Not a sizable one, but my wife's uncle trades produce from his farm for produce from his neighbors' farms for personal use. It's a small market, but it's a market. Technically the government acts as a controlling authority but in practice behavior is governed by a desire not to lose the neighbors' good will; the government never gets involved. Obviously, that doesn't scale. Which is my point; a 'free market' of any real size doesn't exist (for long). The best you find is a market where the actors have all relevant information and none of them have enough share to unilaterally push the price around. The only ways you get that is by (a) having a controlling authority regulating stuff; otherwise folks hide information and use it to gain more share to the point they control the price, or (b) by having all the actors decide not to hide info etc. The latter is improbable at scale. The former will probably eventually hit regulatory capture and go bad.
Not just without regulations, but without controlling authority. Which precludes corporate monopolies. So "uncompetitive" and "subverted by corporations" are both actually reasons to call it a not-free market.
Well, I say that's what I want because it makes sense, but I don't actually know how it breaks down. Do you have any figures you can share for how much of a monthly bill is typically fixed costs and how much is proportional to traffic?
Peering is between _peers_, approximate equals. A consumer-heavy network is not the equal of a content-heavy network. Peering is also generally between _transit_ networks, not endpoint networks. The fact that the traffic's destination is _inside_ the consumer network makes it a very different case than if the traffic were simply passing over the consumer network to reach some other network, because the traffic exists only because of the consumer's request. Should I get to charge Amazon for the privilege of sending me books?
I want my bill to be split into two parts, the fixed costs that don't change whether I shovel 1 bit per month or 1 terabyte, and the variable costs for my level of actual usage. Given that, caps are pointless, which is just the way I want it.
Beyond what tepples said... if you're pumping 100GB in a month and I'm pumping 100GB in a month, why does it matter how many users/devices are involved? Each of us has one cablemodem, so the infrastructure for you is equal to the infrastructure for me; the variable costs are the same because it's the same amount of traffic... why do more people need to pay more? Or were you assuming that more people means more data per month?
Yep. Now, given that jythie didn't say how many people in the household, we have no information on how much gets used per person. Nor do we know if a given person is doing something else at the same time; my wife routinely streams shows while doing other stuff.
I'm kind of looking forward to the lawsuits that ask "why are you suddenly able to cut your prices in half? Are you operating at a loss to hurt the competition, or have you been gouging your customers all this time? And if you've found a magic tech fix, why aren't you rolling it out to all your other customers?"
I agree this is not much of a surprise. I gotta ask, though. If not the government, exactly who has enough power to get the telecom industry to actually behave?
Actually, as I read it, he's saying "do not make pid1 more complex than it has to be. It can invoke as much complexity as you want, but put it in a different pid." Which does not seem unreasonable to me.
That's the point. If the simulation differs, then something about actual natural law hasn't been properly translated into code. The interesting part is, if what we think we know _has_ been properly translated, then what we think we know may be wrong. The more common case, of course, is that the code has a glitch.
Agreed, but note that parent said "in a naive form". A poorly phrased neutrality law that doesn't consider the difference between "all packets are equal" and "all sources/destinations are equal" could in fact screw up QOS.
sounds like he's trying to be a practical mathematician (I made that term up, so if it's supposed to mean something else, my bad) by finding actual numbers for things instead of saying "impractically countable":)
Seems like we could probably stop at about 187 digits, really. The radius of the observable universe in planck lengths (call it X) is about 2.7*10^61, which makes the observable volume (4*pi*X^3) about (8*10^184)*pi cubic planck units. The value of the 186th digit of pi (after the decimal) should only affect the final volume by about 0.7 units; going much beyond that seems unnecessary:)
And a truly free society wouldn't require you to do anything. Unfortunately real anarchy is unstable; all societies have some form of "you are not allowed to hurt others", and there goes freedom!
Slashdot Mirror
A number have tried, generally at the city level. The usual response is to have the state level forbid it.
Can't do it. The MPAA has a lock on this style of extortion.
Not a sizable one, but my wife's uncle trades produce from his farm for produce from his neighbors' farms for personal use. It's a small market, but it's a market. Technically the government acts as a controlling authority but in practice behavior is governed by a desire not to lose the neighbors' good will; the government never gets involved.
Obviously, that doesn't scale. Which is my point; a 'free market' of any real size doesn't exist (for long). The best you find is a market where the actors have all relevant information and none of them have enough share to unilaterally push the price around. The only ways you get that is by (a) having a controlling authority regulating stuff; otherwise folks hide information and use it to gain more share to the point they control the price, or (b) by having all the actors decide not to hide info etc. The latter is improbable at scale. The former will probably eventually hit regulatory capture and go bad.
Not just without regulations, but without controlling authority. Which precludes corporate monopolies. So "uncompetitive" and "subverted by corporations" are both actually reasons to call it a not-free market.
Both of these, imho, need badly to turn into "too big to be left alone as a ticking bomb; break 'em apart."
Well, I say that's what I want because it makes sense, but I don't actually know how it breaks down. Do you have any figures you can share for how much of a monthly bill is typically fixed costs and how much is proportional to traffic?
Peering is between _peers_, approximate equals. A consumer-heavy network is not the equal of a content-heavy network. Peering is also generally between _transit_ networks, not endpoint networks. The fact that the traffic's destination is _inside_ the consumer network makes it a very different case than if the traffic were simply passing over the consumer network to reach some other network, because the traffic exists only because of the consumer's request. Should I get to charge Amazon for the privilege of sending me books?
I want my bill to be split into two parts, the fixed costs that don't change whether I shovel 1 bit per month or 1 terabyte, and the variable costs for my level of actual usage. Given that, caps are pointless, which is just the way I want it.
Beyond what tepples said... if you're pumping 100GB in a month and I'm pumping 100GB in a month, why does it matter how many users/devices are involved? Each of us has one cablemodem, so the infrastructure for you is equal to the infrastructure for me; the variable costs are the same because it's the same amount of traffic... why do more people need to pay more? Or were you assuming that more people means more data per month?
Yep. Now, given that jythie didn't say how many people in the household, we have no information on how much gets used per person. Nor do we know if a given person is doing something else at the same time; my wife routinely streams shows while doing other stuff.
I'm kind of looking forward to the lawsuits that ask "why are you suddenly able to cut your prices in half? Are you operating at a loss to hurt the competition, or have you been gouging your customers all this time? And if you've found a magic tech fix, why aren't you rolling it out to all your other customers?"
Competition
I agree this is not much of a surprise. I gotta ask, though. If not the government, exactly who has enough power to get the telecom industry to actually behave?
Thanks!
Where's my "depressing but informative" mod option when I need it?
Actually, as I read it, he's saying "do not make pid1 more complex than it has to be. It can invoke as much complexity as you want, but put it in a different pid." Which does not seem unreasonable to me.
The ewontfix.com/14 article is full of factual errors and was rebunked several times by more knowlegable people.
Interesting. I'd like to see it. Citation?
That's the point. If the simulation differs, then something about actual natural law hasn't been properly translated into code. The interesting part is, if what we think we know _has_ been properly translated, then what we think we know may be wrong. The more common case, of course, is that the code has a glitch.
Gotta get that Alludium Phosdex. :)
An entirely different meaning for "the goggles - they do nothing"
Agreed, but note that parent said "in a naive form". A poorly phrased neutrality law that doesn't consider the difference between "all packets are equal" and "all sources/destinations are equal" could in fact screw up QOS.
sounds like he's trying to be a practical mathematician (I made that term up, so if it's supposed to mean something else, my bad) by finding actual numbers for things instead of saying "impractically countable" :)
Seems like we could probably stop at about 187 digits, really. The radius of the observable universe in planck lengths (call it X) is about 2.7*10^61, which makes the observable volume (4*pi*X^3) about (8*10^184)*pi cubic planck units. The value of the 186th digit of pi (after the decimal) should only affect the final volume by about 0.7 units; going much beyond that seems unnecessary :)
And a truly free society wouldn't require you to do anything. Unfortunately real anarchy is unstable; all societies have some form of "you are not allowed to hurt others", and there goes freedom!
Because we do stupid shit and think everyone else should too.