If a company wanted to offer an 'advertising subsidized' device or OS and wanted to ensure that you watched the ads you agreed to when you agreed to the free / discounted device terms, this would be the way to do it.
This patent sounds like it would be used in such a device and not randomly inserted in to your normal OS installs.
If you could get an Apple product at a greatly reduced rate by watching a 30 second ad each time you boot it, would you agree to such a thing? Even if you wouldn't use it, would you be against others having that option? If you think having a subsidized device would be a good option for anyone, why would you be against Apple being to enfore the terms that were agreed upon?
Why should comcast have to send someone to clean your pc because you are an idiot?
The way we used to do it was that if someone was identified as being infected, they were shoved in to a wall garden. the walled garden showed them whay they were in the walled garden and how to resolve the issue. They didn't get out of the walled garden until they cleaned the PC.
You are always in the background of any project. It's assumed you can do whatever it is they want you to do, even if it has never been done before. They will want it 6 weeks earlier than you can deliver it and 50% cheaper than you can buy it for. You are supposed to be invisible. No one thinks about how much work you have to put in to something in order to keep it up and running in a production environment. If the service fails at 3 am on a Sunday, every minute of your time will be tracked until the service is restored and you will be told how efficient you aren't and what you should try to do better next time. When the kudos are given at the next company meeting and everyone talks about all of the great things they have accomplished this year, your name is never mentioned unless you count the "Oh, and thanks to IT who.. does what they do!" mention from the CEO.
You're the plumber. You're the TV Repair man. You're the phone guy. They only know your name when something has gone wrong and they think you can fix it. They only think you can fix it because they are fairly sure you, or someone like you, broke it to begin with.
So you wouldn't mind that your neighbor broke your encryption and is recording all of your cell phone calls? Or if the police did it. It should never be a crime. Never ever. Ever.
And I'm sure you weren't one of the ones complaining about ISP's using DPI to identify the contents of the encrypted packets you are sending in to their network and then turning that information over to the RIAA / FBI etc.
I'm surprised to see such an open minded person on/. Usually they are all about taking a specfic situation and twisting it to their own needs, then taking the completely opposite stance when it doesn;t help them.
And if they all switch over to unix, you'd just have a bunch of clueless unix users. Except now, you'd have enough users for them to actually bother writing malware for it.
In Everquest, experience potions already exist and are on occasion available from mobs, quests, and the trading card game as a loot item.
There is also a veteran reward available that allows you to get double experience for 30 minutes, once a day. It's commonly called the death buff. It seems whenever you use it, you die.
In any case, they are not introducing anything that is not available already in the game. Fancy graphics and pets and 1 charge potions.
I don't see it as a big deal. I've played EQ since beta (98) and this doesn't bother me at all.
When you peer with another network, it goes like this:
1) you only exchange routes for your customers. 2) Your routes should not be visible to the peer through any other transit or peering connections.
So if Sprint and Cogent were just exchanging routes and the peer session was removed, Cogent and Sprint no longer see each other. For them to see each other again to happen, one of them would have to pay someone else for the transit.
Sprint is not going to pay for transit. Cogent doesn't want to, or apparently, they don't even want to to do settlement based peering.
Regulation might be ok if it opened the tier 1 peering to more networks. Forcing large networks to peer with much smaller network is shifting the cost of transporting that traffic long distances to the larger network.
Equal size networks setting up connections in multiple locations should have the same benefit and cost to both networks.
When they deploy their 250GB a month cap, they make more money allowing p2p than blocking it.
If Comcast were to upgrade their plant to unlimited bandwidth forever, it would not allow them to sell somewhere they don't have infrastructure, IE, other providers markers. Car analogy incoming. Just because I upgrade I-75 to 20 lanes each direction, doesn't mean I can now drive to california faster. I-75 doesn't go to California. If everyone was allowed to select the shows they wanted to watch, ala carte, bandwidth requirements for video would rise, not fall, if channels had to be added to increase the number of choices. If noone else wanted to watch your favorite channel, you would lose that channel. Many stations would go out of business, but new ones would be added. You only selecting 1 out of the 200 channels available would not save bandwidth as all of the channels still need to be sent. Switched digital multicast is one way to deal with that.
Comcast could care less what you download and from whom you download it, as long as they get paid.
The obvious solution is to make it cost you just as much to download illegal content on p2p as it does to buy it legally. While 1.50 a gig isn't quite at that point, its a step in the right direction.
I am the peering coordinator and transit purchaser for my network. I know exactly how it works.
They are paying their provider, but their provider is not paying me. Them paying level 3 means nothing to me. Then paying level3 gets them access to level 3 and whoever else level 3 can con in to paying for that traffic. Because level 3 knows that everyone else has to pay for the youtube content, they can give youtube very reduced rates.
So where I have to pay 20 bucks a meg for youtube, youtube might be paying 5 bucks a meg. That is me subsidizing their bandwidth costs.
I still have to pay for that content. So my customer pays, I pay, you tube pays, but level 3 just sits back and makes bank.
Even if I word it like you that they are paying for a connection to the Internet, my network is not the Internet. My network is a private network owned by a public company. The network was built to provide MY services. They did not pay for a connection to my network. Unless you think it's perfectly acceptable for me to pay someone else for the work you do every week, I'm not sure how you think this is not a broken business model.
In the days before content and isp's had their own nationwide networks, transit providers were justified in their business model. But for me and youtube to both pay level 3 to interconnect us when we are sitting 5 rows apart in an Equinix facility makes no sense. But youtube won't buy directly from me. Level 3 can sell capacity on my network cheaper than I can because they have multiple people paying them on both ends. Even if they gave youtube their traffic free, everyone else still has to pay the 20 bucks a meg and Level3 makes their money.
I am sure we are in agreement on this and it's just my wording that is causing the issues, and I apologize for that. But the Internet business model in the US is busted and it needs to change. No amount of NN regulation is going to change that.
When a third party can sell my resources cheaper than I can sell them, the business model is busted.
Oh, and I haven't seen an "unlimited internet" ad in a couple years, but I don't really look for them. This new business model with a bandwidth cap and overage charges would actually allow them to go back towards being unlimited. It just wouldn't be all you can eat. It will now be, take all you want, pay for what you take. As it should be.
You must believe that this is ok if you are defending transit sellers that sell traffic by the meg. Why do you feel that it is ok for them to have a business model that charges on both ends, but noone else? Not only do they charge both ends, they charge by the bit.
My network is a transit network also. Both ends should pay or one end will end up paying the cost of both parties. And that's where usage caps and metered billing comes in.
Please show me where on the Comcast page it says unlimited bandwidth usage, I think I'm missing it.
The content is paying for their usage on their transit provider. I am also paying that transit provider for that same content. So every meg you tube sends me not only costs me what the capacity and transport charges are, but also 20 bucks a meg.
I'm not sure where you get the idea that if Youtube pays level3 for transit it entitles them to free access on my network though. Add in the fact that I also have to pay for that transit and a strong case can be made for me to shut them off, completely. If they want to connect directly to me, for free even, I save a lot of money.
If I buy the house next door to yours, do I get free access to yours too?
When it's customer to customer, both ends are paying.
If you are able to peer with the AT&T, Sprint's and level 3s, you would be accurate.
But the current state is that these large content companies buy their traffic from a company such as level 3.
Since level 3 won't peer with me, I have to pay them 20 bucks per meg (95th percentile) for that traffic. Why should I have to pay in order to get that you tube traffic to you? What if I decide I will not pay for that traffic any more? Shouldn't the content provider then be the one to blame?
You no longer are able to reach that site, but it's not the ISP's fault they refuse to pay for content. The content providers are charged cheaper rates because they know they will make up for it on the other end.
And you bring up my next point, thanks. If they want to regulate true network neutrality, make it so that networks HAVE to peer and no more of the old boys network. If I have traffic of a certain level with your network, you should HAVE to peer with me in mutually acceptable locations.
As it is, level 3 can sell transit to my network, cheaper than i can, because they are getting paid on both ends.
You don't see something wrong with that? Personally, I find the fact that the ISP and the content companies are taking all of the heat in the NN debate a little bit disconcerting. Especially when it's the transit providers sitting in the middle double dipping causing a lot of the issues.
And that's how ISP X subsidizes youtube etc. They (youtube)are charged a fraction of the cost of normal transit because the transit provider charges the other ends 20 bucks a meg.
SO, a question. If Comcast were to say, "Screw that, we arent paying for Youtube traffic anymore at 20 bucks a meg", and you could no longer reach youtube through comcast, who would you blame?
The argument has been that the amount users pay doesn't cover the new consumption levels of some users.
The ISP's originally tried to make the argument that content providers should pay them, but that went over like a lead balloon and started the net neutrality debate. The ISP's at the time said someone had to pay for it, and they wanted it to be the companies, not the end users. You can argue whether you believe that statement or not, but they did say it.
Since they, the ISP's, couldn't get the content to pay for the bandwidth they used, they switched to blocking / throttling what they consider abusive traffic. Again, you can argue whether it's abusive or not, but it's what they stated.
Flash forward to today. The FCC is investigating the throttling and it looks like they may make some kind of ruling that would negatively impact the ability of ISP's to manage traffic on their network.
There are 2 ends to every connection, but only one end is paying. The content won't pay so now a way must be found to have the user pay. If, in the process of doing so, it also negatively impacts peer 2 peer usage, you won't see the ISP complaining.
The cable companies are also addressing the functionality of p2p with BT and other companies. So it sounds like a multi-pronged approach.
And to your last note, the infrastructure at places like Comcast and Time Warner are in a constant state of upgrade. I know that today the comcast network moves about 600G per second at peak. Average customer consumption has grown by 38% a year for the last 5 years. Close enough to say that every 2 years they must completely double their infrastructure.
Even if they added no no customers this year, they would still have to increase capacity by 38% for next year, just to serve the customers they have.
I suppose the right way to do it, would have been to raise your internet charges 38% each year, but they didn't. In fact, prices have gone down over that same period of time.
Don't confuse not upgrading their infrastructure with not being able to upgrade the infrastructure in line with demand growth. Where possible, they do. But when you are already at the max capacity on your HFC plant, there isn't much you can do until newer tech is available, ie DOCSIS 3.0.
Your local ISP spent billions to build out an infrastructure to provide services.
Your local ISP has a business model that works and allows them to provide services.
Your not so local content company wants to be able to use that infrastructure 100% without paying a penny to the company that built that infrastructure or they may go out of business because they can't use someone else's resources for free.
Your not so local government makes laws that forces your ISP to give their infrastructure to these other companies for free.
Your local ISP can no longer afford to subsidize the youtubes and vonages of the world and goes out of business.
Or, maybe they just have to change their business model. You now pay for every bit you use instead of the all you can eat model. (See, TW, Comcast, Cox, and the rest of the world for examples).
Your local ISP had to change their business model to meet the new regulations and you get to pay for it.
Personally, I'm glad. I'm not a p2p thief. I don't run a server from my home in violation of my AUP. I don't do more than 8 gigs a day, so it won't cost me anything extra.
A nice side effect is that when you have to pay per meg or gig or bit, downloading a song or movie now has a real price associated with it. If it costs you 8 bucks to download a HD movie that is a screen cap from a theater or 10 bucks to go buy it on DVD, most people will go buy it.
If it costs me a couple bucks for every movie I seed, each time it is downloaded from me, I won't be seeding very much.
I really like the idea of charging by bit. It should address the whole net neutrality issue very well. As the people that were using 10+ gig of bandwidth a day will now get to help pay for the network upgrades. Everyone wins, except for p2p because not many people will want to pay for you to download from them.
And life goes on. I guess it's better than the throttling that is/was in place, but I'm not a big p2p guy so that had no impact on me anyway.
Ironic that the people who complained the loudest will now have to pay the most.
I'm implying that when the chairman gets in front of the senate and tells them what the capabilities of a piece of equipment are, he shouldn't lie or be that wrong.
I was stating nothing about how they were used in the case. I don't know if they configured it to perform as you state, but they could have. Which is opposite to what he stated.
What he says the box cannot do is one of the reasons the box was sold. If I were sandvine, I'd make sure he corrected that issue.
You would hope the chairman of the FCC wouldn't be so clueless. Well, whoever told him the things he is repeating at least.
Anyone that has actually configured a sandvine box knows very well that you can set rules to run at any time they want. Anyone even minimally monitoring their network knows when their network is congested and can apply rules during those times.
To say that the sandvine isn't network aware is false. You would think that the chairman would have contacted the manufacturer or at least had an aide go to the website.
They didnt get that at all. Nowhere does it say that Verizon has to compatible with android. Of course, android could be made compatible with whatever Verizon uses, but there is nothing saying Verizon even has to offer internet service on this spectrum, which would render most cool apps worthless anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
Encrypted p2p traffic looks just like encrypted p2p traffic. Most dpi vendors already have fingerprints for it.
Yes we have. Oh wait.. maybe that hasn't happened yet for you..
If Kennedy wants it, they should get it.
Guess I am not seeing the issue here.
If a company wanted to offer an 'advertising subsidized' device or OS and wanted to ensure that you watched the ads you agreed to when you agreed to the free / discounted device terms, this would be the way to do it.
This patent sounds like it would be used in such a device and not randomly inserted in to your normal OS installs.
If you could get an Apple product at a greatly reduced rate by watching a 30 second ad each time you boot it, would you agree to such a thing? Even if you wouldn't use it, would you be against others having that option? If you think having a subsidized device would be a good option for anyone, why would you be against Apple being to enfore the terms that were agreed upon?
Why should comcast have to send someone to clean your pc because you are an idiot?
The way we used to do it was that if someone was identified as being infected, they were shoved in to a wall garden. the walled garden showed them whay they were in the walled garden and how to resolve the issue. They didn't get out of the walled garden until they cleaned the PC.
You are always in the background of any project. It's assumed you can do whatever it is they want you to do, even if it has never been done before. They will want it 6 weeks earlier than you can deliver it and 50% cheaper than you can buy it for. You are supposed to be invisible. No one thinks about how much work you have to put in to something in order to keep it up and running in a production environment. If the service fails at 3 am on a Sunday, every minute of your time will be tracked until the service is restored and you will be told how efficient you aren't and what you should try to do better next time. When the kudos are given at the next company meeting and everyone talks about all of the great things they have accomplished this year, your name is never mentioned unless you count the "Oh, and thanks to IT who.. does what they do!" mention from the CEO.
You're the plumber. You're the TV Repair man. You're the phone guy. They only know your name when something has gone wrong and they think you can fix it. They only think you can fix it because they are fairly sure you, or someone like you, broke it to begin with.
Welcome to I.T.
So you wouldn't mind that your neighbor broke your encryption and is recording all of your cell phone calls? Or if the police did it. It should never be a crime. Never ever. Ever.
And I'm sure you weren't one of the ones complaining about ISP's using DPI to identify the contents of the encrypted packets you are sending in to their network and then turning that information over to the RIAA / FBI etc.
I'm surprised to see such an open minded person on /. Usually they are all about taking a specfic situation and twisting it to their own needs, then taking the completely opposite stance when it doesn;t help them.
I tip my hat to you.
And if they all switch over to unix, you'd just have a bunch of clueless unix users. Except now, you'd have enough users for them to actually bother writing malware for it.
Be careful what you wish for.
My understanding is that this is exactly what Comcast is planning on doing.
In Everquest, experience potions already exist and are on occasion available from mobs, quests, and the trading card game as a loot item.
There is also a veteran reward available that allows you to get double experience for 30 minutes, once a day. It's commonly called the death buff. It seems whenever you use it, you die.
In any case, they are not introducing anything that is not available already in the game. Fancy graphics and pets and 1 charge potions.
I don't see it as a big deal. I've played EQ since beta (98) and this doesn't bother me at all.
This is not accurate.
When you peer with another network, it goes like this:
1) you only exchange routes for your customers.
2) Your routes should not be visible to the peer through any other transit or peering connections.
So if Sprint and Cogent were just exchanging routes and the peer session was removed, Cogent and Sprint no longer see each other. For them to see each other again to happen, one of them would have to pay someone else for the transit.
Sprint is not going to pay for transit. Cogent doesn't want to, or apparently, they don't even want to to do settlement based peering.
Regulation might be ok if it opened the tier 1 peering to more networks. Forcing large networks to peer with much smaller network is shifting the cost of transporting that traffic long distances to the larger network.
Equal size networks setting up connections in multiple locations should have the same benefit and cost to both networks.
Does netflix pay for the usage over your 250gb a month cap when Comcast cuts to that? If not, you might want to add 1.50 per gig to the monthly cost.
Wow..
When they deploy their 250GB a month cap, they make more money allowing p2p than blocking it.
If Comcast were to upgrade their plant to unlimited bandwidth forever, it would not allow them to sell somewhere they don't have infrastructure, IE, other providers markers. Car analogy incoming. Just because I upgrade I-75 to 20 lanes each direction, doesn't mean I can now drive to california faster. I-75 doesn't go to California.
If everyone was allowed to select the shows they wanted to watch, ala carte, bandwidth requirements for video would rise, not fall, if channels had to be added to increase the number of choices. If noone else wanted to watch your favorite channel, you would lose that channel. Many stations would go out of business, but new ones would be added. You only selecting 1 out of the 200 channels available would not save bandwidth as all of the channels still need to be sent. Switched digital multicast is one way to deal with that.
Comcast could care less what you download and from whom you download it, as long as they get paid.
The obvious solution is to make it cost you just as much to download illegal content on p2p as it does to buy it legally. While 1.50 a gig isn't quite at that point, its a step in the right direction.
I am the peering coordinator and transit purchaser for my network. I know exactly how it works.
They are paying their provider, but their provider is not paying me. Them paying level 3 means nothing to me. Then paying level3 gets them access to level 3 and whoever else level 3 can con in to paying for that traffic. Because level 3 knows that everyone else has to pay for the youtube content, they can give youtube very reduced rates.
So where I have to pay 20 bucks a meg for youtube, youtube might be paying 5 bucks a meg. That is me subsidizing their bandwidth costs.
I still have to pay for that content. So my customer pays, I pay, you tube pays, but level 3 just sits back and makes bank.
Even if I word it like you that they are paying for a connection to the Internet, my network is not the Internet. My network is a private network owned by a public company. The network was built to provide MY services. They did not pay for a connection to my network. Unless you think it's perfectly acceptable for me to pay someone else for the work you do every week, I'm not sure how you think this is not a broken business model.
In the days before content and isp's had their own nationwide networks, transit providers were justified in their business model. But for me and youtube to both pay level 3 to interconnect us when we are sitting 5 rows apart in an Equinix facility makes no sense. But youtube won't buy directly from me. Level 3 can sell capacity on my network cheaper than I can because they have multiple people paying them on both ends. Even if they gave youtube their traffic free, everyone else still has to pay the 20 bucks a meg and Level3 makes their money.
I am sure we are in agreement on this and it's just my wording that is causing the issues, and I apologize for that. But the Internet business model in the US is busted and it needs to change. No amount of NN regulation is going to change that.
When a third party can sell my resources cheaper than I can sell them, the business model is busted.
Oh, and I haven't seen an "unlimited internet" ad in a couple years, but I don't really look for them. This new business model with a bandwidth cap and overage charges would actually allow them to go back towards being unlimited. It just wouldn't be all you can eat. It will now be, take all you want, pay for what you take. As it should be.
You must believe that this is ok if you are defending transit sellers that sell traffic by the meg. Why do you feel that it is ok for them to have a business model that charges on both ends, but noone else? Not only do they charge both ends, they charge by the bit.
My network is a transit network also. Both ends should pay or one end will end up paying the cost of both parties. And that's where usage caps and metered billing comes in.
Please show me where on the Comcast page it says unlimited bandwidth usage, I think I'm missing it.
The content is paying for their usage on their transit provider. I am also paying that transit provider for that same content. So every meg you tube sends me not only costs me what the capacity and transport charges are, but also 20 bucks a meg.
I'm not sure where you get the idea that if Youtube pays level3 for transit it entitles them to free access on my network though. Add in the fact that I also have to pay for that transit and a strong case can be made for me to shut them off, completely. If they want to connect directly to me, for free even, I save a lot of money.
If I buy the house next door to yours, do I get free access to yours too?
When it's customer to customer, both ends are paying.
If you are able to peer with the AT&T, Sprint's and level 3s, you would be accurate.
But the current state is that these large content companies buy their traffic from a company such as level 3.
Since level 3 won't peer with me, I have to pay them 20 bucks per meg (95th percentile) for that traffic. Why should I have to pay in order to get that you tube traffic to you? What if I decide I will not pay for that traffic any more? Shouldn't the content provider then be the one to blame?
You no longer are able to reach that site, but it's not the ISP's fault they refuse to pay for content. The content providers are charged cheaper rates because they know they will make up for it on the other end.
And you bring up my next point, thanks. If they want to regulate true network neutrality, make it so that networks HAVE to peer and no more of the old boys network. If I have traffic of a certain level with your network, you should HAVE to peer with me in mutually acceptable locations.
As it is, level 3 can sell transit to my network, cheaper than i can, because they are getting paid on both ends.
You don't see something wrong with that? Personally, I find the fact that the ISP and the content companies are taking all of the heat in the NN debate a little bit disconcerting. Especially when it's the transit providers sitting in the middle double dipping causing a lot of the issues.
And that's how ISP X subsidizes youtube etc. They (youtube)are charged a fraction of the cost of normal transit because the transit provider charges the other ends 20 bucks a meg.
SO, a question. If Comcast were to say, "Screw that, we arent paying for Youtube traffic anymore at 20 bucks a meg", and you could no longer reach youtube through comcast, who would you blame?
The argument has been that the amount users pay doesn't cover the new consumption levels of some users.
The ISP's originally tried to make the argument that content providers should pay them, but that went over like a lead balloon and started the net neutrality debate. The ISP's at the time said someone had to pay for it, and they wanted it to be the companies, not the end users. You can argue whether you believe that statement or not, but they did say it.
Since they, the ISP's, couldn't get the content to pay for the bandwidth they used, they switched to blocking / throttling what they consider abusive traffic. Again, you can argue whether it's abusive or not, but it's what they stated.
Flash forward to today. The FCC is investigating the throttling and it looks like they may make some kind of ruling that would negatively impact the ability of ISP's to manage traffic on their network.
There are 2 ends to every connection, but only one end is paying. The content won't pay so now a way must be found to have the user pay. If, in the process of doing so, it also negatively impacts peer 2 peer usage, you won't see the ISP complaining.
The cable companies are also addressing the functionality of p2p with BT and other companies. So it sounds like a multi-pronged approach.
And to your last note, the infrastructure at places like Comcast and Time Warner are in a constant state of upgrade. I know that today the comcast network moves about 600G per second at peak. Average customer consumption has grown by 38% a year for the last 5 years. Close enough to say that every 2 years they must completely double their infrastructure.
Even if they added no no customers this year, they would still have to increase capacity by 38% for next year, just to serve the customers they have.
I suppose the right way to do it, would have been to raise your internet charges 38% each year, but they didn't. In fact, prices have gone down over that same period of time.
Don't confuse not upgrading their infrastructure with not being able to upgrade the infrastructure in line with demand growth. Where possible, they do. But when you are already at the max capacity on your HFC plant, there isn't much you can do until newer tech is available, ie DOCSIS 3.0.
Or.. try this..
Your local ISP spent billions to build out an infrastructure to provide services.
Your local ISP has a business model that works and allows them to provide services.
Your not so local content company wants to be able to use that infrastructure 100% without paying a penny to the company that built that infrastructure or they may go out of business because they can't use someone else's resources for free.
Your not so local government makes laws that forces your ISP to give their infrastructure to these other companies for free.
Your local ISP can no longer afford to subsidize the youtubes and vonages of the world and goes out of business.
Or, maybe they just have to change their business model. You now pay for every bit you use instead of the all you can eat model. (See, TW, Comcast, Cox, and the rest of the world for examples).
Your local ISP had to change their business model to meet the new regulations and you get to pay for it.
Personally, I'm glad. I'm not a p2p thief. I don't run a server from my home in violation of my AUP. I don't do more than 8 gigs a day, so it won't cost me anything extra.
A nice side effect is that when you have to pay per meg or gig or bit, downloading a song or movie now has a real price associated with it. If it costs you 8 bucks to download a HD movie that is a screen cap from a theater or 10 bucks to go buy it on DVD, most people will go buy it.
If it costs me a couple bucks for every movie I seed, each time it is downloaded from me, I won't be seeding very much.
I really like the idea of charging by bit. It should address the whole net neutrality issue very well. As the people that were using 10+ gig of bandwidth a day will now get to help pay for the network upgrades. Everyone wins, except for p2p because not many people will want to pay for you to download from them.
And life goes on. I guess it's better than the throttling that is/was in place, but I'm not a big p2p guy so that had no impact on me anyway.
Ironic that the people who complained the loudest will now have to pay the most.
Yup, some legislation can be a real good thing.
I'm implying that when the chairman gets in front of the senate and tells them what the capabilities of a piece of equipment are, he shouldn't lie or be that wrong.
I was stating nothing about how they were used in the case. I don't know if they configured it to perform as you state, but they could have. Which is opposite to what he stated.
What he says the box cannot do is one of the reasons the box was sold. If I were sandvine, I'd make sure he corrected that issue.
You would hope the chairman of the FCC wouldn't be so clueless. Well, whoever told him the things he is repeating at least.
Anyone that has actually configured a sandvine box knows very well that you can set rules to run at any time they want. Anyone even minimally monitoring their network knows when their network is congested and can apply rules during those times.
To say that the sandvine isn't network aware is false. You would think that the chairman would have contacted the manufacturer or at least had an aide go to the website.
Just the fact that everyone keeps calling it "wow"glider would seem to speak a great deal towards their trademark claim.
Note to Self:
Unsubscribe to LuminaireX's living room video feed.
mea culpa. I shoulda known better.
They didnt get that at all. Nowhere does it say that Verizon has to compatible with android. Of course, android could be made compatible with whatever Verizon uses, but there is nothing saying Verizon even has to offer internet service on this spectrum, which would render most cool apps worthless anyway.
I don't think this is the case. There were roll out requirements in this auction, I believe.
I don't believe there is a requirement they have to use it for phone service though.