When I saw it on Saturday night there was a crowd of twenty to thirty people looking on. That's 2W each, much better than I get out of the 11W flourescents in my house most of the time.
It looks fantastic, not having been aware of any of the publicity I saw it, stopped and stared and the chronophage ate ten minutes of my life as I stared and marvelled at hour fantastic it was.
I haven't yet managed to translate the latin inscription beneath though. If anyone knows the answer do tell.
"A prius is currently using about 7cent/mile (and an SUV up to 25 cent/mile). A plug-in SUV would use about 0.4 cent/mile, or about 17 TIMES less than a prius."
A Tesla Roadster, at current electricity prices (12c/kWh) uses 4c/mile according to the manufacturers, and weighs about 1220kg. A typical SUV weighs more like 3000kg, and has shocking aerodynamics by comparison.
To get your 0.4c/mile value, we need the electricity cost to plummet by 90% and your average SUV to get the same energy efficiency as a Tesla Roadster. We should bear in mind that a Lotus Elise has at least twice the fuel economy of a typical SUV (30mpg versus 10-16mpg). So the efficiency fairies need to pop up and make an electric SUV with double the fuel efficiency that the Tesla team have managed, and the nuclear fairies need to pop up and start producing electricity at 10% of the current cost.
"Suddenly that SUV that is about 12% efficient at 16 miles per gallon doesn't seem at all wasteful anymore. If you could somehow digest oil, you wouldn't be able to run half that distance."
One litre of petrol contains approximately 8400kcal, and will propel a Toyta Prius about 14miles, a generic SUV about 4miles. By comparison I burn about 1500kcal of food running a half marathon (13.1 miles). If I could digest oil directly I'd be getting 73 miles per litre, almost a factor of twenty better than said SUV and five better than the Pruis.
The rest of your argument is just balls. Your calculation for the efficiency of humans is from energy emitted from the Sun, for cars from refined petrol, neatly skipping the sun->plant->fossilisation->drilling->refining->delivering steps.
It doesn't matter if the public are connecting to my router or not. Every time I go to connect to my router I get Big Sod Off This Is Dangerous Warning about How Terribly Unsafe It Is. Since it obviously isn't (it's a wire, I can see where the packets go) I get trained to believe that a: firefox is a piece of shit, b: click through all the warnings because they're balls.
The ssh method is much better, on the first connect I get a warning 'this traffic is encrypted but you may not be connecting to what you think you are', I hit 'okay', the cert is remembered and providing it wasn't intercepted that time I now have a fully functional certificate that I can use over the internet that can't be replaced by any bent employee of any SSL authority that my browser trusts.
Frankly, the security of 'you are talking to the same VoIP phone you talked to last time' is much better than the security of, 'you are talking to VoIP.yourdomain.com because BollocksSSLCorp once sent an email to postmaster@yourdomain.com and got a reply, and they say it's definitely and without a doubt true'
My copy of firefox has something like 50 root certificates installed, and my assurance is that the firefox team assert that none of them will ever give a certificate to someone dodgy.
Apparently I trust the Taiwan Government Root Certification Authority, and if they sign a certificate for www.bring-on-the-taiwanese-revolution.com then it's definitely trustworthy and I can be absolutely sure that the Taiwanese Government isn't intercepting my confidential communications.
I'd be much more secure talking to my bank, if when I got an account in addition to posting me my bank card, they also sent me a CD with their certificate on it to install into my browser. That way I only have to trust my bank, and not every other made up certificate authority that any random web-browser manufacturer choses to trust.
If the USERTRUST Network issue a certificate for BoA and my account gets cleaned out because my browser trusts it, who do I get a refund from ?
So looking around my desk I have a DSL router, a wifi access point, two VoIP phones and a managed switch all of which have self signed certificates. That's five seperate devices, which would add $135 / year to my computing costs.
Could you think of anything more useful to spend the $135 on than SSL certificates?
My router cost £20. A certificate costs ~ £60/year. I've used my router for nearly 5 years. Could you explain in detail how much benefit I would get from the extra £300/year - a 15000% increase in price ? Please bear in mind I can trace the cable all the way from my desktop machine to my router.
In particular, please give reference to the increased utility compared to other things I could do with that £300, for example buying a sanitation block for 150 Indian School children.
Just to clarify, the UK tax system with gift aid would increase the £300 to £384, given charitably, which is close enough to the £385 purchase price listed there.
Other things you might like to consider in your answer are why an SSL certificate for my router is more worthwhile than an eeePC (£200), six weeks food (~£300), a Linlithgow 30 year old whisky (£289) or a 24inch widescreen monitor (~£230).
then set up a socks proxy at localhost:3128, and you can stream as much as you like. Fortunately there's a thriving UK internet industry so a shell account / virtual server / dedicated server / beowulf cluster shouldn't be too hard to find.
If your business loses $1000/minute while it's offline, get a quote for insurance that pays out $1000/minute while you're offline. Alternatively if you're happy self insuring take the loss when it happens.
It's almost as if people believe that SLAs are a form of service guarantee instead of a free very bad insurance deal.
Europe really is different. Almost everybody drives a manual rather than an automatic. The car hire people tell me the only reason they have automatics is so they can rent out to foreign visitors, British customers will go to a different hire car firm if a manual shift isn't available.
"No Network Contention, No Port Blocking, No Traffic Shaping, No Bandwidth Throttling. No contention on our network is achieved by not oversubscribing our broadband services and ensuring that bandwidth investment exceeds customer demand."
I asked them about sharing, they said great, share with as many people as you like.
It's a capped service so I pay for extra traffic, but any sensible service should be. Once there's a bandwidth cap in place the ISPs compete by giving the fastest possible connection and best service - throttling loses them revenue. On unlimited services they compete on price and try to prevent you from using the connection to keep their costs down.
Our experience is if you try hard you can get a 1U machine on about 120W. The issue is all the data centres with decent connectivity are in East London where they're about to build the Olympics and I believe that planning permission for buildings with a high current draw won't be granted. Consequently for anything better you have to move out of London which means getting screwed on the fibre costs.
£35 = $70. The Americans have a massive competitive advantage, they have a cheap currency and they don't charge VAT. ex VAT annually it's £297.87 which works out at $49/month.
It's fair to say we charge a slight premium for our hosting, after all we figured out many of the issues in making Linux on the Mac Mini and AppleTV go,
We also install ncad by default - it's an ssh server that starts up before fsck in the boot process so you can recover from disk screwups / watch the lengthy fsck of your machine. We wrote that too (although before we started the company).
You might also be interested in the netboot recovery stuff we've got assuming you're a linux user. We could probably lower our monthly fees by making everything a chargeable extra, but we think that remote reboot, netboot recovery, secondary DNS, reverse dns, required IP addresses, basic SMS monitoring should all be included in the base price. We'd rather sell a decent service at a reasonable price, that sell the base service at or below cost and stick it to the customers with every extra thing they ask for.
Sure, we're £400/year inc VAT for Mac Mini colo with 100GB of traffic, which ex VAT and in dollars is about $670 / year. It's slightly higher but not much.
The AppleTV is about the same speed as a PowerPC Mini, comes in at ~ $580 with 100GB which includes the hardware.
I don't think there's a cheaper UK based dedicated server, but I could be wrong. US servers are cheaper because the dollar is 'competitively' priced. The 200ms ping time makes them less desirable to those of us in Europe though.
If you want to colocate in one of the major London data centres you get 2kW per rack. So that's 25 micro-servers you suggested, 50 Mac Minis or 100 AppleTVs.
The 2Ghz/2GB Mac Mini may cost more to buy than the micro server you've built but it halves your rackspace cost. Believe me, rackspace in London is not cheap.
If you can build a 1/2U server, with a Core 2, 2GB, hardware RAID and a power consumption of 60W under load, we're interested.
If you watch TV shows when you're sat in the data centre I guess is might be. If you're after a cheap dedicated linux server (and *lots* of people are) good luck finding something cheaper.
You need to understand how the internet in the UK is structured.
A broad approximation is the entire internet goes via either BT or NTL from your house to telehouse in Docklands. Bandwidth out of BT costs £70/Mbit. You can't resell NTLs cable modem service.
The BBC are peered with pretty much every internet provider in the UK, the entire cost is spent paying BT to get the bits from telehouse to the end user.
Lots of ISPs have sold 'unlimited' services at cheap prices, the smart ones with bandwidth caps and overage charges are fine.
There is a limited amount of local loop unbundling in the most profitable exchanges, but that's only used by the biggest ISPs who've driven the cost race to the bottom and they can't afford the bandwidth either.
In the UK bandwidth out of BTs ADSL network costs ~ £70/Mbit/Month wholesale. Consumer DSL costs ~ £20/month.
You've got three options,
#1 Have an uncapped uncontended link for the £20/month you pay - you'll get about 250kbps.
#2 Have a fast link with a low bandwidth cap - think 8Mbits with a 50GB cap and chargeable bandwidth after that at around ~ 50p-£1/GB
#3 Deal with an ISP who's selling bandwidth they don't have and expect them to try as hard as possible to make #1 look like #2 with no overage charges.
If you want a reliable fast internet connection you want to go with a company that advertises #2. If you can't afford #2, you can spend your time working against the techs at ISP #3, but expect them to go our of their way to make your life shit until you take your service elsewhere because you cost them money.
Oh please learn how nasty coal mining and power production is.
Coal contains uranium at 1.3ppm and thorium at 3.2ppm.
For electricity use we get 6000 kWH/ton out of coal and 2000000000 kWH/ton out of uranium.
To produce 1000kWH of electricity we use 5g of uranium plant. In a coal plant we release 0.2g of uranium and 0.5g of thorium into the atmosphere.
For equivalent radioactive output from a uranium plant, you have to grind up 4% of it's fuel and release it into the atmosphere directly over the plant.
The deaths due to Chernobyl are disputed but WHO estimates about 10000 people which is a lot less than your million people number. Hiroshima estimates are around 100,000 deaths with the highest estimates at 200,000 deaths - and that's for a nuclear weapon targeted directly at a civilian population.
Basically your numbers are made up and your comparisons flawed.
6000 coal miners die in China every year. That's 120000 people since 1986. Just because it isn't as dramatic doesn't mean they aren't still dead.
Let's quickly skip over the shortened lifespan of coal miners the world over. The reason coal miners get exceptional pensions is because it's very rare for a coal miner to collect it.
We colocate and run dedicated servers on Mac Minis. Electricity prices in London data centres are crippling. In a standard 2kW rack we get 55 Mac Minis - 37W each. The guys in the rack next door have 6 Dell 1950s. They look at us enviously and mumble about the cost of Windows server licences. On the other side we've got people with a HP blade server (just one!) unhappy that they haven't enough power to fill it with blades, whereas we've got 3 times as many CPU cores and a massively lower hardware cost.
It's a real problem because the UK infrastructure architecture is plain bizarre.
There are two types of ISPs,
BT / Virgin / Easynet + a few others who have unbundled kit in exchanges and their own pipes to exchanges
Everyone else who resells capacity from the above, who pays a fixed price for capacity irrespective of where in the country it came from.
All that capacity goes back to telehouse where LINX is and all the content and internet exchange takes place.
There is no peering at the local exchanges, or apart from London or Manchester.
So when a two BBC users with the P2P iplayer service but different ISPs, all the traffic goes to London and back again. Even if it's the same ISP the ISP doesn't see it until it leaves the resellers pipes in London at which point it gets shipped back down the pipe it came from. When I downloaded a programme on my laptop that was already on my desktop PC I got a download rate of 500Mbits as it streamed across my internal gigabit LAN - if we had peering at the exchanges and decent ADSL uplinks we should be able to do that within metropolitan areas.
Now this may work itself out - there aren't any really long distances in the UK, so we should be able to run 10Gbit ethernet backhaul between exchanges relatively quickly and cheaply for unbundled providers, but to really do it well we need peering in every major city between the majority of ISPs rather than the current model where every ISP ships all their traffic to London.
Slashdot Mirror
When I saw it on Saturday night there was a crowd of twenty to thirty people looking on. That's 2W each, much better than I get out of the 11W flourescents in my house most of the time.
It looks fantastic, not having been aware of any of the publicity I saw it, stopped and stared and the chronophage ate ten minutes of my life as I stared and marvelled at hour fantastic it was.
I haven't yet managed to translate the latin inscription beneath though. If anyone knows the answer do tell.
-1 pure fiction.
"A prius is currently using about 7cent/mile (and an SUV up to 25 cent/mile). A plug-in SUV would use about 0.4 cent/mile, or about 17 TIMES less than a prius."
A Tesla Roadster, at current electricity prices (12c/kWh) uses 4c/mile according to the manufacturers, and weighs about 1220kg. A typical SUV weighs more like 3000kg, and has shocking aerodynamics by comparison.
To get your 0.4c/mile value, we need the electricity cost to plummet by 90% and your average SUV to get the same energy efficiency as a Tesla Roadster. We should bear in mind that a Lotus Elise has at least twice the fuel economy of a typical SUV (30mpg versus 10-16mpg). So the efficiency fairies need to pop up and make an electric SUV with double the fuel efficiency that the Tesla team have managed, and the nuclear fairies need to pop up and start producing electricity at 10% of the current cost.
-1 Just Wrong.
You state,
"Suddenly that SUV that is about 12% efficient at 16 miles per gallon doesn't seem at all wasteful anymore. If you could somehow digest oil, you wouldn't be able to run half that distance."
One litre of petrol contains approximately 8400kcal, and will propel a Toyta Prius about 14miles, a generic SUV about 4miles. By comparison I burn about 1500kcal of food running a half marathon (13.1 miles). If I could digest oil directly I'd be getting 73 miles per litre, almost a factor of twenty better than said SUV and five better than the Pruis.
The rest of your argument is just balls. Your calculation for the efficiency of humans is from energy emitted from the Sun, for cars from refined petrol, neatly skipping the sun->plant->fossilisation->drilling->refining->delivering steps.
"Oh for christ sake. Just tell Firefox to accept your certificate and get on with life."
Yes, because educating users to ignore all the warnings from firefox is absolutely the best way to solve this problem isn't it ?
It doesn't matter if the public are connecting to my router or not. Every time I go to connect to my router I get Big Sod Off This Is Dangerous Warning about How Terribly Unsafe It Is. Since it obviously isn't (it's a wire, I can see where the packets go) I get trained to believe that a: firefox is a piece of shit, b: click through all the warnings because they're balls.
The ssh method is much better, on the first connect I get a warning 'this traffic is encrypted but you may not be connecting to what you think you are', I hit 'okay', the cert is remembered and providing it wasn't intercepted that time I now have a fully functional certificate that I can use over the internet that can't be replaced by any bent employee of any SSL authority that my browser trusts.
Frankly, the security of 'you are talking to the same VoIP phone you talked to last time' is much better than the security of, 'you are talking to VoIP.yourdomain.com because BollocksSSLCorp once sent an email to postmaster@yourdomain.com and got a reply, and they say it's definitely and without a doubt true'
My copy of firefox has something like 50 root certificates installed, and my assurance is that the firefox team assert that none of them will ever give a certificate to someone dodgy.
Apparently I trust the Taiwan Government Root Certification Authority, and if they sign a certificate for www.bring-on-the-taiwanese-revolution.com then it's definitely trustworthy and I can be absolutely sure that the Taiwanese Government isn't intercepting my confidential communications.
I'd be much more secure talking to my bank, if when I got an account in addition to posting me my bank card, they also sent me a CD with their certificate on it to install into my browser. That way I only have to trust my bank, and not every other made up certificate authority that any random web-browser manufacturer choses to trust.
If the USERTRUST Network issue a certificate for BoA and my account gets cleaned out because my browser trusts it, who do I get a refund from ?
So looking around my desk I have a DSL router, a wifi access point, two VoIP phones and a managed switch all of which have self signed certificates. That's five seperate devices, which would add $135 / year to my computing costs.
Could you think of anything more useful to spend the $135 on than SSL certificates?
My router cost £20. A certificate costs ~ £60/year. I've used my router for nearly 5 years. Could you explain in detail how much benefit I would get from the extra £300/year - a 15000% increase in price ? Please bear in mind I can trace the cable all the way from my desktop machine to my router.
In particular, please give reference to the increased utility compared to other things I could do with that £300, for example buying a sanitation block for 150 Indian School children.
http://www.wateraid.org/uk/donate/4467.asp
Just to clarify, the UK tax system with gift aid would increase the £300 to £384, given charitably, which is close enough to the £385 purchase price listed there.
Other things you might like to consider in your answer are why an SSL certificate for my router is more worthwhile than an eeePC (£200), six weeks food (~£300), a Linlithgow 30 year old whisky (£289) or a 24inch widescreen monitor (~£230).
All you need is a UK machine you can ssh to.
ssh -D 3128 host.co.uk
then set up a socks proxy at localhost:3128, and you can stream as much as you like. Fortunately there's a thriving UK internet industry so a shell account / virtual server / dedicated server / beowulf cluster shouldn't be too hard to find.
SLA is not a substitute for business insurance.
If your business loses $1000/minute while it's offline, get a quote for insurance that pays out $1000/minute while you're offline. Alternatively if you're happy self insuring take the loss when it happens.
It's almost as if people believe that SLAs are a form of service guarantee instead of a free very bad insurance deal.
Europe really is different. Almost everybody drives a manual rather than an automatic. The car hire people tell me the only reason they have automatics is so they can rent out to foreign visitors, British customers will go to a different hire car firm if a manual shift isn't available.
My ISP says,
"No Network Contention, No Port Blocking, No Traffic Shaping, No Bandwidth Throttling. No contention on our network is achieved by not oversubscribing our broadband services and ensuring that bandwidth investment exceeds customer demand."
I asked them about sharing, they said great, share with as many people as you like.
It's a capped service so I pay for extra traffic, but any sensible service should be. Once there's a bandwidth cap in place the ISPs compete by giving the fastest possible connection and best service - throttling loses them revenue. On unlimited services they compete on price and try to prevent you from using the connection to keep their costs down.
Think about it, what would you rather have,
1Mbit unlimited, 1:1 contended
1Gbit, capped (say 50GB), 1000:1 contended, additional traffic chargeable at say, $1/GB.
Down that 1Mbit you'd get 1Mbit all the time and can download 320GB if you run it flat out.
Me, I'd take the capped Gbit. When I want to download the Ubuntu DVD it'd take 45s.
47U yes.
Our experience is if you try hard you can get a 1U machine on about 120W. The issue is all the data centres with decent connectivity are in East London where they're about to build the Olympics and I believe that planning permission for buildings with a high current draw won't be granted. Consequently for anything better you have to move out of London which means getting screwed on the fibre costs.
£35 = $70. The Americans have a massive competitive advantage, they have a cheap currency and they don't charge VAT. ex VAT annually it's £297.87 which works out at $49/month.
It's fair to say we charge a slight premium for our hosting, after all we figured out many of the issues in making Linux on the Mac Mini and AppleTV go,
http://www.mythic-beasts.com/resources/macmini/
http://www.mythic-beasts.com/resources/appletv/
We also install ncad by default - it's an ssh server that starts up before fsck in the boot process so you can recover from disk screwups / watch the lengthy fsck of your machine. We wrote that too (although before we started the company).
You might also be interested in the netboot recovery stuff we've got assuming you're a linux user. We could probably lower our monthly fees by making everything a chargeable extra, but we think that remote reboot, netboot recovery, secondary DNS, reverse dns, required IP addresses, basic SMS monitoring should all be included in the base price. We'd rather sell a decent service at a reasonable price, that sell the base service at or below cost and stick it to the customers with every extra thing they ask for.
Sure, we're £400/year inc VAT for Mac Mini colo with 100GB of traffic, which ex VAT and in dollars is about $670 / year. It's slightly higher but not much.
The AppleTV is about the same speed as a PowerPC Mini, comes in at ~ $580 with 100GB which includes the hardware.
I don't think there's a cheaper UK based dedicated server, but I could be wrong. US servers are cheaper because the dollar is 'competitively' priced. The 200ms ping time makes them less desirable to those of us in Europe though.
If you want to colocate in one of the major London data centres you get 2kW per rack. So that's 25 micro-servers you suggested, 50 Mac Minis or 100 AppleTVs.
The 2Ghz/2GB Mac Mini may cost more to buy than the micro server you've built but it halves your rackspace cost. Believe me, rackspace in London is not cheap.
If you can build a 1/2U server, with a Core 2, 2GB, hardware RAID and a power consumption of 60W under load, we're interested.
If you watch TV shows when you're sat in the data centre I guess is might be. If you're after a cheap dedicated linux server (and *lots* of people are) good luck finding something cheaper.
http://www.mythic-beasts.com/appletvdedicated.html
15-20W, 1Ghz Core Solo, 256MB RAM, 40GB disk, already plugged in, masterswitched and ready to go.
disclaimer: I'm one of the company founders.
You need to understand how the internet in the UK is structured.
A broad approximation is the entire internet goes via either BT or NTL from your house to telehouse in Docklands. Bandwidth out of BT costs £70/Mbit. You can't resell NTLs cable modem service.
The BBC are peered with pretty much every internet provider in the UK, the entire cost is spent paying BT to get the bits from telehouse to the end user.
Lots of ISPs have sold 'unlimited' services at cheap prices, the smart ones with bandwidth caps and overage charges are fine.
There is a limited amount of local loop unbundling in the most profitable exchanges, but that's only used by the biggest ISPs who've driven the cost race to the bottom and they can't afford the bandwidth either.
In the UK bandwidth out of BTs ADSL network costs ~ £70/Mbit/Month wholesale. Consumer DSL costs ~ £20/month.
You've got three options,
#1 Have an uncapped uncontended link for the £20/month you pay - you'll get about 250kbps.
#2 Have a fast link with a low bandwidth cap - think 8Mbits with a 50GB cap and chargeable bandwidth after that at around ~ 50p-£1/GB
#3 Deal with an ISP who's selling bandwidth they don't have and expect them to try as hard as possible to make #1 look like #2 with no overage charges.
If you want a reliable fast internet connection you want to go with a company that advertises #2. If you can't afford #2, you can spend your time working against the techs at ISP #3, but expect them to go our of their way to make your life shit until you take your service elsewhere because you cost them money.
Providing we do the parents too, the GCSE science project of 'how much dna do I share with my parents' should be awesome fun.
Oh please learn how nasty coal mining and power production is.
Coal contains uranium at 1.3ppm and thorium at 3.2ppm.
For electricity use we get 6000 kWH/ton out of coal and 2000000000 kWH/ton out of uranium.
To produce 1000kWH of electricity we use 5g of uranium plant. In a coal plant we release 0.2g of uranium and 0.5g of thorium into the atmosphere.
For equivalent radioactive output from a uranium plant, you have to grind up 4% of it's fuel and release it into the atmosphere directly over the plant.
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/4259/
http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html
The deaths due to Chernobyl are disputed but WHO estimates about 10000 people which is a lot less than your million people number. Hiroshima estimates are around 100,000 deaths with the highest estimates at 200,000 deaths - and that's for a nuclear weapon targeted directly at a civilian population.
Basically your numbers are made up and your comparisons flawed.
6000 coal miners die in China every year. That's 120000 people since 1986. Just because it isn't as dramatic doesn't mean they aren't still dead.
Let's quickly skip over the shortened lifespan of coal miners the world over. The reason coal miners get exceptional pensions is because it's very rare for a coal miner to collect it.
We colocate and run dedicated servers on Mac Minis. Electricity prices in London data centres are crippling. In a standard 2kW rack we get 55 Mac Minis - 37W each. The guys in the rack next door have 6 Dell 1950s. They look at us enviously and mumble about the cost of Windows server licences. On the other side we've got people with a HP blade server (just one!) unhappy that they haven't enough power to fill it with blades, whereas we've got 3 times as many CPU cores and a massively lower hardware cost.
http://www.mythic-beasts.com/
It's a real problem because the UK infrastructure architecture is plain bizarre.
There are two types of ISPs,
BT / Virgin / Easynet + a few others who have unbundled kit in exchanges and their own pipes to exchanges
Everyone else who resells capacity from the above, who pays a fixed price for capacity irrespective of where in the country it came from.
All that capacity goes back to telehouse where LINX is and all the content and internet exchange takes place.
There is no peering at the local exchanges, or apart from London or Manchester.
So when a two BBC users with the P2P iplayer service but different ISPs, all the traffic goes to London and back again. Even if it's the same ISP the ISP doesn't see it until it leaves the resellers pipes in London at which point it gets shipped back down the pipe it came from. When I downloaded a programme on my laptop that was already on my desktop PC I got a download rate of 500Mbits as it streamed across my internal gigabit LAN - if we had peering at the exchanges and decent ADSL uplinks we should be able to do that within metropolitan areas.
Now this may work itself out - there aren't any really long distances in the UK, so we should be able to run 10Gbit ethernet backhaul between exchanges relatively quickly and cheaply for unbundled providers, but to really do it well we need peering in every major city between the majority of ISPs rather than the current model where every ISP ships all their traffic to London.
I sincerely hope you manage to draw twice as much money from the healthcare system than you put in so it becomes an excellent financial investment.
Personally I'd rather stay healthy.