phone presence with a event or a sequence of events should require a warrant.
The whole secrecy issue is basically bogus these days as the technology has been disclosed.
Because it make security and debugging easier. NAT despite what you appear to think, actually make security and debugging worse.
No they are not required to lie and in fact there are laws against lying. Another word for lying about what you intend to do is fraud.
Firstly servers don't need DHCPv6 to assign them a address. They can just pick a address and register it in the DNS themselves. They really don't need a DHCP server to do it for them. HTTP/S doesn't care about the IP address that a machine has.
Secondly SLAAC is not only used with link locals.
Just because you want to do things one way doesn't make it a requirement.
Why does it have to be local government?
In Australia the federal government is in the process of providing the infrastructure.
You can charge for stuff and still be a not-for-profit. It all depends on where the proceeds of the sales go to or potentially got to. Paying reasonable salaries is ok. Paying dividends even potentially is not.
facebook.com are IPv6 only internally. Externally they are dual stack because their customers are a mix of IPv6 only and dual stack.
The IPv6 solution is ULA and GUA addresses running in parallel so you have stable internal addresses and globally unique addresses when talking to the world.
You do realise that this is complete garbage. The reason that we need IPv6 is that IPv4 was never designed to scale to every household in the world. 4 billion addresses was never enough for that. We have extended IPv4 by about 2 decades through the use of address sharing but the amount of sharing is now going from 1 addresses per household to less than 1 address per household and the tricks that allow address sharing at the household level without to much administrative pain don't work between households.
Because 255.255.255.255.255.255.255.255.255.255.255.255.255.255.255.255. is actually harder to deal with than ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff: ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff.
IPv4 will mostly be gone on the Internet as a whole in 10 years. The only thing that will hold that back is people buying IPv4 only devices today. It is Sony, Samsung shipping IPv4 only TVs etc. that are the real problems today.
Yes. Comcast comes with IPv6 on by default, as do other ISPs.
1 in 5 homes in the US has IPv6 enabled today. See the IPv6 presentations at NANOG from a couple of days ago.
IPv6 is already here. It is measurably faster. It is easier to configure and manage. The cellular carriers are going IPv6 only. If you are using a modern Android or Windows phone you are talking IPv6 only from the phone. Facebook is IPv6 only. Microsoft are going IPv6 only. Google is going IPv6 only. Lots of data centres are going IPv6 only internally.
Thats if the band lasts. Mine's broken after 5 years. The metal loop the pin goes through has broken off. Just the wear and tear of taking it on and off once a day.