Unfortunately, $700k doesn't buy that much fiber. Besides, that's the job of the carriers, whether they've been doing it well or not. Personally, I'd rather see that money go towards startups which exemplify the values of an open Internet, run by passionate individuals who want to drive growth. They would make more positive change than this guy and work at least an order of magnitude harder to make it happen.
So long as the governments of the world continue to work in a bubble of their closest supporters, cranking out bills like this without actually consulting the people (or even panels of industry experts), we're going to shoot down every goddamn one and make their lives as miserable as possible until they understand we, the citizens who elected them, need to be a part of this process. Or put simply, they've never asked for our input on a solution. That's not how it works where I live, at least. Maybe one day that will change, but until then, we have no choice but to show them how asinine their ideas are. Usually by throwing their asses out to the curb and electing someone smarter.
If you install any app on your mobile device - especially those which thrive off of your data - don't be surprised if it's actually siphoning it off in the background. If groups like Facebook and LinkedIn simply wanted you to access the service remotely, they would just stick to HTML5. Instead, apps give them unfettered access to your contacts, calendar, location, and everything else on your personal device, regardless of platform.
Just remember, it has never been about convenience to the user, and always profitability to the provider.
"... our tax dollars pay for EMS. Fire, Police and Hazmat (WTF hazmat)...
Hazmat - because no EMS or volunteer (or professional, for that matter) firefighter wants to touch the amount of filth that must accumulate around such a large animal. I'm fairly certain that a 600 lb moose is cleaner than a 600 lb human - moose dung is largely plant-based, and at least they bathe regularly in lakes. Just sayin'.
While I'm positive your intentions are good, here is what I read from your comment - that the ends justify the means, and you're perfectly happy with spending money to get convictions because surely more convictions means less crime. Neither ideal is uncommon in North America and Western Europe this decade, but I just simply have to ask - did you consider that time and money could have been better spent in the community? After all, law enforcement agencies are servants to society - it [used to be] their job to play an active role in the welfare of the community as a whole by taking on systemic issues proactively, not simply racking up convictions and recovering property of private citizens.
Who knows, maybe this is just a reflection of the direction our society is going. At the end of the day, a conviction is a metric that can be tracked - but taking the time to educate a room full of children why they shouldn't steal has no immediate, tangible benefit.
Today, there is no incentive for an ISP to consider spending money on this. For their private customers, they sell QoS, which guarantees their customers a better queuing method. Extremely profitable. For consumers, it makes sense to simply continue investing in infrastructure. Adding capacity from the street to the CO not only eliminates the issue, but also allows the ISP to provide better, more profitable services.
In short, we will likely see better queuing methods integrated with future routers. The may be one of them, but only time will tell, and nobody will discard all of their equipment today to get it. The issue is just too minor while capacity remains cheap and QoS profitable.
Yeah, Facebook "creeping" seems unscrupulous, but it is much, much better than the alternatives. A nosy person is a nosy person - they'll get into your business if they want to, at least Facebook keeps them across a digital divide. Besides, it teaches the kids a valuable lesson - if you put it online, it's never private.
I'm not so certain anymore - the Conservative Party has been slowly drifting to centre. If you need proof, go and check out the Wild Rose party of Alberta. They make the Conservative Party (provincial and federal) look like the demigods of democracy and fair-play. The frightening bit is 30% of the province wanted to elect them, almost out of nowhere. The mast majority of the province actually voted Conservative just to keep them out.
Doing some napkin math, that would be about 400m of fiber per customer. Assuming no river crossings, street crossings, or rocky terrain, new-new fiber could be trenched for around $15 000. Aerial masts could further reduce this cost to the $10 000 mark. Therefore, this model could become profitable for each customer after anywhere between 5 and 10 years, assuming a monthly subscription of $150 - and that's an extremely modest fee for such first-rate service.
It is doable in the long-term, but it is purely an up-front capital investment. The incumbent carriers will simply never do it, because that capital is always better spent "buttering their bread", so to speak - in major centres, on enterprise customers, marketing, etc. For most of them, laying FTTH is seen as a liability - there is no guarantee the customer will subscribe, and as the incumbent, they are required to lease that infrastructure to competitors for literally pennies a day. The independent ISPs do not have these requirements, so they are free to become the only game in town. The system would work, but with the risk-averse state of the global economy where marginal investors want to make a quick buck without putting anything down, Indie ISP growth has been extremely hampered.
It would be interesting to see what kind of state the sea-floor is in. It may not be just naval mines - it may be off-target artillery shells, dumped munitions from planes, leftovers from a wreckage. Really, I'm sure the crews routed around anything that looked dangerous.
I appreciate the intent, but live PPV (one of the biggest revenue streams for content providers) is both VoD and multicast-able. Similarly, multicast is used to aggregate on-demand content across a provider network for playback by on-demand services. The point is, multicast can still reduce costs and increase accessibility, even in a VoD environment.
From strictly a technology perspective, there is a difference - IPTV delivered via Multicast can be engineered to reduce bandwidth consumption, and will not be counted as usage by your ISP. If delivered via Unicast, such as Netflix or Youtube, it looks just like every other packet. That is, unless you want your ISP performing DPI to bill you properly based on what you're watching instead of where it's coming from...? Which is more "neutral" - DPI or discrimination by packet type?
So this is probably another speed optimization as packets are 96bit smaller...
Actually, an IPv6 packet can be smaller than an IPv4 packet. The IPv4 header contains a lot of garbage not required by IPv6. See for yourself.
Secondly, IPv6 addresses can be concatenated. Only if you're using an extremely complex IPv6 address will your router need to process a large source or destination header.
I already spent a few mod points on this article, but I simply have to address your post. It quite clearly demonstrates the lack of awareness surrounding IPv6 today.
I don't believe, for a second, that all addresses in companies or homes need to be public addresses!
Not every IPv6 address is a "public" address - private addresses can be assigned to a local subnet, very much like RFC1918 addresses, except now called Unique Local Addresses.
and, of course, there is some security to NOT being directly touchable on the net.
I don't WANT my address to be easily and directly reachable
Second of all, I can only assume by "directly reachable" you remain the loss of NAT/PAT. Again, Unique Local Addresses invalidate your statement. Furthermore, NAT/PAT can still be implemented. Not that it gives you any security whatsoever today.
running ipv6 is about as useful, to home users, as running BGP.
You do know that BGP is a routing protocol and IPv6 is a routed protocol, right? Please take a moment and read through the Wikipedia page on IPv6. Maybe even try running it for a week or two in a virtual environment?
Oddly enough, it's only illegal for certain parts of the government to do that. Most larger companies have restrictions (usually self-imposed) on where the data can live, but you really need to read the fine print on those storage agreements... very rarely do they say anything about shared media, shared networks, third-party vendors being given access, etc.
My favourite example is hosted Exchanged from Microsoft. They charge half of what we do for what is, technically, the same service - but the vast majority of small and medium size businesses simply do not care about the future of their data, only the price tag today.
Haha, "solutions", "sells", "architects", "flogs customers over the head with" - such is the curse of a sales engineer, we have to adopt the slang of the C-suite! Nothing gets sold otherwise.
As someone who regularly solutions cloud services for customers, I can assure you, the exact location of the cloud is very important to our big customers. Being able to say it's based out of entirely Canadian datacenters on an entirely Canadian network is a huge advantage over our competitors south of the border. It's not like any of them have been bitten yet, but the perception is that their data is much less safe in another country.
Who provides one of the best return policies and replacement warranties I have ever seen. It is literally no questions asked, on-the-spot replacement or return - and since the warranty can be purchased for up to 4 years, you're likely to get a free hardware upgrade if it dies at the end. Through their warranty and all-around high level of customer service, they have single-handled eradicated most of the competition and expanded monstrously over the past decade, from hole-in-the-wall to national retailer.
Point being, there will always be abusers of the system, but Best Buy only need to ask themselves one thing - how little satisfaction are they instilling in their customers to warrant such a high volume of returns? Satisfied customers don't return products, nor do they treat your business like garbage - and if our tiny retailer could survive the onslaught of abusers, especially when their margins were so low and policies so unrestrictive, there is no reason why Best Buy can't either.
Technically, Ethernet/IP is not a broadcast technology. So historically, all your service provider had to do was provision a chunk of cable bandwidth to broadcast several hundred channels to several thousand users, and then carve out a little bit extra for IP data. Now that they are all moving to IP and HDTV, there is no way to provision enough bandwidth to broadcast (or multicast) everything, even on a 10GigE transport.
In short, there is a technological limitation at play - but it is not an excuse for service providers to throw around puny data caps. They should continue to invest in their infrastructure instead of trying to inflate the actual cost of a Gigabyte by 10 000% to make a quick buck.
Don't forget, the Loyalty and Retention teams actually get paid more if they "save" your account, even if it means giving you a deep discount. So don't be afraid to push them, either!
This is not a troll - I actually want to know. I have not owned one for most of the past decade, and do not intend to change that. I just don't understand the point of owning one.
1. I print all work-related documents at work, and my employer provides print resources for mobile workers. That's if I don't just put a presentation or collateral on a tablet and distribute it beforehand via PDF, which is always sexier.
2. There is no need to print photos at home - any print shop will do it cheaper, with less headache, and with higher quality. They'll even frame them and ship them for you for a pittance.
3. With any freely-available PDF authoring tool, I can add a genuine signature to a contract and email it back, bypassing the entire "print, sign, scan" paradigm.
4. For the small-business owners, there are at least half a dozen copy-shops within 10km which will accept your print jobs via email.
So I'll ask again - why does anyone buy a desktop printer? What do you do with them that's worth the cost of replacement parts, ink, warranties, paper, and headache?
Considering a number of large television providers use Microsoft Mediaroom (which requires Microsoft certified set-top boxes, most of which are PVR capable) today, there is already a large platform this patent could be deployed to. But I guess it's a sign of the times - upfront subscriptions are slowly disappearing, with pay-per-use content (such as Video on Demand) and Micro-transactions taking over. Who knows, maybe we will see an overall reduction in subscription costs with patents like this, but probably not any time soon. I don't know if the average broadcast television subscriber is ready to be nickel-and-dimed for skipping a commercial yet.
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately, $700k doesn't buy that much fiber. Besides, that's the job of the carriers, whether they've been doing it well or not. Personally, I'd rather see that money go towards startups which exemplify the values of an open Internet, run by passionate individuals who want to drive growth. They would make more positive change than this guy and work at least an order of magnitude harder to make it happen.
This is a precursor to the official announcement.
So long as the governments of the world continue to work in a bubble of their closest supporters, cranking out bills like this without actually consulting the people (or even panels of industry experts), we're going to shoot down every goddamn one and make their lives as miserable as possible until they understand we, the citizens who elected them, need to be a part of this process. Or put simply, they've never asked for our input on a solution. That's not how it works where I live, at least. Maybe one day that will change, but until then, we have no choice but to show them how asinine their ideas are. Usually by throwing their asses out to the curb and electing someone smarter.
If you install any app on your mobile device - especially those which thrive off of your data - don't be surprised if it's actually siphoning it off in the background. If groups like Facebook and LinkedIn simply wanted you to access the service remotely, they would just stick to HTML5. Instead, apps give them unfettered access to your contacts, calendar, location, and everything else on your personal device, regardless of platform.
Just remember, it has never been about convenience to the user, and always profitability to the provider.
I don't want to live on this planet anymore.
"... our tax dollars pay for EMS. Fire, Police and Hazmat (WTF hazmat)...
Hazmat - because no EMS or volunteer (or professional, for that matter) firefighter wants to touch the amount of filth that must accumulate around such a large animal. I'm fairly certain that a 600 lb moose is cleaner than a 600 lb human - moose dung is largely plant-based, and at least they bathe regularly in lakes. Just sayin'.
While I'm positive your intentions are good, here is what I read from your comment - that the ends justify the means, and you're perfectly happy with spending money to get convictions because surely more convictions means less crime. Neither ideal is uncommon in North America and Western Europe this decade, but I just simply have to ask - did you consider that time and money could have been better spent in the community? After all, law enforcement agencies are servants to society - it [used to be] their job to play an active role in the welfare of the community as a whole by taking on systemic issues proactively, not simply racking up convictions and recovering property of private citizens.
Who knows, maybe this is just a reflection of the direction our society is going. At the end of the day, a conviction is a metric that can be tracked - but taking the time to educate a room full of children why they shouldn't steal has no immediate, tangible benefit.
Today, there is no incentive for an ISP to consider spending money on this. For their private customers, they sell QoS, which guarantees their customers a better queuing method. Extremely profitable. For consumers, it makes sense to simply continue investing in infrastructure. Adding capacity from the street to the CO not only eliminates the issue, but also allows the ISP to provide better, more profitable services. In short, we will likely see better queuing methods integrated with future routers. The may be one of them, but only time will tell, and nobody will discard all of their equipment today to get it. The issue is just too minor while capacity remains cheap and QoS profitable.
Yeah, Facebook "creeping" seems unscrupulous, but it is much, much better than the alternatives. A nosy person is a nosy person - they'll get into your business if they want to, at least Facebook keeps them across a digital divide. Besides, it teaches the kids a valuable lesson - if you put it online, it's never private.
I'm not so certain anymore - the Conservative Party has been slowly drifting to centre. If you need proof, go and check out the Wild Rose party of Alberta. They make the Conservative Party (provincial and federal) look like the demigods of democracy and fair-play. The frightening bit is 30% of the province wanted to elect them, almost out of nowhere. The mast majority of the province actually voted Conservative just to keep them out.
Doing some napkin math, that would be about 400m of fiber per customer. Assuming no river crossings, street crossings, or rocky terrain, new-new fiber could be trenched for around $15 000. Aerial masts could further reduce this cost to the $10 000 mark. Therefore, this model could become profitable for each customer after anywhere between 5 and 10 years, assuming a monthly subscription of $150 - and that's an extremely modest fee for such first-rate service.
It is doable in the long-term, but it is purely an up-front capital investment. The incumbent carriers will simply never do it, because that capital is always better spent "buttering their bread", so to speak - in major centres, on enterprise customers, marketing, etc. For most of them, laying FTTH is seen as a liability - there is no guarantee the customer will subscribe, and as the incumbent, they are required to lease that infrastructure to competitors for literally pennies a day. The independent ISPs do not have these requirements, so they are free to become the only game in town. The system would work, but with the risk-averse state of the global economy where marginal investors want to make a quick buck without putting anything down, Indie ISP growth has been extremely hampered.
But we still need missile defense
[Citation Needed]
It would be interesting to see what kind of state the sea-floor is in. It may not be just naval mines - it may be off-target artillery shells, dumped munitions from planes, leftovers from a wreckage. Really, I'm sure the crews routed around anything that looked dangerous.
I appreciate the intent, but live PPV (one of the biggest revenue streams for content providers) is both VoD and multicast-able. Similarly, multicast is used to aggregate on-demand content across a provider network for playback by on-demand services. The point is, multicast can still reduce costs and increase accessibility, even in a VoD environment.
From strictly a technology perspective, there is a difference - IPTV delivered via Multicast can be engineered to reduce bandwidth consumption, and will not be counted as usage by your ISP. If delivered via Unicast, such as Netflix or Youtube, it looks just like every other packet. That is, unless you want your ISP performing DPI to bill you properly based on what you're watching instead of where it's coming from...? Which is more "neutral" - DPI or discrimination by packet type?
So this is probably another speed optimization as packets are 96bit smaller...
Actually, an IPv6 packet can be smaller than an IPv4 packet. The IPv4 header contains a lot of garbage not required by IPv6. See for yourself.
Secondly, IPv6 addresses can be concatenated. Only if you're using an extremely complex IPv6 address will your router need to process a large source or destination header.
I don't believe, for a second, that all addresses in companies or homes need to be public addresses!
Not every IPv6 address is a "public" address - private addresses can be assigned to a local subnet, very much like RFC1918 addresses, except now called Unique Local Addresses.
and, of course, there is some security to NOT being directly touchable on the net.
I don't WANT my address to be easily and directly reachable
Second of all, I can only assume by "directly reachable" you remain the loss of NAT/PAT. Again, Unique Local Addresses invalidate your statement. Furthermore, NAT/PAT can still be implemented. Not that it gives you any security whatsoever today.
running ipv6 is about as useful, to home users, as running BGP.
You do know that BGP is a routing protocol and IPv6 is a routed protocol, right? Please take a moment and read through the Wikipedia page on IPv6. Maybe even try running it for a week or two in a virtual environment?
Oddly enough, it's only illegal for certain parts of the government to do that. Most larger companies have restrictions (usually self-imposed) on where the data can live, but you really need to read the fine print on those storage agreements... very rarely do they say anything about shared media, shared networks, third-party vendors being given access, etc.
My favourite example is hosted Exchanged from Microsoft. They charge half of what we do for what is, technically, the same service - but the vast majority of small and medium size businesses simply do not care about the future of their data, only the price tag today.
Haha, "solutions", "sells", "architects", "flogs customers over the head with" - such is the curse of a sales engineer, we have to adopt the slang of the C-suite! Nothing gets sold otherwise.
As someone who regularly solutions cloud services for customers, I can assure you, the exact location of the cloud is very important to our big customers. Being able to say it's based out of entirely Canadian datacenters on an entirely Canadian network is a huge advantage over our competitors south of the border. It's not like any of them have been bitten yet, but the perception is that their data is much less safe in another country.
Who provides one of the best return policies and replacement warranties I have ever seen. It is literally no questions asked, on-the-spot replacement or return - and since the warranty can be purchased for up to 4 years, you're likely to get a free hardware upgrade if it dies at the end. Through their warranty and all-around high level of customer service, they have single-handled eradicated most of the competition and expanded monstrously over the past decade, from hole-in-the-wall to national retailer.
Point being, there will always be abusers of the system, but Best Buy only need to ask themselves one thing - how little satisfaction are they instilling in their customers to warrant such a high volume of returns? Satisfied customers don't return products, nor do they treat your business like garbage - and if our tiny retailer could survive the onslaught of abusers, especially when their margins were so low and policies so unrestrictive, there is no reason why Best Buy can't either.
Technically, Ethernet/IP is not a broadcast technology. So historically, all your service provider had to do was provision a chunk of cable bandwidth to broadcast several hundred channels to several thousand users, and then carve out a little bit extra for IP data. Now that they are all moving to IP and HDTV, there is no way to provision enough bandwidth to broadcast (or multicast) everything, even on a 10GigE transport.
In short, there is a technological limitation at play - but it is not an excuse for service providers to throw around puny data caps. They should continue to invest in their infrastructure instead of trying to inflate the actual cost of a Gigabyte by 10 000% to make a quick buck.
Don't forget, the Loyalty and Retention teams actually get paid more if they "save" your account, even if it means giving you a deep discount. So don't be afraid to push them, either!
This is not a troll - I actually want to know. I have not owned one for most of the past decade, and do not intend to change that. I just don't understand the point of owning one.
1. I print all work-related documents at work, and my employer provides print resources for mobile workers. That's if I don't just put a presentation or collateral on a tablet and distribute it beforehand via PDF, which is always sexier.
2. There is no need to print photos at home - any print shop will do it cheaper, with less headache, and with higher quality. They'll even frame them and ship them for you for a pittance.
3. With any freely-available PDF authoring tool, I can add a genuine signature to a contract and email it back, bypassing the entire "print, sign, scan" paradigm.
4. For the small-business owners, there are at least half a dozen copy-shops within 10km which will accept your print jobs via email.
So I'll ask again - why does anyone buy a desktop printer? What do you do with them that's worth the cost of replacement parts, ink, warranties, paper, and headache?
Considering a number of large television providers use Microsoft Mediaroom (which requires Microsoft certified set-top boxes, most of which are PVR capable) today, there is already a large platform this patent could be deployed to. But I guess it's a sign of the times - upfront subscriptions are slowly disappearing, with pay-per-use content (such as Video on Demand) and Micro-transactions taking over. Who knows, maybe we will see an overall reduction in subscription costs with patents like this, but probably not any time soon. I don't know if the average broadcast television subscriber is ready to be nickel-and-dimed for skipping a commercial yet.