That means the client side implementation of TCP that hasn't fundamentally changed since 1987 will have to be changed again and users will need to update their TCP stack.
So he wants everyone, especially P2P users, to voluntarily update their TCP stack? Why in the world would a P2P user do that, when they know that (a) older stacks would be supported forever, and (b) a new stack would slow down their transfer rates? He does mention this problem:
At first glance, one might wonder what might prompt a P2P user to unilaterally and voluntarily disarm his or her multi-stream and persistence "cheat" advantage by installing a newer TCP implementation... I could imagine a fairly simple solution where an ISP would cut the broadband connection rate eight times for any P2P user using the older TCP stack to exploit the multi-stream or persistence loophole.
There are two issues with this solution:
How would the ISP distinguish between a network running NAT and a single user running P2P?
If you can reliably detect "cheaters", why do you need to update the users' TCP stacks? You would just throttle the cheaters and be done with it.
It's nice that he wants to find a solution to the P2P bandwidth problem, but this is not it.
Yeah, good luck with that. We tried that here in Utah with the UTOPIA fiber-to-the-home network: the cities essentially provide the last-mile fiber connectivity, and any ISP can sign up to provide service. Unfortunately, the resident duopoly (Qwest & Comcast) are fighting it to the death and would rather go out of business than participate. The harsh reality is that providing the last-mile connectivity is what gives the two incumbents their duopoly and they don't want to let that go.
And if or when they decide they've recaptured sufficient market share they will increase their fees
I think (and hope) they're going to have a tougher time killing off this competitor...
I think you've alluded to the most interesting part of this story: Microsoft is being forced to lower their prices (or even eliminate them) in order to compete with free software. This isn't a new phenomenon, of course -- they haven't been able to charge for IIS or IE, for example, due to competition from free software -- but it seems that it is happening frequently.
If I had stock in MSFT, I would start selling it once they announce that they've made any significant reduction in the cost of MS Office; it's one of the biggest cash cows for the company, and any sign of weakness in that space is their worst nightmare.
That means that if a radio station wants to be able to ever play any RIAA-artist music, even just once a year, they have to pay the same fee as a station that plays the stuff all the time.
If it is anything like the performance fee that other mediums must pay, it won't be RIAA-based: a broadcaster that plays ANY music will have to pay the fee, regardless of whether the artist has signed up with an RIAA record company or not. SoundExchange will receive the fees and then "fairly" distribute them to the artists/companies. It all goes back to the compulsory license that Congress has established for music played by radio broadcasters.
Because the radio stations essentially killed the RIAA's business model, the RIAA is left with no choice but to look for new ways to make money.
Are you kidding me? The RIAA's traditional business model is focused on getting radio play for new songs, and it has been for DECADES. It isn't the radio stations that have totally changed the music industry -- it's the digital download/iPod revolution that has done it. You can complain about those stations playing the same songs over and over again, but the record companies love it: it's how they get people to like their new music.
The thing that is so funny about this is that the record companies are talking out of both sides of their mouth. Out one side, they insist that the radio stations need to pay them for the music. Out the other side, they try to secretly pay off those same stations to constantly play their new releases (the dreaded "payola"). If the radio stations are such leeches, then why does the record industry try to pay them off to play certain music?
I wish the NAB had jumped to the defense of webcasters and satellite radio when they could've used the lobbying clout in DC
Huh? Apparently, you weren't paying close attention to the battle over webcasting: traditional broadcasters fought at the side of the web-only streaming companies. Companies like Clear Channel Communications, Bonneville Internation Corp., and Susquehanna Radio Corp. all provided testimony against the RIAA's desired streaming rates. The National Association of Broadcasters would love to see the Royalty Board's decision vacated.
I'm sorry, but just adding up the memory usage columns from something like 'top' is a horrible way to measure actual memory usage. Why? Well, shared libraries is one big reason. Most of those applications are likely to use a similar set of shared libraries, which the operating system only loads once in memory and then uses for all of the applications. However, things like 'top' include the memory usage of those libraries in every application that uses them. Thus, if 'libkdeprint' is 1 MB and is used by 10 KDE programs, the ACTUAL memory usage of that library would be 1 MB, but top would report 10 MB of memory used (1 MB for each app).
This effect is very noticeable with desktop environments like KDE and GNOME, where there are a ton of programs that all use the same set of shared libraries. If you reduced the size of a few very basic libraries (e.g. 'libkdecore') by a sizable amount, then you could show a fake "huge savings" across the ~30 KDE/GNOME apps that were running.
It isn't that I doubt that KDE 4 uses less memory -- it undoubtedly does -- it's just that using overly simplistic methods to measure the difference in usage is misleading and somewhat pointless.
Let's be honest about the situation: no matter WHAT rules are eventually enacted, they will be challenged in court. Once it is in court, there is a significant chance that the entire newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership rule will simply be invalidated. Why? Because a very similar rule, the cable-broadcast cross-ownership rule, was tossed out in 2002 by the DC Circuit Court because it was arbitrary and capricious.
Personally, I could care less if a local newspaper owns a radio or TV station; I care more about media concentration than formats. Which is more troubling, ClearChannel owning half the local radio stations (and another billion across the country), or a local newspaper owning a single "oldies" FM radio station? In my opinion, they should assign different weights to the different kinds of media, and then say that you can own whatever you like up to the weight cap.
For a site like/., a 95th percentile bandwidth of 50 Mbps for the month would cost between US$500 and $800
Actually, if you're referring to the earlier comment about Slashdot's bandwidth, that 50 Mbps figure is supposedly the monthly average; the 95th-percentile billing that most service providers do is more about bursting time than about averages over large periods of time.
That's interesting; I expected Slashdot to use a lot more bandwidth than 40-50 over the month. However, that statistic doesn't say much about what you actually push in the middle of the day; I would be much more interested in knowing what your typical bandwidth usage is from 8-5 and what your highest spike has been. As a point of comparison, I'm involved with a group of sites that pushes 60-70 on average over a month, but the typical 8-5 traffic is more like 120, with occasional spikes up to 260 or so.
I'm surprised at how resistant some people are to dropping the newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership ban.
First of all, everyone should want the FCC to get a ruling out the door quickly. Why? Because this thing is going to end up in court no matter what the actual ruling is; I would anticipate it eventually being appealed up to the Supreme Court, which is where the final say is going to take place. After all, something very similar happened to the cable/broadcast cross-ownership rule, which was tossed out by a court (though not the SCOTUS). The sooner the FCC moves on this, the sooner we'll have a final ruling on it.
Second, newspapers are dying. Many if not most papers are losing money year after year and the problem appears to be getting worse. By merging with other TV and radio news organizations, papers may be able to cut some costs. It's ironic, but it may be that the FCC ends up saving some newspapers by dropping the cross-ownership ban.
There are only two reasons why most foreign students would leave after school: 1) they are forced to by Visa restrictions, or 2)Wages are higher in other countries.
I would think that there are a lot more reasons than that. For example:
The foreign student may not like the political situation here
The student may have family in their home country that they would prefer to be with
The student might possibly even just LIKE their home country
Just because you throw a visa at someone doesn't mean that they'll want to stay here. Deciding where to spend your life doesn't just come down to permission and money.
Yes but is it cheaper to subsidize a foreign student through grad school then to fund a child from K-12, undergrad, grad school and all the children services.
Huh? You're going to have to fund the K-12 and undergrad education of the native student in both cases anyways, so it's irrelevant to the calculation of grad school costs.
If you estimate that both foreign and native students cost the same to educate at the graduate level, and you assume that only 1/5 of foreign students stay in the US afterwards, then it is obvious that it is in the best interests of the country to prefer native students. The real question is whether the output from those foreign students that stay is better than the natives, and whether it is large enough to compensate for the possibly low retention rate.
International students pay full price for their education - and are not subsidized by the state in any way.
That is, unless you receive a tuition waiver; the graduate school that I attended provided a 100% tuition waiver to all RA/TA's, most of which were international students. This is not uncommon, either.
(a) It did remove the service. How can I tell? I deleted the updater files - they're gone.
How can you really tell? The same people that secretly updated your files also created your filesystem; if they want to make sure you can't really delete something, there isn't much you can do about it.
I have disabled, then removed completely the windows update service from all my computers. I will manually install updates from now on, when and if I want them.
So what? You're assuming a couple of things: (a) that Windows really did remove the update service like it told you it did, and (b) that Microsoft hasn't added some secret updater code in a different part of the OS.
In the end, you really can't be sure that this won't happen to you again unless you unplug your network connection.
90% plus of the people on the internet haven't got a fucking clue how to safely operate an internet-facing server. They *NEED* NAT, not an obscure-interface firewall.
No, they don't need NAT, they need a firewall. Specifically, a firewall that by default allows all outbound connections and blocks all inbound connections, which is essentially what they have now. And, just like now, it will have a simple web interface where they can make simple changes. What is so hard about that?
If IPV6 is implemented in my lifetime, I will still use NAT. Deal with it.
Wanna bet? My money is on you NOT using NAT; you will have a router device (like now) that provides simple connection tracking and packet filtering (like now) but doesn't do any address translation (because you won't need it). Same security benefits, less headache.
Apparently not. Every RIR maintains its own pool of spare addresses and only requests further allocations from IANA when it gets low. It would appear that ARIN hasn't needed further allocations thus far this year.
16 million addresses assigned to the toplevel registries isn't the same thing as 16 million addresses being used.
Of course not, but it is probably one of the easiest things to benchmark that is relevant to the discussion. Even when you take other metrics into account, though, you still get a quick depletion of the IPv4 space. This site estimates that the first RIR will run out of addresses in early 2011 -- less than four years away.
I'm sorry that you're having such a hard time accepting the concept of address space exhaustion. I can understand being opposed to specific elements of certain proposals, but you seem to be opposed to the entire concept of there being a problem. Perhaps you should spent more time learning about the situation instead of simply being an obstructionist.
He lies and says we're running out of addresses at a rate of 10-15/8's per year. ARIN says we're going through about 3-4 a year (see the ipv4-allocation-assignments- this stuff is public even to nonmembers
No, he's not lying. You made the mistake of only looking at ARIN's numbers, which show IP usage in the Americas. Try looking at IANA's numbers instead and you'll see that the allocation of ~10/8's per year is about right. So far this year, RIPE (covering Europe) has gotten 4 new blocks and APNIC (covering Asia) has gotten 5.
The DMCA rule is (loosely paraphrased): if a site doesn't censor its users posts and implements an automatic takedown system with notification to the user, then it's safe from copyright infringement claims (safe harbor provision).
Actually, I believe you're a bit off -- a site can censor its posts under the "Good Samaritan" portion of the CDA and still not be liable for user content. The DMCA, from what I understand, does not change this fact; it simply requires that the site comply with submitted take-down notices and any ensuing responses.
So, couldn't an internet radio site put in a really low watt broadcast system.
Sure they could, but it wouldn't make a bit of difference. Broadcasters are exempted from the extra royalty only for their over-the-air signal; a "simulcast" of their signal over the Internet would still have to pay the second royalty.
The compulsory licensing rates will not kill internet radio: they simply provide terms and conditions of last resort for copyright owners and webcasters who cannot otherwise reach an agreement.
Compulsory licenses are meant to create efficiencies in the marketplace, such that the radio stations don't need to try and negotiate licenses from every single copyright holder, thus lowering costs for everyone.
Under your plan, though, the compulsory license would no longer engender efficiency; instead, it simply becomes a price ceiling. The radio stations will now have to dicker with every single record company over royalties, costing both groups immense time and money.
What will the result be? Small stations will have to pay higher royalties, as they will not have the leverage in their negotiations that the mega-corporations (i.e. Clear Channel) do. This will eventually force the smaller players out of the market.
Also, any independent artist or small record label will receive ZERO air-time, as it would prove too expensive to the radio stations to negotiate deals with all but the largest labels. Thus, the major labels will tighten their grip on the music industry.
So, the small labels, independent artists, and small radio stations will all take a hit, and possibly disappear. Perhaps you don't think that is a bad thing, but I certainly do.
If the objective is to have broadcasting over the Internet, then there is no effective difference and the royalties should be identical.
Great point! You should really mention it to the Copyright Royalty Board, as they have now rejected that line of reasoning twice when it came from the Internet radio stations.
In case you haven't been keeping up with the story, here's the quick summary: Internet radio has to pay two sets of royalties, while traditional radio only pays one. Thanks to the recent ruling by the CRB, that extra royalty that Internet radio pays will skyrocket over the next few years, dealing Internet radio a mortal blow.
Universities aren't in the business of providing internet access.
Of course they are. Go to any university and ask the person responsible for filling the dorms what would happen if they cut off Internet access. They realize very well that internet access in a dorm room is considered essential, and that the demand for dorm rooms will take a hit if they don't have it. It's become a basic cost of doing business.
At a university where they have both types of usage on the same networks, it may well be that the 95th percentile hits right about the time everybody fires up their bittorrent clients and hits the sack.
It depends on the university. A large research university probably uses much more bandwidth during the day than at night, while a smaller college might see the pattern you describe. Either way, it doesn't really matter; it isn't rocket science to simply throttle the dorms down at night to a level below your 95th-percentile.
If 50% of your bandwidth is completely unrelated to the mission of the institution, then it seems perfectly reasonable to eliminate that usage.
Are NCAA sports part of the mission of the institution? There are many things that aren't specifically education-related that are not only tolerated, but actively promoted. Plus, it isn't too hard to argue that having an internet connection in your dorm after 9 PM can be related to the mission of the institution.
If the only way to do so is to shut it off, or bill exorbitant rates, then that's just great.
Fortunately, that isn't the only way to do it, as I've pointed out. So if it isn't costing you, the taxpayer, any money, then why do you care what the students do in their dorm rooms at night?
Slashdot Mirror
Here is the glaring flaw in his proposal:
So he wants everyone, especially P2P users, to voluntarily update their TCP stack? Why in the world would a P2P user do that, when they know that (a) older stacks would be supported forever, and (b) a new stack would slow down their transfer rates? He does mention this problem:
There are two issues with this solution:
It's nice that he wants to find a solution to the P2P bandwidth problem, but this is not it.
Yeah, good luck with that. We tried that here in Utah with the UTOPIA fiber-to-the-home network: the cities essentially provide the last-mile fiber connectivity, and any ISP can sign up to provide service. Unfortunately, the resident duopoly (Qwest & Comcast) are fighting it to the death and would rather go out of business than participate. The harsh reality is that providing the last-mile connectivity is what gives the two incumbents their duopoly and they don't want to let that go.
I think you've alluded to the most interesting part of this story: Microsoft is being forced to lower their prices (or even eliminate them) in order to compete with free software. This isn't a new phenomenon, of course -- they haven't been able to charge for IIS or IE, for example, due to competition from free software -- but it seems that it is happening frequently.
If I had stock in MSFT, I would start selling it once they announce that they've made any significant reduction in the cost of MS Office; it's one of the biggest cash cows for the company, and any sign of weakness in that space is their worst nightmare.
If it is anything like the performance fee that other mediums must pay, it won't be RIAA-based: a broadcaster that plays ANY music will have to pay the fee, regardless of whether the artist has signed up with an RIAA record company or not. SoundExchange will receive the fees and then "fairly" distribute them to the artists/companies. It all goes back to the compulsory license that Congress has established for music played by radio broadcasters.
Are you kidding me? The RIAA's traditional business model is focused on getting radio play for new songs, and it has been for DECADES. It isn't the radio stations that have totally changed the music industry -- it's the digital download/iPod revolution that has done it. You can complain about those stations playing the same songs over and over again, but the record companies love it: it's how they get people to like their new music.
The thing that is so funny about this is that the record companies are talking out of both sides of their mouth. Out one side, they insist that the radio stations need to pay them for the music. Out the other side, they try to secretly pay off those same stations to constantly play their new releases (the dreaded "payola"). If the radio stations are such leeches, then why does the record industry try to pay them off to play certain music?
Huh? Apparently, you weren't paying close attention to the battle over webcasting: traditional broadcasters fought at the side of the web-only streaming companies. Companies like Clear Channel Communications, Bonneville Internation Corp., and Susquehanna Radio Corp. all provided testimony against the RIAA's desired streaming rates. The National Association of Broadcasters would love to see the Royalty Board's decision vacated.
I'm sorry, but just adding up the memory usage columns from something like 'top' is a horrible way to measure actual memory usage. Why? Well, shared libraries is one big reason. Most of those applications are likely to use a similar set of shared libraries, which the operating system only loads once in memory and then uses for all of the applications. However, things like 'top' include the memory usage of those libraries in every application that uses them. Thus, if 'libkdeprint' is 1 MB and is used by 10 KDE programs, the ACTUAL memory usage of that library would be 1 MB, but top would report 10 MB of memory used (1 MB for each app).
This effect is very noticeable with desktop environments like KDE and GNOME, where there are a ton of programs that all use the same set of shared libraries. If you reduced the size of a few very basic libraries (e.g. 'libkdecore') by a sizable amount, then you could show a fake "huge savings" across the ~30 KDE/GNOME apps that were running.
It isn't that I doubt that KDE 4 uses less memory -- it undoubtedly does -- it's just that using overly simplistic methods to measure the difference in usage is misleading and somewhat pointless.
See a longer discussion of the issue at: http://virtualthreads.blogspot.com/2006/02/understanding-memory-usage-on-linux.html
Let's be honest about the situation: no matter WHAT rules are eventually enacted, they will be challenged in court. Once it is in court, there is a significant chance that the entire newspaper-broadcast cross-ownership rule will simply be invalidated. Why? Because a very similar rule, the cable-broadcast cross-ownership rule, was tossed out in 2002 by the DC Circuit Court because it was arbitrary and capricious.
Personally, I could care less if a local newspaper owns a radio or TV station; I care more about media concentration than formats. Which is more troubling, ClearChannel owning half the local radio stations (and another billion across the country), or a local newspaper owning a single "oldies" FM radio station? In my opinion, they should assign different weights to the different kinds of media, and then say that you can own whatever you like up to the weight cap.
Slashdot is part of a larger hosting agreement. So, they're not paying for 50 mbps; that's just what Slashdot's portion is.
Actually, if you're referring to the earlier comment about Slashdot's bandwidth, that 50 Mbps figure is supposedly the monthly average; the 95th-percentile billing that most service providers do is more about bursting time than about averages over large periods of time.
That's interesting; I expected Slashdot to use a lot more bandwidth than 40-50 over the month. However, that statistic doesn't say much about what you actually push in the middle of the day; I would be much more interested in knowing what your typical bandwidth usage is from 8-5 and what your highest spike has been. As a point of comparison, I'm involved with a group of sites that pushes 60-70 on average over a month, but the typical 8-5 traffic is more like 120, with occasional spikes up to 260 or so.
I'm surprised at how resistant some people are to dropping the newspaper/broadcast cross-ownership ban.
First of all, everyone should want the FCC to get a ruling out the door quickly. Why? Because this thing is going to end up in court no matter what the actual ruling is; I would anticipate it eventually being appealed up to the Supreme Court, which is where the final say is going to take place. After all, something very similar happened to the cable/broadcast cross-ownership rule, which was tossed out by a court (though not the SCOTUS). The sooner the FCC moves on this, the sooner we'll have a final ruling on it.
Second, newspapers are dying. Many if not most papers are losing money year after year and the problem appears to be getting worse. By merging with other TV and radio news organizations, papers may be able to cut some costs. It's ironic, but it may be that the FCC ends up saving some newspapers by dropping the cross-ownership ban.
I would think that there are a lot more reasons than that. For example:
Just because you throw a visa at someone doesn't mean that they'll want to stay here. Deciding where to spend your life doesn't just come down to permission and money.
Huh? You're going to have to fund the K-12 and undergrad education of the native student in both cases anyways, so it's irrelevant to the calculation of grad school costs.
If you estimate that both foreign and native students cost the same to educate at the graduate level, and you assume that only 1/5 of foreign students stay in the US afterwards, then it is obvious that it is in the best interests of the country to prefer native students. The real question is whether the output from those foreign students that stay is better than the natives, and whether it is large enough to compensate for the possibly low retention rate.
That is, unless you receive a tuition waiver; the graduate school that I attended provided a 100% tuition waiver to all RA/TA's, most of which were international students. This is not uncommon, either.
How can you really tell? The same people that secretly updated your files also created your filesystem; if they want to make sure you can't really delete something, there isn't much you can do about it.
So what? You're assuming a couple of things: (a) that Windows really did remove the update service like it told you it did, and (b) that Microsoft hasn't added some secret updater code in a different part of the OS.
In the end, you really can't be sure that this won't happen to you again unless you unplug your network connection.
No, they don't need NAT, they need a firewall. Specifically, a firewall that by default allows all outbound connections and blocks all inbound connections, which is essentially what they have now. And, just like now, it will have a simple web interface where they can make simple changes. What is so hard about that?
Wanna bet? My money is on you NOT using NAT; you will have a router device (like now) that provides simple connection tracking and packet filtering (like now) but doesn't do any address translation (because you won't need it). Same security benefits, less headache.
Apparently not. Every RIR maintains its own pool of spare addresses and only requests further allocations from IANA when it gets low. It would appear that ARIN hasn't needed further allocations thus far this year.
Of course not, but it is probably one of the easiest things to benchmark that is relevant to the discussion. Even when you take other metrics into account, though, you still get a quick depletion of the IPv4 space. This site estimates that the first RIR will run out of addresses in early 2011 -- less than four years away.
I'm sorry that you're having such a hard time accepting the concept of address space exhaustion. I can understand being opposed to specific elements of certain proposals, but you seem to be opposed to the entire concept of there being a problem. Perhaps you should spent more time learning about the situation instead of simply being an obstructionist.
No, he's not lying. You made the mistake of only looking at ARIN's numbers, which show IP usage in the Americas. Try looking at IANA's numbers instead and you'll see that the allocation of ~10 /8's per year is about right. So far this year, RIPE (covering Europe) has gotten 4 new blocks and APNIC (covering Asia) has gotten 5.
Actually, I believe you're a bit off -- a site can censor its posts under the "Good Samaritan" portion of the CDA and still not be liable for user content. The DMCA, from what I understand, does not change this fact; it simply requires that the site comply with submitted take-down notices and any ensuing responses.
Sure they could, but it wouldn't make a bit of difference. Broadcasters are exempted from the extra royalty only for their over-the-air signal; a "simulcast" of their signal over the Internet would still have to pay the second royalty.
Compulsory licenses are meant to create efficiencies in the marketplace, such that the radio stations don't need to try and negotiate licenses from every single copyright holder, thus lowering costs for everyone.
Under your plan, though, the compulsory license would no longer engender efficiency; instead, it simply becomes a price ceiling. The radio stations will now have to dicker with every single record company over royalties, costing both groups immense time and money.
What will the result be? Small stations will have to pay higher royalties, as they will not have the leverage in their negotiations that the mega-corporations (i.e. Clear Channel) do. This will eventually force the smaller players out of the market.
Also, any independent artist or small record label will receive ZERO air-time, as it would prove too expensive to the radio stations to negotiate deals with all but the largest labels. Thus, the major labels will tighten their grip on the music industry.
So, the small labels, independent artists, and small radio stations will all take a hit, and possibly disappear. Perhaps you don't think that is a bad thing, but I certainly do.
Great point! You should really mention it to the Copyright Royalty Board, as they have now rejected that line of reasoning twice when it came from the Internet radio stations.
In case you haven't been keeping up with the story, here's the quick summary: Internet radio has to pay two sets of royalties, while traditional radio only pays one. Thanks to the recent ruling by the CRB, that extra royalty that Internet radio pays will skyrocket over the next few years, dealing Internet radio a mortal blow.
And yes, you're right, it makes no sense.
Of course they are. Go to any university and ask the person responsible for filling the dorms what would happen if they cut off Internet access. They realize very well that internet access in a dorm room is considered essential, and that the demand for dorm rooms will take a hit if they don't have it. It's become a basic cost of doing business.
It depends on the university. A large research university probably uses much more bandwidth during the day than at night, while a smaller college might see the pattern you describe. Either way, it doesn't really matter; it isn't rocket science to simply throttle the dorms down at night to a level below your 95th-percentile.
Are NCAA sports part of the mission of the institution? There are many things that aren't specifically education-related that are not only tolerated, but actively promoted. Plus, it isn't too hard to argue that having an internet connection in your dorm after 9 PM can be related to the mission of the institution.
Fortunately, that isn't the only way to do it, as I've pointed out. So if it isn't costing you, the taxpayer, any money, then why do you care what the students do in their dorm rooms at night?