And if you work for Cisco/Google/Apple/etc., where are you going to live?
Yes, you can have the same house in Morgan Hill for $700k, but you'll spend 2 hours in traffic each way during rush hour. And the public schools there are rated 5 and below by GreatSchools.org, so you better shell out for private school as well.
Here is a 4 bed, 4 bath house in Beverly Hills for $3.4 million, 1 story on a very busy road. (For some reason, there are no 4 bedroom houses with fewer than 4 bathrooms in BH!)
You are correct - "red tape" is really about the combination of regulations and the effectiveness of officials to enforce it. In poor countries, there are lots of regulations and lots of corrupt officials who want a bribe to give you a permit to do anything.
There is no poor country that does well on the Doing Business Index or Index of Economic Freedom. Poor countries would benefit from de-regulation, at least until they can afford to do the regulation efficiently.
It is true that there are outlier countries where intense extractive mineral wealth has provided poverty reduction, but it is not sustainable. You eventually run out of the minerals. High levels of business regulation will keep that wealth from being used for effective economic development of other industries.
That said, it should be noted that Saudi Arabia still does better on the overall Doing Business Index than India (96 vs. 130 overall) and does much better than India on Dealing with Construction Permits (15 verse 185).
These are *children* who were brought here at ages where they didn't have the ability to understand a concept like immigration law.
Even most adult American citizens don't even understand US immigration law.
How often do you see something stupid like "Why can't those illegal Mexicans just register themselves legally?" ignorant of the fact that there is no way for a Mexican without direct family to legally immigrate to the US, and even when you have direct family, the wait time can be 20 years as it is now for Mexican F1 visas (Unmarried Sons and Daughters of U.S. Citizens).
The Federal govt now isn't what the Founding Fathers wanted. They wanted limited Fed powers. Severely limited.
Indeed. Do you know what power is not mentioned in the Constitution? Power over control of immigration. Naturalization is mentioned, but not immigration.
So he's basically admitted that Apple has hired illegal aliens. (Or if you prefer, non-citizens without proper work authorization documents.) That's a violation of Federal law punishable by fines and imprisonment [legalmatch.com].
Immigration law is very complex. Under immigration law, employers have a responsibility to make sure that they do not employ unauthorized workers. Whether they are a "lawful permanent resident" doesn't matter, only their authorization to work.
DACA recipients get an employment authorization document (also known EAD, work permit, or I 766) that tells the employer that they are authorized to work in the U.S.
Regarding "enforceable" net neutrality, how can you prove that an Internet transmission is being throttled? Every TCP connection is "throttled", or else it would expand to use all the bandwidth of the Internet. TCP increases its speed until it drops packets. It will drop those packets somewhere in the ten or more hops between a server and your home computer. Those ten hops go over links of different sizes and mixed with traffic of different bandwidths from the other hundred million people on the Internet.
BTW, those content distributors (who profit by dumping video traffic on end-user ISPs in exchange for monthly fees or ad sales) are continuously changing their routing for their own business purposes (see Google Espresso or Facebook Edge Fabric), ignoring the normally understood way to interpret BGP announcements from end-user ISPs. Sometimes they use peering connections, sometimes transit. Not "neutral" at all.
Yes, you can easily make a consumer-paid "fast lanes" where end-users pay end-user ISPs illegal. But are you really going to make it illegal for a content distributor to pay an ISP to increase their port sizes at an inter-exchange point, or to put/operate/maintain content caches in an ISP network?
To date, I've seen no precise technical details that would matter to Internetworking engineers in any of these net neutrality proposals. The jurisprudence to figure it all out would lag about five years behind the technological changes. We now have 400 GbE switches, SDN, NFV, programmable data plane. And some judge is really going to get all this?
That and and the fact that no actual "net non-neutrality" has ever occurred. There have always been peering disputes on the Internet, and some people have tried to run massive servers on their home computer against their terms of service, but there has never been an ISP that has seriously and consciously impeded a specific Internet content distributor in an attempt to enhance sales of their service in the Western World.
If there is ever a solid law behind net neutrality, I can assure you it will be 99% nuisance lawsuits against ISP where people will present nebulous evidence in hope of profits.
Apple is correct in their filing that end-user ISP competition is a good thing. Government needs to get out of the way to allow for competing end-user ISPs. And with 5G wireless coming, I'm sure there will be some.
Go to the store and look at some of the 50- and 60-inch 4K UHD televisions. They look amazing.
Yes, a 4K 60" TV looks amazing at a distance of 1.5 picture heights (~62 inches) in the store.
When you take it home and watch it from 10 feet away (120 inches, which is the average American distance to a TV in the living room), you don't see much more than HD resolution.
The Akamai State of the Internet Report 1Q2017 says that the US average Internet connection speed is 18.7 Mbps (hurrah, the US is now in the top 10 countries in the world, pushing out The Netherlands!). Speeds are up 22% year-on-year.
What is the normal person going to do with Gbps to the home? No one has a TV they can actually see 4K resolution with, and 3-4 Mbps does a superb job of HD video. So the average American can have 4 great HD streams running at the same time into their home. The average American household has 2.5 people...
18 Mbps does fine for 4K non-live TV, even if you had a 100" TV that could let your eye resolve the 4K resolution with at average viewing distances. Give it a few years and 20 Mbps should do fine for HEVC encoding of live anyway.
Yes, some geeks might be able to download their Linux distributions a little faster....but how often do you do that?
The one major problem is that our 4km+ average local loops on DSL will limit that modality to 5 Mbps for the average DSL user. Yes people 1 km local loop can go at near 1 Gbps, but there is currently no technology for the "long loop" people to get there.
Meanwhile DOCSIS 3.1 will bring 10 Gbps speeds to HFC...once all the upstream Ethernet switches are upgraded. 400 GbE port switches are now shipping.
(I currently have 80 Mbps down on DOCSIS 3.0 HFC).
4K really only "pops" with displays of 100" diagonal or more. Frankly, it would take a technological change from "flat screen" to "roll-up wallpaper display" to practically make a move to 100+ inches (the same way no CRT's lost practicality at 40 inches, flat screens are going to be impractical to deliver/install at 90+ inches).
Google has been touting how Espresso "moves BGP to a custom stack running on servers, enabling finer-grained partitioning and much more computation power than available in any Internet router." Theoretically providing real-time changes in edge routing to maximize video streaming performance based on client metrics. Unless there is a bug...
I suspect the DSL problem in the US is that many central offices were consolidated in the early era of Electronic Switching System (ESS) deployment, and this is the reason for our crazy long local loop lengths that average 4.25 km. Works fine for voice, horrible for DSL speeds above a few Mbps.
Apple could fix with with a "tax" on large apps. Larger apps have to have a higher price share with Apple. Free apps have to pay say a cent per every 10 MB over a certain size. That would make everyone's code tighter quickly!
In the 2013-2014 incident, Netflix purchased transit from Cogent, which had a settlement-free peering arrangement with Comcast. Shortly after Cogent began delivering Netflix traffic requested by Comcast subscribers, Cogentâ(TM)s routes into Comcast's network started to congest, reaching a level where it began to affect the performance of Netflix streaming for Comcast's subscribers.
Comcast suggested that Netflix pay for the connectivity required to deliver the content to the Comcast network. They did. Everything is fine now.
This is the way the networks that make up the Internet have been operating since the dawn of the Internet. There have always been peering versus paid connectivity disputes (going back to DANTE/EUNet in 1994, Digex/Agis in 1996, Cogent/Level3 in 2005, Level3/Comcast in 2010, etc.).
Networks have occasionally cut each other off in these disputes. The value of having access to the entire Internet helps these disputes resolve quickly, with the party who benefits economically most typically paying up (in this case, Netflix, who makes subscription money in exchange for deluging end user networks with huge amounts of video traffic).
And THAT is net neutrality. Anything else is just someone's bullshit agenda trying to whitewash itself as part of something you already know to be necessary.
Just wait until YOU become guilty of ILLEGAL PACKET PRIORITIZATION...
Without Network Neutrality there is nothing to prevent Verizon from either snarling Amazon's traffic (making their service lower quality), and/or charging Amazon more for the speed/bandwidth everyone else is getting by default (making them less competitive on price).
Yet, THIS DOESN'T HAPPEN.
ISPs know they are in the business of providing Internet service. They know they can't really take hobble Internet streaming competitors without pissing off their customers.
The Netflix speed index for the US continues to increase, now above 3 Mbps for all major ISPs in the country which gives you a fine H.264 HD signal for on-demand content. No one can see 4K resolution without a 100" display, so no real need for that yet.
And many ISPs are incorporating Netflix Open Connect caches to improve Netflix service - is this going to be an "illegal prioritization" of Netflix traffic over those who don't have in-ISP caches?
My suggestion - no regulations for now. If a problem comes along, and it is a REAL problem, THEN regulate.
The Net Neutrality "protest" is a poor attempt to mirror the Great Web Blackout of February 8-9, 1996 regarding the Communications Decency Act.
The difference of course is the CDA was an actual threat government infringement on online speech, as opposed to theoretical traffic allocations by private corporations, and frankly most of the protesting companies are really trying to use "net neutrality" as a negotiating tactic regarding the price of massive streaming video bandwidth (that those protesting companies profit from) between them and ISPs.
My belief remains the same in 2017 as it was in 1996: The Internet is best served by not having government intervention.
Slashdot Mirror
People just need to say, no.
And if you work for Cisco/Google/Apple/etc., where are you going to live?
Yes, you can have the same house in Morgan Hill for $700k, but you'll spend 2 hours in traffic each way during rush hour. And the public schools there are rated 5 and below by GreatSchools.org, so you better shell out for private school as well.
Here is a 4 bed, 4 bath house in Beverly Hills for $3.4 million, 1 story on a very busy road. (For some reason, there are no 4 bedroom houses with fewer than 4 bathrooms in BH!)
You are correct - "red tape" is really about the combination of regulations and the effectiveness of officials to enforce it. In poor countries, there are lots of regulations and lots of corrupt officials who want a bribe to give you a permit to do anything.
There is no poor country that does well on the Doing Business Index or Index of Economic Freedom. Poor countries would benefit from de-regulation, at least until they can afford to do the regulation efficiently.
It is true that there are outlier countries where intense extractive mineral wealth has provided poverty reduction, but it is not sustainable. You eventually run out of the minerals. High levels of business regulation will keep that wealth from being used for effective economic development of other industries.
That said, it should be noted that Saudi Arabia still does better on the overall Doing Business Index than India (96 vs. 130 overall) and does much better than India on Dealing with Construction Permits (15 verse 185).
a developing country will not have the miles of red tape and bureaucracy that has developed over the centuries in the US
Poor countries are poor because they have MORE red tape and bureaucracy than rich countries.
India is rated 130th in Ease of Doing Business Index, and 185th specifically in dealing with construction permits.
The United States ranks 8th in doing business overall and 39th for dealing with construction permits, for example.
These are *children* who were brought here at ages where they didn't have the ability to understand a concept like immigration law.
Even most adult American citizens don't even understand US immigration law.
How often do you see something stupid like "Why can't those illegal Mexicans just register themselves legally?" ignorant of the fact that there is no way for a Mexican without direct family to legally immigrate to the US, and even when you have direct family, the wait time can be 20 years as it is now for Mexican F1 visas (Unmarried Sons and Daughters of U.S. Citizens).
The Federal govt now isn't what the Founding Fathers wanted. They wanted limited Fed powers. Severely limited.
Indeed. Do you know what power is not mentioned in the Constitution? Power over control of immigration. Naturalization is mentioned, but not immigration.
So he's basically admitted that Apple has hired illegal aliens. (Or if you prefer, non-citizens without proper work authorization documents.) That's a violation of Federal law punishable by fines and imprisonment [legalmatch.com].
Immigration law is very complex. Under immigration law, employers have a responsibility to make sure that they do not employ unauthorized workers. Whether they are a "lawful permanent resident" doesn't matter, only their authorization to work.
DACA recipients get an employment authorization document (also known EAD, work permit, or I 766) that tells the employer that they are authorized to work in the U.S.
Obama deported more immigrants than any other President in history and more than all of the Presidents of the 20th century combined.
This should not be forgotten. I know someone who was deported while walking his kids to school!
Regarding "enforceable" net neutrality, how can you prove that an Internet transmission is being throttled? Every TCP connection is "throttled", or else it would expand to use all the bandwidth of the Internet. TCP increases its speed until it drops packets. It will drop those packets somewhere in the ten or more hops between a server and your home computer. Those ten hops go over links of different sizes and mixed with traffic of different bandwidths from the other hundred million people on the Internet.
BTW, those content distributors (who profit by dumping video traffic on end-user ISPs in exchange for monthly fees or ad sales) are continuously changing their routing for their own business purposes (see Google Espresso or Facebook Edge Fabric), ignoring the normally understood way to interpret BGP announcements from end-user ISPs. Sometimes they use peering connections, sometimes transit. Not "neutral" at all.
Yes, you can easily make a consumer-paid "fast lanes" where end-users pay end-user ISPs illegal. But are you really going to make it illegal for a content distributor to pay an ISP to increase their port sizes at an inter-exchange point, or to put/operate/maintain content caches in an ISP network?
To date, I've seen no precise technical details that would matter to Internetworking engineers in any of these net neutrality proposals. The jurisprudence to figure it all out would lag about five years behind the technological changes. We now have 400 GbE switches, SDN, NFV, programmable data plane. And some judge is really going to get all this?
That and and the fact that no actual "net non-neutrality" has ever occurred. There have always been peering disputes on the Internet, and some people have tried to run massive servers on their home computer against their terms of service, but there has never been an ISP that has seriously and consciously impeded a specific Internet content distributor in an attempt to enhance sales of their service in the Western World.
If there is ever a solid law behind net neutrality, I can assure you it will be 99% nuisance lawsuits against ISP where people will present nebulous evidence in hope of profits.
Apple is correct in their filing that end-user ISP competition is a good thing. Government needs to get out of the way to allow for competing end-user ISPs. And with 5G wireless coming, I'm sure there will be some.
Yes, and I am getting aged faster and faster by my kids!
I watch 4K shows via Amazon streaming and the difference between the 1080i of cable and the 4k movie is spectacular!
Of course, interlaced is horrible!
I was speaking of the difference between 1080p and 2160p, and of course at typical living room TV viewing distances of 10 feet.
Go to the store and look at some of the 50- and 60-inch 4K UHD televisions. They look amazing.
Yes, a 4K 60" TV looks amazing at a distance of 1.5 picture heights (~62 inches) in the store.
When you take it home and watch it from 10 feet away (120 inches, which is the average American distance to a TV in the living room), you don't see much more than HD resolution.
The Akamai State of the Internet Report 1Q2017 says that the US average Internet connection speed is 18.7 Mbps (hurrah, the US is now in the top 10 countries in the world, pushing out The Netherlands!). Speeds are up 22% year-on-year.
What is the normal person going to do with Gbps to the home? No one has a TV they can actually see 4K resolution with, and 3-4 Mbps does a superb job of HD video. So the average American can have 4 great HD streams running at the same time into their home. The average American household has 2.5 people...
18 Mbps does fine for 4K non-live TV, even if you had a 100" TV that could let your eye resolve the 4K resolution with at average viewing distances. Give it a few years and 20 Mbps should do fine for HEVC encoding of live anyway.
Yes, some geeks might be able to download their Linux distributions a little faster....but how often do you do that?
The one major problem is that our 4km+ average local loops on DSL will limit that modality to 5 Mbps for the average DSL user. Yes people 1 km local loop can go at near 1 Gbps, but there is currently no technology for the "long loop" people to get there.
Meanwhile DOCSIS 3.1 will bring 10 Gbps speeds to HFC...once all the upstream Ethernet switches are upgraded. 400 GbE port switches are now shipping.
(I currently have 80 Mbps down on DOCSIS 3.0 HFC).
Akamai State of the Internet Report 2017Q1 has United States average (IPv4) home Internet connection speed at 18.7 Mbps, up 22% year-on-year.
4K really only "pops" with displays of 100" diagonal or more. Frankly, it would take a technological change from "flat screen" to "roll-up wallpaper display" to practically make a move to 100+ inches (the same way no CRT's lost practicality at 40 inches, flat screens are going to be impractical to deliver/install at 90+ inches).
Google has been touting how Espresso "moves BGP to a custom stack running on servers, enabling finer-grained partitioning and much more computation power than available in any Internet router." Theoretically providing real-time changes in edge routing to maximize video streaming performance based on client metrics. Unless there is a bug...
I have no idea what you Americans are doing.
I suspect the DSL problem in the US is that many central offices were consolidated in the early era of Electronic Switching System (ESS) deployment, and this is the reason for our crazy long local loop lengths that average 4.25 km. Works fine for voice, horrible for DSL speeds above a few Mbps.
Apple could fix with with a "tax" on large apps. Larger apps have to have a higher price share with Apple. Free apps have to pay say a cent per every 10 MB over a certain size. That would make everyone's code tighter quickly!
The root of the problem is a lack of affordable places to live that aren't several hours' commute from places where people work.
Every square inch of the Bay Area should be covered in 60+ story buildings, like Hong Kong.
In the 2013-2014 incident, Netflix purchased transit from Cogent, which had a settlement-free peering arrangement with Comcast. Shortly after Cogent began delivering Netflix traffic requested by Comcast subscribers, Cogentâ(TM)s routes into Comcast's network started to congest, reaching a level where it began to affect the performance of Netflix streaming for Comcast's subscribers.
Comcast suggested that Netflix pay for the connectivity required to deliver the content to the Comcast network. They did. Everything is fine now.
This is the way the networks that make up the Internet have been operating since the dawn of the Internet. There have always been peering versus paid connectivity disputes (going back to DANTE/EUNet in 1994, Digex/Agis in 1996, Cogent/Level3 in 2005, Level3/Comcast in 2010, etc.).
Networks have occasionally cut each other off in these disputes. The value of having access to the entire Internet helps these disputes resolve quickly, with the party who benefits economically most typically paying up (in this case, Netflix, who makes subscription money in exchange for deluging end user networks with huge amounts of video traffic).
Here is how you are violating net neutrality by not accepting my pigeon packets:
1) no blocking of sites, my web site is only available via IP over pigeon
2) no throttling the speed of sites, I've got thousands of pigeons coming your way, but you can't handle it.
3) no paid fast lanes, you are clearly obstructing my pigeons in the interest of obtaining fast lane payment from me to accept my pigeons.
Don't like it? See you in court!
I accuse YOU of ILLEGAL PACKET PRIORITIZATION for refusing to let me RFC 1149 pigeons land!
And THAT is net neutrality. Anything else is just someone's bullshit agenda trying to whitewash itself as part of something you already know to be necessary.
Just wait until YOU become guilty of ILLEGAL PACKET PRIORITIZATION...
Without Network Neutrality there is nothing to prevent Verizon from either snarling Amazon's traffic (making their service lower quality), and/or charging Amazon more for the speed/bandwidth everyone else is getting by default (making them less competitive on price).
Yet, THIS DOESN'T HAPPEN.
ISPs know they are in the business of providing Internet service. They know they can't really take hobble Internet streaming competitors without pissing off their customers.
The Netflix speed index for the US continues to increase, now above 3 Mbps for all major ISPs in the country which gives you a fine H.264 HD signal for on-demand content. No one can see 4K resolution without a 100" display, so no real need for that yet.
And many ISPs are incorporating Netflix Open Connect caches to improve Netflix service - is this going to be an "illegal prioritization" of Netflix traffic over those who don't have in-ISP caches?
My suggestion - no regulations for now. If a problem comes along, and it is a REAL problem, THEN regulate.
The Net Neutrality "protest" is a poor attempt to mirror the Great Web Blackout of February 8-9, 1996 regarding the Communications Decency Act.
The difference of course is the CDA was an actual threat government infringement on online speech, as opposed to theoretical traffic allocations by private corporations, and frankly most of the protesting companies are really trying to use "net neutrality" as a negotiating tactic regarding the price of massive streaming video bandwidth (that those protesting companies profit from) between them and ISPs.
My belief remains the same in 2017 as it was in 1996: The Internet is best served by not having government intervention.