OnePlus NEVER made their phones. I'm not sure why this mistake is made over and over and over by One plus fans. OnePlus repackages and slightly customizes Oppo phones. They have NEVER made their own phones. That's why they can get away with the price break. Whatever Oppo makes? That's what the OnePlus is going to look like.
Exactly. In my opinion, they found a singular instance where they where able to cause a cascading failure, which I totally buy. Cascading failures have happened in the past, such as the entire east coast going dark in what, the early 2000's? But this is not very representative of a real world, repeatable scenario.
In the US, companies aren't going to invest in running the 30 miles of fiber between some towns. That's the crux of the issue, really. While our persons per sq kilometer is double what yours is average density wise, there is a great cost in running the actual lines to these locations.
As an example, the US has 5.5 million miles of just local power lines going to these homes. 5.5 million miles of fiber optic cable costs a whole boatload to run.
So what your saying is, because there's bad traffic in the morning north on Boston on I93, we can no longer call I93 a highway? This is about what is considered the minimum speed we can call it a broadband connection. NOT the speed which is desirable for your specific usage.
And I have to say, last year I was streaming 4k video over a 30 Megabit fiber connection, so I dunno what your doing that you'd consider 60 megabit laggy during peak times. Watching 3 4k connections while torrenting movies?
I would be overjoyed if the entire country had access to a minimum of 25 megabit data connections. I see nothing wrong with this being the minimum speed. Heck, not long ago I had fiber giving me 30.
Now, it should be noted I'm on Gigabit personally....
Sorry, but they where able to induce a bad problem when fed into software unpublished software models based on Polands energy grid from 12 years ago. The article infers that power companies cannot tolerate a 1% unpredictability, and that is simply inherently false.
I really, really wonder how people who absolutely refuse to ever learn anything make it past first grade.
No, I don't have the customer tell me, via QOS bits, how to shape and police traffic. That does not mean our $100 billion network is nothing but a dumb cable.
Telling us how to shape traffic is not the customer's job.
ISP networks are not dumb cables. But their also not user data centric either. Unless of course you propose that your super-network is performing SPI on all the user data (which your not, BTW). In a best case scenario, there is port based flow going on.
And here's a little hint. When you say the end user routers don't matter? Their NATing all that traffic you pinhead. Those are the routers that are doing the bulk of the prioritization work.
Oh, and I SO hope you work for Comcast, if anything, to point and laugh when ISP networks go down for hours at a time.
There is one super special kind of person who exists on the internet. This particular one who makes claims however provides absolutely no information to back up his claims. Furthermore, believes that somehow, his own positions are validated by making snide comments validates their own idiocy.
Simply put, ISP's do not, without a special contract in place, shape your traffic. They also do not provide QoS on anything without a special contract, except for THEIR OWN traffic.
Oh yea, and ding-dong? You're not going to send all your packets thru the buffer, since it's a DSP thing. Your RTP packets have already gone thru the internet, and been delivered to the buffer, flow or not, you moron. And again, we're not talking abnout how YOU treat your packets IN YOUR OWN NETWORKS, we're talking about how your ISP treats your packets.
Well now, wouldn't, based on your logic, the *carrier* be doing all this work? The entire *point* of this entire conversation is, that the public internet actively provides QoS capabilities on the internet as a whole, and that the carriers automatically perform free prioritization, and this is why VoIP can work on the internet at all.
And obviously *YOUR* router performs flow control. But your carriers DON'T, unless you pay for that feature and are specifically routing between your own endpoints. Do you REALLY think that your home networks are doing active flow control? That Comcast Business connections are respecting your QoS bits on packets ingressing into their network? Your being idiotic. COMCAST DOES NOT SUPPORT QOS OF ANY SORT. As a matter of fact, MOST ISP'S DON'T. And their ALSO not performing flow analysis of your traffic. By all means, show me a single shred of evidence that a top 10 ISP utilizes ANY of the points your talking about.
And if your employer is paying you 3 million a year, their obviously not getting their moneys worth, assuming, we are talking about the general internet here. And point to point tunnels do NOT count here, because THAT'S where the money is to provide that capability, and THAT'S not the internet.
Well, you should REALLY tell the rest of the internet that paying extra to ISPs to have them resepect QoS on ingress/egress routes is wasting their money I suppose. I mean, WHY exactly would people pay SO much extra money for such a thing, right?
As for 'your local router', I challenge you to take a cheapo netgear, and a Ubiquity EdgeRouter, connect it to an xfinity gigabit connection, and go ahead and tell me that your local router doesn't matter.
Oh, and for those small companies who are installing Cisco gear, might as well tell them their all wasting their money, since the router can't matter much, might as well just toss some cheap linksys's at them.
Oh yea, and the #1 method used to reduce the jitter is the use of the playout delay buffer in the case of Cisco gear. Might want to give them a call and let them know, total waste of time, and you can handle all their jitter problems. I'm sure they would LOVE to hear from you.
Yes, however, everything about managing the jittering of VoIP is based on the local and remote routers. The internet backbones themselves aren't doing what your talking about. While everything you've said is true, the special handling is NOT occurring outside of your own routers. Raw bandwidth is.
"Treat every packet the same" would be disastrous, making VoIP virtually impossible. Some of the goals related to NN are certainly good, and I'd like to see them happen, but writing a law will be tricky because the technical details are very complex.
Your VoIP UDP packets, right now, at this very moment, are treated the same as every other packet on the internet as a whole. I'm not sure why you have the impression that VoIP is treated any differently then your porn videos....
QoS is only used by your private networks, to send QoS flagged packets out the router, but the internet? It could care less.
While your eating your memberberries, also recall how DSL never evolved to provide faster connections over those copper wires? Yup. Common carrier. It's easy to pass a law that says 'Anyone can access', but once you do? No new development of technologies.
Slashdot Mirror
They have the ability to override his veto, he's not "doing it".
Just like the new phones, the old One plus phones where based on one single factor. Rebranding Oppo phones under a viral campaign.
OnePlus NEVER made their phones. I'm not sure why this mistake is made over and over and over by One plus fans. OnePlus repackages and slightly customizes Oppo phones. They have NEVER made their own phones. That's why they can get away with the price break. Whatever Oppo makes? That's what the OnePlus is going to look like.
Exactly. In my opinion, they found a singular instance where they where able to cause a cascading failure, which I totally buy. Cascading failures have happened in the past, such as the entire east coast going dark in what, the early 2000's? But this is not very representative of a real world, repeatable scenario.
In the US, companies aren't going to invest in running the 30 miles of fiber between some towns. That's the crux of the issue, really. While our persons per sq kilometer is double what yours is average density wise, there is a great cost in running the actual lines to these locations.
As an example, the US has 5.5 million miles of just local power lines going to these homes. 5.5 million miles of fiber optic cable costs a whole boatload to run.
Gigabit connections in the US are 100+ USD a month, and are only available more urban areas generally. How do they connect to your home?
I'm going to have to blame really, really bad translations on what your saying. We're talking line speed here, not data caps.
So what your saying is, because there's bad traffic in the morning north on Boston on I93, we can no longer call I93 a highway? This is about what is considered the minimum speed we can call it a broadband connection. NOT the speed which is desirable for your specific usage.
And I have to say, last year I was streaming 4k video over a 30 Megabit fiber connection, so I dunno what your doing that you'd consider 60 megabit laggy during peak times. Watching 3 4k connections while torrenting movies?
I would be overjoyed if the entire country had access to a minimum of 25 megabit data connections. I see nothing wrong with this being the minimum speed. Heck, not long ago I had fiber giving me 30.
Now, it should be noted I'm on Gigabit personally....
Sorry, but they where able to induce a bad problem when fed into software unpublished software models based on Polands energy grid from 12 years ago. The article infers that power companies cannot tolerate a 1% unpredictability, and that is simply inherently false.
So what you saying is. You just want to see big roman candles. You know, since you just want to simulate the old military rockets..
On a lighter note, I giggled a little when I saw my UID was lower then yours. :-P Congrats and good luck with the remainder of case tho! :-P
I really, really wonder how people who absolutely refuse to ever learn anything make it past first grade.
No, I don't have the customer tell me, via QOS bits, how to shape and police traffic. That does not mean our $100 billion network is nothing but a dumb cable.
Telling us how to shape traffic is not the customer's job.
ISP networks are not dumb cables. But their also not user data centric either. Unless of course you propose that your super-network is performing SPI on all the user data (which your not, BTW). In a best case scenario, there is port based flow going on.
And here's a little hint. When you say the end user routers don't matter? Their NATing all that traffic you pinhead. Those are the routers that are doing the bulk of the prioritization work.
Oh, and I SO hope you work for Comcast, if anything, to point and laugh when ISP networks go down for hours at a time.
There is one super special kind of person who exists on the internet. This particular one who makes claims however provides absolutely no information to back up his claims. Furthermore, believes that somehow, his own positions are validated by making snide comments validates their own idiocy.
Simply put, ISP's do not, without a special contract in place, shape your traffic. They also do not provide QoS on anything without a special contract, except for THEIR OWN traffic.
https://www.ics.uci.edu/~sjord...
Provide a link to a single ISP that provides QoS service on ingress/egress of their network. Just one major provider.
Oh yea, and ding-dong? You're not going to send all your packets thru the buffer, since it's a DSP thing. Your RTP packets have already gone thru the internet, and been delivered to the buffer, flow or not, you moron. And again, we're not talking abnout how YOU treat your packets IN YOUR OWN NETWORKS, we're talking about how your ISP treats your packets.
Well now, wouldn't, based on your logic, the *carrier* be doing all this work? The entire *point* of this entire conversation is, that the public internet actively provides QoS capabilities on the internet as a whole, and that the carriers automatically perform free prioritization, and this is why VoIP can work on the internet at all.
And obviously *YOUR* router performs flow control. But your carriers DON'T, unless you pay for that feature and are specifically routing between your own endpoints. Do you REALLY think that your home networks are doing active flow control? That Comcast Business connections are respecting your QoS bits on packets ingressing into their network? Your being idiotic. COMCAST DOES NOT SUPPORT QOS OF ANY SORT. As a matter of fact, MOST ISP'S DON'T. And their ALSO not performing flow analysis of your traffic. By all means, show me a single shred of evidence that a top 10 ISP utilizes ANY of the points your talking about.
And if your employer is paying you 3 million a year, their obviously not getting their moneys worth, assuming, we are talking about the general internet here. And point to point tunnels do NOT count here, because THAT'S where the money is to provide that capability, and THAT'S not the internet.
Well, you should REALLY tell the rest of the internet that paying extra to ISPs to have them resepect QoS on ingress/egress routes is wasting their money I suppose. I mean, WHY exactly would people pay SO much extra money for such a thing, right?
As for 'your local router', I challenge you to take a cheapo netgear, and a Ubiquity EdgeRouter, connect it to an xfinity gigabit connection, and go ahead and tell me that your local router doesn't matter.
Oh, and for those small companies who are installing Cisco gear, might as well tell them their all wasting their money, since the router can't matter much, might as well just toss some cheap linksys's at them.
Oh yea, and the #1 method used to reduce the jitter is the use of the playout delay buffer in the case of Cisco gear. Might want to give them a call and let them know, total waste of time, and you can handle all their jitter problems. I'm sure they would LOVE to hear from you.
Yes, however, everything about managing the jittering of VoIP is based on the local and remote routers. The internet backbones themselves aren't doing what your talking about. While everything you've said is true, the special handling is NOT occurring outside of your own routers. Raw bandwidth is.
You know you can just go plot it yourself, right? Twitter stock is just now making it back to it's opening day price..
If you've never watched Person of Interest, this subject line will make no sense to you.. :-P
Actually, our Netflix bills went up 4 times during Net Neutrality.. :-P
"Treat every packet the same" would be disastrous, making VoIP virtually impossible. Some of the goals related to NN are certainly good, and I'd like to see them happen, but writing a law will be tricky because the technical details are very complex.
Your VoIP UDP packets, right now, at this very moment, are treated the same as every other packet on the internet as a whole. I'm not sure why you have the impression that VoIP is treated any differently then your porn videos....
QoS is only used by your private networks, to send QoS flagged packets out the router, but the internet? It could care less.
Your obviously a special child, who isn't aware that QoS bits only apply to public networks, and not are meaningless over the internet.
While your eating your memberberries, also recall how DSL never evolved to provide faster connections over those copper wires? Yup. Common carrier. It's easy to pass a law that says 'Anyone can access', but once you do? No new development of technologies.
There is no allegedly. He's admitted to selling Malware for cash. The proven guilty is self admittance.