I've seen a telco run T1 over dual 768k DSL lines. They had a unit that presented a T1 on the client side, then connected back to the CO over two 768k synchronous DSL lines.
$600/month for a t1 is a little high, but not unusual. What you pay for with a t1 is not bandwidth, it is reliability, real-time monitoring, a dedicated circuit, and a SLA. T1 cost is dependent on distance from the CO and and how many phone companies the connection has to bridge through to get from your location to the service provider. T1's need a repeater every 655 feet and they roll that expense into the monthly charge. Internet providers also may may have to pay multiple telcos if they don't have a PoP (Point of Presence) in your phone company's facilities, and they have to bridge the connection across multiple telcos.
Around 2000, a company I worked for paid about 1100 per month for a t1. I repeatedly had resellers tell me they could cut that down to 400 or 500 per month only to have them call back a week later saying they couldn't do anything for me. To service the business, any Internet provider would have to chain that t1 through three different telephone companies, each wanting their cut, to connect to their PoP, thirty miles away. The incumbent telco didn't offer any sort of business Internet service at the time. This was not a sparsely populated area, but three different phone companies have carved up the county into 3 territories, and none of them were interested in making any investment in the region. So, we had to go outside the county just to find a decent Internet provider.
It depends. I had a quote for a place I used to work for about $22,000 to run fiber out to our location in an outer suburb. The ISP eventually did a project where they ran fiber down the street, and it cost us only 9 grand to tap into it. It should have been a lot less, but they ended up having to bore underground for 1/8 of a mile to get the fiber into our facility. The local power company wanted to charge an unreasonable amount of money to attach to the poles on our own property.
Perhaps the obvious solution is to allow cities to put in their own ISP structure, but then that's government using it's advantage of force to compete unfairly with private business, which is the reasonable argument for some states to prevent such competition.
Not necessarily. A local municipality could build out a fiber network, maintain just the last mile connections and the layer 2 switching infrastructure, and lease that infrastructure to one or more ISPs who would link to the Internet and provide TV and phone service. US cable and phone providers don't rent out their infrastructure to other ISPs like this, at least not for general consumers, so there is no private business for the local municipality to to compete with.
Another option is to break up the local cable and telco monopolies. Separate the local loop from the Internet, TV, and phone service providers and put everyone on an equal footing.
A third option is for the local governments to seize the cable plant and infrastructure under public domain laws and give the cable operators and telcos a big middle finger. Considering how bad the cable, phone, and Internet service is in my region, I can't see how it would get any worse under government control.
I like how the ISPs charge netflix to do that. Install local servers.
IIRC it was just about getting Netflix to pay the power to run the servers. Which was not as inflammatory as I thought so I went back to checking my eggs.
Seriously? If it was just about power to run servers Netfilx would have sent them 100 bucks a month and called it a day.
Netflix gives the caching servers away for free, and once it's in place the ISP saves money on transit charges with the tier 1 backbones, Netflix saves money on transit charges, Netflix customers get better service because the video is served locally, and non-Netfilx subscribers get better service because congestion on peering connections is reduced. It's a win - win - win - win situation.
But, Comcast wants its pound of flesh. Outside estimates, (the deal is not public information), are that Netflix is paying Comcast between 25 and 50 million per year for a peering agreement. That's a lot more than the cost of electricity.
Because the coming time warner / comcast behemoth will be the ISP for a huge portion of the us. I have seen estimates between 30% and 50% percent of US Internet subscribers. Being the gateway to the Internet for that many people, and frequently the only choice in an area for high-speed Internet access, they will have tremendous leverage in negotiations with video providers, like Netfilx and Hulu. TWC/Comcast will have the power to pick winners and losers, and have already started flexing their muscles.
This is not a discussion about delivering a service better, it's about the power large ISPs have as gatekeepers between companies and potential customers. I am a Netflix subscriber, and I only have a 1.5 Mb connection. Netflix works exceptionally well for me. My ISP is the local phone company. I have friends and acquaintances on Time Warner with 15 and 20 Mb connections for whom Netflix was unwatchable until after they signed the peering agreement with TWC.
Frankly, that sound like a eugenics argument. We have somewhere around 3 million births every year in the US. Our population will not shrink if a few thousand or tens of thousands more people die per year. However, the increased burden of illness could severely damage our economy and reduce everyone's well being. In addition, choosing vaccinations or not is not a matter of intelligence, but rather of ignorance. That is something that can not be cured by modern technology or by evolution.
It is my kid. I looked at all of the research I could on all of the vaccines on my daughter's schedule, and decided to get them all. In particular, I was hesitant about the chicken pox vaccination. Because seriously, who dies form chicken pox? Apparently, about 100 kids in the US per year, before immunization for the virus became widespread. As small as that rate is, the odds of her dying from chicken pox were greater than the odds of having a serious reaction to the vaccine.
This is what modern westerners fail to understand. Without childhood immunizations we would be facing hundreds of thousands of childhood deaths each year in the US and Europe from preventable diseases. Our immunization programs have been so successful that modern parents don't know what it was like to loose siblings and classmates to measles or to see friends and relatives crippled by polio and have to be placed in an iron lung.
Yes, vaccines have problems. No, companies should not be sheltered from prosecution for producing dangerous medicines, but lets put everything in perspective. I'll gladly trade a few illnesses or deaths caused by vaccines for the mountain of dead caused by diseases.
The proxy is most likely transparent. When a web browser attempts an HTTPS connection the firewall responds to the client as if it were the server and sends a self-signed public key. Then it makes a connection to the destination server in the client's stead. Firefox complained because corporate IT had not installed the firewall as a trusted CA, like they had when they installed Chrome and IE. Realistically, IE inherits its certs from Windows and certs can be installed via Active Directory.
User: "Hi, I'm getting an error message when I go to my bank site."
Tech Support: "Oh, that's normal. Just click here, check that box, and then OK. In the mean time, go to our Internet troubleshooter. It will make sure you never see this error again."
User: "Thanks! You've been exceptionally helpful and I'm going to send your supervisor a positive review!"
A computer of such infinite and subtle complexity that organic life itself will form part of its operational matrix. And it shall be called... the Universe.
UK milk floats were entirely battery powered for decades, delivering hundreds of pints of milk to every house in the local town - they just used lead acid batteries and charged overnight. If you ever got stuck behind one, you quickly (!) found out the limitations of the technology of the time.
I'd rather have that than the BS backroom deals than we have now. People won't stand for ISPs that nickle and dime them for watching video streaming services. On the other hand, people will put up with having to pay 2 bucks extra per month to Netflix and Hulu.
I'd rather see the government seize the last-mile infrastructure under public domain rules. Let the local municipalities and counties operate and maintain the physical plant and let others sell Internet service to the populace.
AT&T pausing their gigabit rollout when the President announces that he wants to make broadband a utility is completely reasonable. They have no idea what is going to happen, so it is hard to justify continuing to spend $$$ with the network upgrades.
Really? It's not like The Feds are going to swoop in and seize AT&T's network infrastructure. The only effective difference regulations will make is is whether AT&T will make significant returns on their investment or obscene returns. The President can't force the FCC to act or to act quickly, and he can't dictate the shape of regulations. It will take regulators months to finalize any changes, assuming they do it at all, and will likely not going to go into effect for a long while after that. So AT&T is really putting a large portion of their business on pause for the next many months to a year because of something a President said in a press release that literally changes nothing? I don't buy it.
According to TFA, the workers were brought in to "help install the company's computer network and systems in connection with the move of the company's headquarters from Foster City to Fremont." That sounds more like IT technician work, which is not exempted from overtime in California.
There is an easier way to sum up the "Double Irish".
Ireland taxes companies based on where they are managed, but the US taxes companies based on where they realize profits and loses (as do most countries). A US company will set up an Irish subsidiary but manage it from the US, or anywhere else outside of Ireland, then transfer it's intellectual property to the subsidiary, who licenses use of said IP back to the parent company. The parent company realizes no profits in the US after paying licensing fees to the Irish subsidiary, so the US collects no taxes. The subsidiary is managed from a foreign company, so Ireland collects no taxes. That's it in a nutshell.
There are further complications where a second Irish subsidiary will be formed plus a Bermuda based shell company, but those are just for dotting the i's and crossing the t's. A further trick can be used with a Dutch company, aka. a "Dutch Sandwich", to minimize taxes even more.
Slashdot Mirror
I've seen a telco run T1 over dual 768k DSL lines. They had a unit that presented a T1 on the client side, then connected back to the CO over two 768k synchronous DSL lines.
$600/month for a t1 is a little high, but not unusual. What you pay for with a t1 is not bandwidth, it is reliability, real-time monitoring, a dedicated circuit, and a SLA. T1 cost is dependent on distance from the CO and and how many phone companies the connection has to bridge through to get from your location to the service provider. T1's need a repeater every 655 feet and they roll that expense into the monthly charge. Internet providers also may may have to pay multiple telcos if they don't have a PoP (Point of Presence) in your phone company's facilities, and they have to bridge the connection across multiple telcos.
Around 2000, a company I worked for paid about 1100 per month for a t1. I repeatedly had resellers tell me they could cut that down to 400 or 500 per month only to have them call back a week later saying they couldn't do anything for me. To service the business, any Internet provider would have to chain that t1 through three different telephone companies, each wanting their cut, to connect to their PoP, thirty miles away. The incumbent telco didn't offer any sort of business Internet service at the time. This was not a sparsely populated area, but three different phone companies have carved up the county into 3 territories, and none of them were interested in making any investment in the region. So, we had to go outside the county just to find a decent Internet provider.
Correction, that should read "eminent domain"
It depends. I had a quote for a place I used to work for about $22,000 to run fiber out to our location in an outer suburb. The ISP eventually did a project where they ran fiber down the street, and it cost us only 9 grand to tap into it. It should have been a lot less, but they ended up having to bore underground for 1/8 of a mile to get the fiber into our facility. The local power company wanted to charge an unreasonable amount of money to attach to the poles on our own property.
Perhaps the obvious solution is to allow cities to put in their own ISP structure, but then that's government using it's advantage of force to compete unfairly with private business, which is the reasonable argument for some states to prevent such competition.
Not necessarily. A local municipality could build out a fiber network, maintain just the last mile connections and the layer 2 switching infrastructure, and lease that infrastructure to one or more ISPs who would link to the Internet and provide TV and phone service. US cable and phone providers don't rent out their infrastructure to other ISPs like this, at least not for general consumers, so there is no private business for the local municipality to to compete with.
Another option is to break up the local cable and telco monopolies. Separate the local loop from the Internet, TV, and phone service providers and put everyone on an equal footing.
A third option is for the local governments to seize the cable plant and infrastructure under public domain laws and give the cable operators and telcos a big middle finger. Considering how bad the cable, phone, and Internet service is in my region, I can't see how it would get any worse under government control.
I like how the ISPs charge netflix to do that. Install local servers.
IIRC it was just about getting Netflix to pay the power to run the servers.
Which was not as inflammatory as I thought so I went back to checking my eggs.
Seriously? If it was just about power to run servers Netfilx would have sent them 100 bucks a month and called it a day.
Netflix gives the caching servers away for free, and once it's in place the ISP saves money on transit charges with the tier 1 backbones, Netflix saves money on transit charges, Netflix customers get better service because the video is served locally, and non-Netfilx subscribers get better service because congestion on peering connections is reduced. It's a win - win - win - win situation.
But, Comcast wants its pound of flesh. Outside estimates, (the deal is not public information), are that Netflix is paying Comcast between 25 and 50 million per year for a peering agreement. That's a lot more than the cost of electricity.
Because the coming time warner / comcast behemoth will be the ISP for a huge portion of the us. I have seen estimates between 30% and 50% percent of US Internet subscribers. Being the gateway to the Internet for that many people, and frequently the only choice in an area for high-speed Internet access, they will have tremendous leverage in negotiations with video providers, like Netfilx and Hulu. TWC/Comcast will have the power to pick winners and losers, and have already started flexing their muscles.
This is not a discussion about delivering a service better, it's about the power large ISPs have as gatekeepers between companies and potential customers. I am a Netflix subscriber, and I only have a 1.5 Mb connection. Netflix works exceptionally well for me. My ISP is the local phone company. I have friends and acquaintances on Time Warner with 15 and 20 Mb connections for whom Netflix was unwatchable until after they signed the peering agreement with TWC.
Frankly, that sound like a eugenics argument. We have somewhere around 3 million births every year in the US. Our population will not shrink if a few thousand or tens of thousands more people die per year. However, the increased burden of illness could severely damage our economy and reduce everyone's well being. In addition, choosing vaccinations or not is not a matter of intelligence, but rather of ignorance. That is something that can not be cured by modern technology or by evolution.
It is my kid. I looked at all of the research I could on all of the vaccines on my daughter's schedule, and decided to get them all. In particular, I was hesitant about the chicken pox vaccination. Because seriously, who dies form chicken pox? Apparently, about 100 kids in the US per year, before immunization for the virus became widespread. As small as that rate is, the odds of her dying from chicken pox were greater than the odds of having a serious reaction to the vaccine.
The oral Polio vaccine comes to mind. It has a small but measurable chance of causing Polio and was banned for use in the US in 2000.
This is what modern westerners fail to understand. Without childhood immunizations we would be facing hundreds of thousands of childhood deaths each year in the US and Europe from preventable diseases. Our immunization programs have been so successful that modern parents don't know what it was like to loose siblings and classmates to measles or to see friends and relatives crippled by polio and have to be placed in an iron lung.
Yes, vaccines have problems. No, companies should not be sheltered from prosecution for producing dangerous medicines, but lets put everything in perspective. I'll gladly trade a few illnesses or deaths caused by vaccines for the mountain of dead caused by diseases.
http://www.unicef.org/immuniza...
Here is a rebuttal article http://scienceblogs.com/insole...
The proxy is most likely transparent. When a web browser attempts an HTTPS connection the firewall responds to the client as if it were the server and sends a self-signed public key. Then it makes a connection to the destination server in the client's stead. Firefox complained because corporate IT had not installed the firewall as a trusted CA, like they had when they installed Chrome and IE. Realistically, IE inherits its certs from Windows and certs can be installed via Active Directory.
This is an easy one.
User: "Hi, I'm getting an error message when I go to my bank site."
Tech Support: "Oh, that's normal. Just click here, check that box, and then OK. In the mean time, go to our Internet troubleshooter. It will make sure you never see this error again."
User: "Thanks! You've been exceptionally helpful and I'm going to send your supervisor a positive review!"
A computer of such infinite and subtle complexity that organic life itself will form part of its operational matrix. And it shall be called... the Universe.
UK milk floats were entirely battery powered for decades, delivering hundreds of pints of milk to every house in the local town - they just used lead acid batteries and charged overnight. If you ever got stuck behind one, you quickly (!) found out the limitations of the technology of the time.
Limited? Perhaps they were, but they did provide for some thrilling television.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I'd rather have that than the BS backroom deals than we have now. People won't stand for ISPs that nickle and dime them for watching video streaming services. On the other hand, people will put up with having to pay 2 bucks extra per month to Netflix and Hulu.
I'd rather see the government seize the last-mile infrastructure under public domain rules. Let the local municipalities and counties operate and maintain the physical plant and let others sell Internet service to the populace.
AT&T pausing their gigabit rollout when the President announces that he wants to make broadband a utility is completely reasonable. They have no idea what is going to happen, so it is hard to justify continuing to spend $$$ with the network upgrades.
Really? It's not like The Feds are going to swoop in and seize AT&T's network infrastructure. The only effective difference regulations will make is is whether AT&T will make significant returns on their investment or obscene returns. The President can't force the FCC to act or to act quickly, and he can't dictate the shape of regulations. It will take regulators months to finalize any changes, assuming they do it at all, and will likely not going to go into effect for a long while after that. So AT&T is really putting a large portion of their business on pause for the next many months to a year because of something a President said in a press release that literally changes nothing? I don't buy it.
According to TFA, the workers were brought in to "help install the company's computer network and systems in connection with the move of the company's headquarters from Foster City to Fremont." That sounds more like IT technician work, which is not exempted from overtime in California.
Most wilderness areas are restricted to day trips only, i.e. no camping, without a permit.
Clearly you have not been paying attention.
http://www.fbi.gov/stats-servi...
"Highly" trained?
There is an easier way to sum up the "Double Irish".
Ireland taxes companies based on where they are managed, but the US taxes companies based on where they realize profits and loses (as do most countries). A US company will set up an Irish subsidiary but manage it from the US, or anywhere else outside of Ireland, then transfer it's intellectual property to the subsidiary, who licenses use of said IP back to the parent company. The parent company realizes no profits in the US after paying licensing fees to the Irish subsidiary, so the US collects no taxes. The subsidiary is managed from a foreign company, so Ireland collects no taxes. That's it in a nutshell.
There are further complications where a second Irish subsidiary will be formed plus a Bermuda based shell company, but those are just for dotting the i's and crossing the t's. A further trick can be used with a Dutch company, aka. a "Dutch Sandwich", to minimize taxes even more.
Oh, peace... SHUT UP!