Actually, it does seem reasonable, as long as they do not degrade their best-effort traffic. If the best-effort traffic to most of the Internet is too poor for you, seek out a new ISP.
The way most ISPs will provide "enhanced" access to their customers is to run a direct connection to the content provider to provide a shorter path and larger pipes for that traffic to flow. Essentially, that content provider will become a customer of the ISP, and the ISP is justified in expecting payment for the service.
If the connection to the content provider saves the ISP money because that's less traffic on the links they pay for to have Internet connectivity, then they may do it for free as a peering connection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peering). But often, this isn't the case, because incremental bandwidth is cheap, while dedicated circuits are expensive. And of course, if the content provider needs faster access more than the ISP needs enhanced access to the content provider, there's not a lot of incentive to treat them as a peer rather than a customer.
In other news: In the interest of National Security, access to Aviation-relation government documents has been restricted to American aviators only, who will be required to sign an oath of fealty to gain access.
Speaking as a cable company DVR user, I have to say I wish it was using rebranded Tivo software... Maybe then I wouldn't end up with double copies of every show as it get repeated for the west coast.
I just can't justify the cost of a Tivo (especially HD) when the cable company offers it so cheap (~$9/mo vs ~$6/mo for a digital box)
Nitpick: 802.11b is generally Part 18, which is Industrial, Scientific, & Medical, vs Part 15 Radio Frequency devices. Phones, baby monitors, etc, generally fall in to the Part 15 space. The distinction is important; operators of Part 15 devices are responsible not to cause harmful interference with other users. Part 18 devices do not have the same requirements. To quote the ARRL's doc on part 15 & 18:
[...] if the ISM equipment is operating properly in its assigned band, any RFI it is causing must be accepted or corrected by the entity that is receiving the interference, including amateurs.
I don't think amateurs, or their main (US) organization, the ARRL, are against WiFi. I have a WiFi network at home and work, and hold an Extra class amateur license. I often sit at my radio with laptop and WiFi to hunt the net for rare stations on the air and to log.:-) I wouldn't be shocked if someone were to Netstumble around Newington, CT, they'd find a couple access points at ARRL HQ. Heck, I've seen initial discussions on a couple of mailing list whether putting an 802.11b device in space on an amateur satellite is doable from a protocol latency point of view, and from people who have put amateur satellites into space.:-)
In my ideal world, WiFi would get their own chunk 'o bandwidth to use that wouldn't interfere with anyone except themselves. I know the ARRL is pushing for amateurs to have a primary allocation in a portion of the amateur allocation at 2.4Ghz, but I don't think that would affect the standing with ISM devices. Anyone know differently?
Dork> I was under the impression it affected the way the devices Dork> spoke to each other given that there is an 'ad hoc' and Dork> 'infrastructure' mode for the cards. If I get it, the Dork> infrastructure mode only talks to the AP and sees other Dork> wireless clients through the AP and ad-hoc speaks directly Dork> from station to station with no AP involved. Yes, it's a Dork> bridge, but I think the cards have to know about it. Maybe Dork> I'm wrong... I think I've been wrong before:P
It certainly does seem to make a difference... It doesn't look like you can use the WEP encryption in ad-hoc/non-access-point mode, which makes it somewhat less desirable. You could always use IPSEC, but that's a bit of a pain.
Bob
-- Robert Snyder rsnyder@toontown.erial.nj.us ICQ #20900813
the way a UDP works is that several news admins are generating cancel messages for articles originating from @Home. If you go read the UDP FAQ you would know this. Anyone not wishing to participate in an active UDP can refuse to accept articles from the pseudosite udpcancel.
This is an opt-out database. This is the very thing the spam-fighters are trying to fight against.I'd be more impressed if they used an opt-in option, like NoCeM.
As a news admin, I'm sure you realize there are a large number of news sites, rightly or wrongly, running on auto-pilot, with no one paying attention to them unless the disk fills up. Choosing to honor the UDP isn't a choice on their part, and it's nothing their users are aware of.
Even if a site that ignores these cancels passes them on to another site which honors these cancels, the second site will get the cancels and the messages will go away. (It's magic!) The only news servers where the articles originating from @Home will be found are the guys who ignore the udpcancels.
Is that true? I would think that the aliasing technique discussed in the FAQ would cause such message to not be propagated by the news server in question, because it thought it had already passed them on...
Bob
-- Robert Snyder rsnyder@toontown.erial.nj.us ICQ #20900813
Slashdot Mirror
Phlly has the same thing with 26, 27R, 27L, all at 267.7 degrees (or 9R, 9L, 8 all at 87.7 if the winds aren't where they usually are).
http://flightaware.com/resources/airport/PHL/APD/AIRPORT+DIAGRAM/pdf
I suppose they might have done 27R, 27C, 27L instead, but I'm noft sure what the criteria is.
Actually, it does seem reasonable, as long as they do not degrade their best-effort traffic. If the best-effort traffic to most of the Internet is too poor for you, seek out a new ISP.
The way most ISPs will provide "enhanced" access to their customers is to run a direct connection to the content provider to provide a shorter path and larger pipes for that traffic to flow. Essentially, that content provider will become a customer of the ISP, and the ISP is justified in expecting payment for the service.
If the connection to the content provider saves the ISP money because that's less traffic on the links they pay for to have Internet connectivity, then they may do it for free as a peering connection (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peering). But often, this isn't the case, because incremental bandwidth is cheap, while dedicated circuits are expensive. And of course, if the content provider needs faster access more than the ISP needs enhanced access to the content provider, there's not a lot of incentive to treat them as a peer rather than a customer.
In other news: In the interest of National Security, access to Aviation-relation government documents has been restricted to American aviators only, who will be required to sign an oath of fealty to gain access.
Speaking as a cable company DVR user, I have to say I wish it was using rebranded Tivo software... Maybe then I wouldn't end up with double copies of every show as it get repeated for the west coast.
I just can't justify the cost of a Tivo (especially HD) when the cable company offers it so cheap (~$9/mo vs ~$6/mo for a digital box)
Errr, isn't Dual Link DVI only one port? It just uses all the pins in the connector. http://www.ddwg.org/dvi.html
The 6800 for the Mac actually has 2 Dual Link DVI ports, or "Dual Dual Link DVI."
point conceeded... I was looking at some bogus info. Someone ironic to be corrected on FCC regulations by someone from the UK. :-)
Nitpick: 802.11b is generally Part 18, which is Industrial, Scientific, & Medical, vs Part 15 Radio Frequency devices. Phones, baby monitors, etc, generally fall in to the Part 15 space. The distinction is important; operators of Part 15 devices are responsible not to cause harmful interference with other users. Part 18 devices do not have the same requirements. To quote the ARRL's doc on part 15 & 18:
I don't think amateurs, or their main (US) organization, the ARRL, are against WiFi. I have a WiFi network at home and work, and hold an Extra class amateur license. I often sit at my radio with laptop and WiFi to hunt the net for rare stations on the air and to log. :-) I wouldn't be shocked if someone were to Netstumble around Newington, CT, they'd find a couple access points at ARRL HQ. Heck, I've seen initial discussions on a couple of mailing list whether putting an 802.11b device in space on an amateur satellite is doable from a protocol latency point of view, and from people who have put amateur satellites into space. :-)
In my ideal world, WiFi would get their own chunk 'o bandwidth to use that wouldn't interfere with anyone except themselves. I know the ARRL is pushing for amateurs to have a primary allocation in a portion of the amateur allocation at 2.4Ghz, but I don't think that would affect the standing with ISM devices. Anyone know differently?
Dork> I was under the impression it affected the way the devices Dork> spoke to each other given that there is an 'ad hoc' and Dork> 'infrastructure' mode for the cards. If I get it, the Dork> infrastructure mode only talks to the AP and sees other Dork> wireless clients through the AP and ad-hoc speaks directly Dork> from station to station with no AP involved. Yes, it's a Dork> bridge, but I think the cards have to know about it. Maybe Dork> I'm wrong... I think I've been wrong before :P
It certainly does seem to make a difference... It doesn't look like you can use the WEP encryption in ad-hoc/non-access-point mode, which makes it somewhat less desirable. You could always use IPSEC, but that's a bit of a pain.
Bob
--
Robert Snyder rsnyder@toontown.erial.nj.us
ICQ #20900813
This is an opt-out database. This is the very thing the spam-fighters are trying to fight against.I'd be more impressed if they used an opt-in option, like NoCeM.
As a news admin, I'm sure you realize there are a large number of news sites, rightly or wrongly, running on auto-pilot, with no one paying attention to them unless the disk fills up. Choosing to honor the UDP isn't a choice on their part, and it's nothing their users are aware of.
Is that true? I would think that the aliasing technique discussed in the FAQ would cause such message to not be propagated by the news server in question, because it thought it had already passed them on...
Bob
--
Robert Snyder rsnyder@toontown.erial.nj.us
ICQ #20900813