DS9 started to lean serial at a time when it was a big no-no to do so. Now we have these kind of shows (Lost, Prison Break, BSG, etc.) left and right. I always thought the serial nature of the latter half of DS9 was its strength. Many people hate shows like this - I love them and hate "episode of the week" plots. Consequently, DS9 is my favorite Star Trek. Maybe it's because I like reading books and heavily serialized TV shows are like having a story read/acted to you.
I was disappointed when Season 3 of BSG went episodic at the behest of SciFi. Straying from the serial nature of Seasons 1 and 2 was retarded; after all, how did they think it got where it did in ratings, magic? It's too bad they broke its momentum. Season 4 starts to get away from some of that BS, and hopefully it'll finish out they way it started. I can't really understand the hate so many people seem to have for new BSG and their undying love of the original.
No shit. Season 1 & 2 -- Capital. Glorious. Tight. Everything fit. Then the rescue off new caprica where I think the most awesome cut scene in the bloody history of scifi/drama has ever happened, and then...
The network decided they wanted more control and "episode-a-day" format stuff so people didn't have to follow the previous seasons to know what's going on.
One can also pay for a T1 and nobody will say a damn thing utilization. You'll get awesome customer service, unfiltered, unshaped access to the internet, and you can peg it to 100% 24/7 and nobody will care. Also costs more. Using commodity circuits that 99% of the users only use 1% of the capacity is going to be a problem for the ISP. I'm not defending their business model, merely stating how it is. They're trying to oversubscribe as much as they can get away with to maximize profit; being able to get online is merely a byproduct.
An electronic reader could be a killer application for education. Textbooks are large, heavy, and you usually have more than one per semester. (For the sake of this argument, we'll assume engineering/science/bio/med students.) Electronic substitutes fail completely because they're lacking color, suitable resolution screens for rendering technical drawings, and textbook availability. Yes, we all have laptops now, but honestly, reading a book (or 5) on a laptop sucks. I could care less if I couldn't sell books back if it lets me carry an entire semester's worth of material (plus *all* of my other year's worth of references) in a tiny device vs. tons of dead trees.
Normally AT&T just ignores Reno; too small to be on their radar. The one time they don't it's to test their capped billing plans. So if we don't want AT&T we're left with:
* Charter, who is unpredictable as hell with prices, although fast. Still charges for a "modem lease" and customer service blows monkeys. God forbid you get your own modem to get rid of the lease; if squirrels eat the cable, it must be your non-leased modem that's broken. * DSL from Great Basin, who will occasionally QoS your circuit to a 300 baud modem and blame you for it. Apparently they've never heard of a planned maintenance window and like to randomly change router configs on a whim. * And DSL from pyramid.net, whom I haven't had any experience with. Although they have made some major network overhauls lately.
My guess is that because Reno is small enough, they won't see a measurable impact by switching to metered plans using whatever math they use. This will give them the green light to expand this to other markets and forklift the rest of us to metered plans.
If I have content on my network that I want people to see (let's say this makes my bandwidth requirements 90% sending and I receive 10% because there are no end users on my network), why should other providers be obligated to give me free service just so I can send data?
One you can look up readily is the AOL transit data network requirements for settlement free peering: http://www.atdn.net/settlement_free_int.shtml And if you don't meet those requirements, you have to pay for ATDN peering if you still want direct access. I suspect most other providers are similar, however I use ATDN as the example because they publish this information.
Uh, you believe that line of bullshit? Shame on the mods for making the parent +5. Settlement-free peering (generally) exists because if two providers were to pay for connections to each other, only exchange/allow internal routes, and the usage was roughly the same both ways, they'd be paying the other the same amount and thus cancel out monetarily.
Sprint and the others hope that the disruptive Cogent would disappear and seem to try to put them down every (legal) chance they get. Cogent tries to make some noise and even the playing field with by going against the telecoms.
I don't really think of AOL as a telecom, so I'm not sure how that validates your theory. The ATDN peering requirements are quite clear.
Settlement free peering usually means both parties exchange roughly equal amounts of data. If it's lopsided one way or the other, then they wouldn't qualify in the traditional sense.
Uh, because Sprint gave them a free trial then they refused to pay for over a year after they were notified they did not meet free peering requirements? How long can you not pay your bills before you get cut off?
Sprint did not cut off their customers; I am a Sprint customer who gets a full BGP table. I could still see Cogent and their customers through XO, but Cogent was dropping return traffic into a black hole.
Is anyone actually surprised that Cogent is being dicks again? I'm going to believe Sprint's side of the story because: 1) they don't get into peering fights every other month, 2) they don't release nasty press releases about their former peer, and 3) they don't route traffic for their former peer into a black hole and blame someone else. If you or I didn't pay our bills, we'd be nuked *way* faster than Sprint is saying they gave Cogent. The length of time is probably because Sprint knows that Cogent would be assholes about it and that it would break traffic in a bad way.
So many people from the previous thread put all the blame on Sprint because of that horrible press release Cogent had ready the second the last circuit was turned off. Did they all forget that this is Cogent the king of depeering bitch fights that we're talking about? They always cry foul and scream about it every time they get depeered.
Believe, me the only reason I was awake last night was because I had to massage BGP communities to force traffic destined for Cogent over a SAVVIS circuit. More power to them for trying to change the pricing model; I know that's what I'm trying to do in my own sector. And I certainly would love to lower my bandwidth cost on "classic" carrier circuits like T3. I can tell you that as a Sprint BGP customer, there are routes to Cogent via others (like XO), but traffic back from Cogent was going into a black hole.
There's plenty of information out there about those other events, however I figured everyone reading is smart enough to look it up on their own i.e. go type "Cogent" and "Level3" into Google. I merely wanted to point out to the ADD crowd (that seems to have forgotten about Cogent's other depeering incidents) that this is not an isolated case. I'm not trying to defend Sprint or Cogent, and nor do I know who is at fault here. It's just eerily similar to their spat with Level3 at this point.
What happens when Cogent gets bored with Sprint and gets bitchy with your new choice? This is not the first time Cogent has been in the same situation. Level3, TeliaSonera, and AOL come to mind. I wouldn't be so quick to blame Sprint based on a one-sided Cogent press release.
Well, based on all the past depeering wars Cogent has been in and/or started, I'm leaning towards "Cogent is being a dick again". Especially since they're doing the exact same thing they did with Level3: offering customers of their competitor free service. The story is a press release from Cogent; it's completely one-sided. As I post this, there is no statement from Sprint.
Don't be so quick to blame Sprint, especially since that's a Cogent PR release. They (Cogent) had fights with Level3 and AOL as well that had the same result: Customers of Sprint/Level3/AOL were cut off from Cogent.
Slashdot Mirror
Get a laser printer. Way cheaper to operate.
DS9 started to lean serial at a time when it was a big no-no to do so. Now we have these kind of shows (Lost, Prison Break, BSG, etc.) left and right. I always thought the serial nature of the latter half of DS9 was its strength. Many people hate shows like this - I love them and hate "episode of the week" plots. Consequently, DS9 is my favorite Star Trek. Maybe it's because I like reading books and heavily serialized TV shows are like having a story read/acted to you.
I was disappointed when Season 3 of BSG went episodic at the behest of SciFi. Straying from the serial nature of Seasons 1 and 2 was retarded; after all, how did they think it got where it did in ratings, magic? It's too bad they broke its momentum. Season 4 starts to get away from some of that BS, and hopefully it'll finish out they way it started. I can't really understand the hate so many people seem to have for new BSG and their undying love of the original.
No shit. Season 1 & 2 -- Capital. Glorious. Tight. Everything fit. Then the rescue off new caprica where I think the most awesome cut scene in the bloody history of scifi/drama has ever happened, and then...
The network decided they wanted more control and "episode-a-day" format stuff so people didn't have to follow the previous seasons to know what's going on.
One can also pay for a T1 and nobody will say a damn thing utilization. You'll get awesome customer service, unfiltered, unshaped access to the internet, and you can peg it to 100% 24/7 and nobody will care. Also costs more. Using commodity circuits that 99% of the users only use 1% of the capacity is going to be a problem for the ISP. I'm not defending their business model, merely stating how it is. They're trying to oversubscribe as much as they can get away with to maximize profit; being able to get online is merely a byproduct.
Well, I don't care about saving the trees either, just my back. ;)
An electronic reader could be a killer application for education. Textbooks are large, heavy, and you usually have more than one per semester. (For the sake of this argument, we'll assume engineering/science/bio/med students.) Electronic substitutes fail completely because they're lacking color, suitable resolution screens for rendering technical drawings, and textbook availability. Yes, we all have laptops now, but honestly, reading a book (or 5) on a laptop sucks. I could care less if I couldn't sell books back if it lets me carry an entire semester's worth of material (plus *all* of my other year's worth of references) in a tiny device vs. tons of dead trees.
Well, first you need some actual air to blow around. The atmosphere on Mars is quite thin.
Normally AT&T just ignores Reno; too small to be on their radar. The one time they don't it's to test their capped billing plans. So if we don't want AT&T we're left with:
* Charter, who is unpredictable as hell with prices, although fast. Still charges for a "modem lease" and customer service blows monkeys. God forbid you get your own modem to get rid of the lease; if squirrels eat the cable, it must be your non-leased modem that's broken.
* DSL from Great Basin, who will occasionally QoS your circuit to a 300 baud modem and blame you for it. Apparently they've never heard of a planned maintenance window and like to randomly change router configs on a whim.
* And DSL from pyramid.net, whom I haven't had any experience with. Although they have made some major network overhauls lately.
My guess is that because Reno is small enough, they won't see a measurable impact by switching to metered plans using whatever math they use. This will give them the green light to expand this to other markets and forklift the rest of us to metered plans.
If I have content on my network that I want people to see (let's say this makes my bandwidth requirements 90% sending and I receive 10% because there are no end users on my network), why should other providers be obligated to give me free service just so I can send data?
One you can look up readily is the AOL transit data network requirements for settlement free peering: http://www.atdn.net/settlement_free_int.shtml And if you don't meet those requirements, you have to pay for ATDN peering if you still want direct access. I suspect most other providers are similar, however I use ATDN as the example because they publish this information.
Uh, you believe that line of bullshit? Shame on the mods for making the parent +5. Settlement-free peering (generally) exists because if two providers were to pay for connections to each other, only exchange/allow internal routes, and the usage was roughly the same both ways, they'd be paying the other the same amount and thus cancel out monetarily.
Sprint and the others hope that the disruptive Cogent would disappear and seem to try to put them down every (legal) chance they get. Cogent tries to make some noise and even the playing field with by going against the telecoms.
I don't really think of AOL as a telecom, so I'm not sure how that validates your theory. The ATDN peering requirements are quite clear.
Settlement free peering usually means both parties exchange roughly equal amounts of data. If it's lopsided one way or the other, then they wouldn't qualify in the traditional sense.
Uh, because Sprint gave them a free trial then they refused to pay for over a year after they were notified they did not meet free peering requirements? How long can you not pay your bills before you get cut off?
Sprint did not cut off their customers; I am a Sprint customer who gets a full BGP table. I could still see Cogent and their customers through XO, but Cogent was dropping return traffic into a black hole.
And yet people still defend Cogent and blame X (where X is whatever company Cogent decided to get uppity with this month).
Cogent should have paid their bills when they were notified they did not qualify for settlement free peering.
You say Sprint is wrong. Why should Cogent be allowed to steal service?
You are correct. Don't forget Telia, AOL, Teleglobe, and France Telecom either.
Is anyone actually surprised that Cogent is being dicks again? I'm going to believe Sprint's side of the story because: 1) they don't get into peering fights every other month, 2) they don't release nasty press releases about their former peer, and 3) they don't route traffic for their former peer into a black hole and blame someone else. If you or I didn't pay our bills, we'd be nuked *way* faster than Sprint is saying they gave Cogent. The length of time is probably because Sprint knows that Cogent would be assholes about it and that it would break traffic in a bad way.
So many people from the previous thread put all the blame on Sprint because of that horrible press release Cogent had ready the second the last circuit was turned off. Did they all forget that this is Cogent the king of depeering bitch fights that we're talking about? They always cry foul and scream about it every time they get depeered.
This one just came across on NANOG: Wrestling With the Zombie: Sprint Depeers Cogent, Internet Partitioned
Believe, me the only reason I was awake last night was because I had to massage BGP communities to force traffic destined for Cogent over a SAVVIS circuit. More power to them for trying to change the pricing model; I know that's what I'm trying to do in my own sector. And I certainly would love to lower my bandwidth cost on "classic" carrier circuits like T3. I can tell you that as a Sprint BGP customer, there are routes to Cogent via others (like XO), but traffic back from Cogent was going into a black hole.
There's plenty of information out there about those other events, however I figured everyone reading is smart enough to look it up on their own i.e. go type "Cogent" and "Level3" into Google. I merely wanted to point out to the ADD crowd (that seems to have forgotten about Cogent's other depeering incidents) that this is not an isolated case. I'm not trying to defend Sprint or Cogent, and nor do I know who is at fault here. It's just eerily similar to their spat with Level3 at this point.
What happens when Cogent gets bored with Sprint and gets bitchy with your new choice? This is not the first time Cogent has been in the same situation. Level3, TeliaSonera, and AOL come to mind. I wouldn't be so quick to blame Sprint based on a one-sided Cogent press release.
Well, based on all the past depeering wars Cogent has been in and/or started, I'm leaning towards "Cogent is being a dick again". Especially since they're doing the exact same thing they did with Level3: offering customers of their competitor free service. The story is a press release from Cogent; it's completely one-sided. As I post this, there is no statement from Sprint.
Don't be so quick to blame Sprint, especially since that's a Cogent PR release. They (Cogent) had fights with Level3 and AOL as well that had the same result: Customers of Sprint/Level3/AOL were cut off from Cogent.
Re: spam; unlikely. Those people do the damnedest things and spend ungodly amounts of time to ensure their spew gets out. They will always find a way.
Same reason Lyndon Johnson is usually blamed for Vietnam rather than being remembered for the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
An Apple fan who is obviously not an Apple fan - the Xserve has an RS-232 port on it.