Many providers don't have the backbone to support all of their users maxing their connections 24/7. The ultimate solution would be a unified, equally shared network.
Sorry but a libertarian in me cries out in pain. This is a good recipe for centralized censorship.
I was wondering for a long time, how could China so easily block every single web request, every single website inside of their network that is on their "banned" list. Well, the bulk of the "Golden Shield Project" is implemented on the border routers that is directly controlled by their government. (And 30,000 volunteers who continuously monitor the Internet for "anti-revolutionary propaganda", but that's beside the point).
As long as we have various companies owning various portions of our network, we will always have problems.
Have you ever done a traceroute to a website you are trying to reach? You will find that the routers it hits belong to many different corporations (some of whom are competitors). After the packet leaves your server, it might hit AT&T router, BBN, MCI or Sprint. Once it passes through these it will eventually end up on your target ISPs. That's how Internet really was developed, but these large communications companies laying down the cables and connecting various small networks together. Government natural inefficiencies and inherent bureaucracies will prevent them from running global network effectively.
The article says, I quote:
The net neutrality vision for government regulation of the Internet began with the work of Robert McChesney, a University of Illinois communications professor who founded the liberal lobby Free Press in 2002. Mr. McChesney's agenda? "At the moment, the battle over network neutrality is not to completely eliminate the telephone and cable companies," he told the website SocialistProject in 2009. "But the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control."
Wow. Just Wow. So is the real goal is to turn an ISP into a public utility? Ok, so the author implies that the net neutrality has been perpetrated by the same groups as those who funded the "Fairness doctrine" attempt. Bad thing in my opinion, I was designed and would have put conservative side of the American public spectrum in disadvantage. But my question is this: Theoretically, how and how could the ability to deny ISPs ability to provide "tierred" Internet put any one of these political wings in a disadvantage?
In the age of global financial transactions' full of micropayment, any way of denying payment to any entity would be futile. After all, people can still send money to Wikileaks with their VISA and Mastercard, just without doing it directly. There are few indirect ways have been published (such as making deposit into the third country bank's account that belongs to Wikileaks)... And after all -- there is nothing illigal about it... unless the government were to declare such entity (be it Wikileaks or a random pirate-movie website) a terrorist entity.
I like your tone and thought-provoking reply. Unlike the other peoples comments it is not driving me mad but rather to think.
You forgot probably that discover and AE is available as well, but that's beside the point.
Anyways, VISA and MC is a current economic reality and our economy is based on it. When I read the story that small business owners who depend on the online transactions during the Christmas season could not get through because bunch of hackers decided upon themselves to conduct a "punishment session" for the credit card companies -- I realized that they are engaging in economic terrorism. They are not hurting MC or Visa because these companies are in business of lending money and collecting fees on micro-transactions.
My personal problem is not necessarily with WikiLeaks but specifically with the "public avengers", i.e. misguided mob. This action in itself is the most undemocratic and barbaric thing that came out of that story, creating by far more harm to the economies of many countries at this time.
OK you want a neutral non-corporate owned payment structure? Then create your "Peoples Credit Card" monopoly and see how far will you go without corporation... If it is government owned -- then it would be be a defeat in purpose. So technically your argument and preposition is either done in sarcastic humorous tone or completely stupid.
Errr... tell me how it sounds. An American bank financing a person ingaging in violation of Espionage Act of 1917...
And seriously -- they, as private companies have a right to deny their services to whom they choose.
Once upon a time I used to work for a pizza store. My coworker (a black guy) was told by a customer to serve him a pizza, and the customer also called him by a racial slur. I took his pizza in front of him, told him I am refusing to serve it to him and threw it in the trash. The law is on my side (again) because I have the right to whom I choose to accept as customers and whom I do not.
I would like to choose to respond to your assertion about USD transactions and your ignoring the fact that every single bank and financial institution do government transactions all over the world for every single government including the two biggest credit companies but never mind. Instead I would like to put a mirror against your face to show how much of a stupid idiot you actually are after the following trolling quotes:
time to close your life account... you're an idiot.
my address is 4513 brittany ct. eau claire, wi. 54701. my house is solid. your house is??? why do you cower? what are you afraid of? you're completely pathetic. ur mum's face choose to have Down's Syndrome. you're an idiot.
you are NOTHING. cower behind your chosen pseudonym some more, feeb. you're completely pathetic.
You know, there are two types of attitudes in the world. There are those who believe that in order to make oneself happy one has to make others happy as well. And the other attitude is of course, in order to make oneself feel happy one has to make others feel bad. Quite vampiric attitude, actually. And since your attitude obviously belongs to the second category I would wholeheartedly urge you to see a shrink as soon as possible because it is a self-destructive path that you are on, and you seriously in need of some anti-depressant medications.
No, I am neither a pedophile nor a terrorist. But it is true, I do hate puppies. Who told you that secret?
Joking aside, it has been reported by the ex-employees and associates of Wikileaks that Assange intended to make millions of dollars per year based upon the blackmailing the organizations on whom he has "secrets" for the rights not to publish them.
Seriously, in the past he said that he has secret Kremlin documents. Now that Putin has come out so harsh in his defence, wanna bet that we will never see them in the light of day?
Holy shit... That's $125 million becomes $1.925 Billion...
That's 15,400 increase! Wow....
I would like to find such investment that would give me such a huge return margin...
And don't give me this "Freedom of speech" bull. Mastercard, Visa, PayPal, Amazon and many others who got DDOS'ed have the freedom of speech to shut down their services to anyone they choose to. After all, they are not the government corporation.
I said disallow the cable monopolies, not the companies. Please re-read again.
In many municipalities the Cable companies have a government-sanctioned monopoly. That means that if you would like to unsubscribe from the Comcast and get a different cable line -- you can not because the said municipalities do not allow them into the market.
Why not deregulate the industry and disallow the cable company monopolies (such as Comcast for example) out there so that we actually have competition? That way if any ISP decides to bill "multi-tier" approach, you can vote with your wallet?
LOL reminds me of the joke that was popular during the Obama presidential compaign.
McCain, Hillary and Obama are taking a walk on the streets of DC, and they encounter a homeless person. McCain pulls out a $20 bill and gives it to the man, adding, "Why don't you come tomorrow to my office and we'll talk about the job".
Hillary, not to be outdone pulls another $20 bill from McCain's pocket, then puts it into her pocket. She then takes out $15 from her own pocket and gives it to the homeless saying, "Five dollars processing fee!".
Obama shines his smile at the homeless man, comes up to him, pets him on the shoulder and says, "Have HOPE!CHANGE is coming!"
There are many FCC rules with "deplorable" provision. The worst one is the following
This device complies with part 15 of the FCC rules. Operation is subject to the following two conditions: (1) this device may not cause harmful interference, and (2) this device must accept any interference received, including interference that may cause undesired operation.
Was it not obvious that "Hope" and "Change" was nothing more then a slogan and the Great Orator with Teleprompter took everyone for a ride? The mob followed him blindly... Don't feel bad, it happens all the time regardless of the politicians' political affiliations. I believe it was Nikita Khrushchev who once said, "Politicians are the same all over. They promise to build bridges even when there are no rivers."
It was not a DSL connection. Generally cable companies maintain their network on a "bus" topological structure within their point of service box. DSL is different, you are correct.
Current popular versions of P2P (Such as Bittorent) are parasites. They consume as much bandwidth as they can, and it is very difficult to control that traffic, especially after encryption became popular for the clients.
Seriously unless the company is a public utility or a government mandated monopoly (such as your favorite cable company) then you should be able to apply the rules of he capitalism and vote with your wallet.
Well here a person like YOU I don't quite understand. Someone who would be quoting the quote that anti-Socialist Thatcher said against the government's regulation would want a solution based on government regulation -- that's... confusing to say the least.
Seriously, if the ISP is not enjoying the state-granted monopoly, then should they not be the subjects to the natural laws of competition? If Comcast were to raise their rates I would simply move somewhere else.
It is usually the trolls who start out their argument by belittling their opponent on their intentions.
How about this, I'm trying to have a skype video call with aunt Betty, but keep getting video and audio packet loss cause people like you keep hogging up all the neighborhood bandwidth by watching your netflix, youtube, and other media streaming services...
Streaming video is a responsible usage. It takes one connection. p2p is irresponsible. Especially protocol like BitTorrent. If you have ever watched BitTorrent traffic through the sniffer you would notice hundreds and hundreds of connections that are being established. Many of them are only "half" way without acks (due to bad clients) and taking long time for the connection table to be cleared. While streaming video is an easily managegable resource and can easly be capped on bandwidth and resource consumption, the BitTorrent is a power-hungry protocol and depending on the number of users that are trying to connect through will eat up much of your bandwidth space. It in itself resembles TCP DDOS. Even if you have your precious 1.5 mbts / 256 bts space, it consumes a lot more then that just by taking up the connection resource space.
The people at fault are the ones managing our connections, the ISP. They're the ones that are suppose to be managing this shit correctly...round ribbon load balancer...
Ok, snipping the stupid point about the "round ribbon load balancer"... It is actually "Round robin", and that is not how load balancers work. They work on connection-by-connection basis, not bandwidth. And as I already explained above -- P2P is unique. You can't effectively manage traffic balance based on any criteria of such traffic other then limiting amount of packets (yes, packets) each user receives on any protocol.
And with p2p encryption it is not entirely guaranteed.
And look at it this way. The ISP sold me a up to 1.5mbps / 256kps DSL connection. So, who are you to say what I can and cannot use it for, and when and when not I can use it?
ISP has sold you this package with the agreement of understanding of its responsible uses. If you come to live in my village paying taxes -- you are welcome to come and live with us. However if you are going to be actively annoying your neighbors with loud music and obnoxious behavior because you also pay the taxes -- move out. We don't want you.
Net Neutrality is an idea to prevent ISPs from deciding that netflix and youtube traffic to their customers isn't cost effective, so they either throttle it way down, basically giving them the lowest QoS priority...
So what? It is also capitalism. Unless the ISP enjoys public monopoly space (such as Comcast or your other favorite cable company) they should do whatever the heck they want. If you (the consumer) do not like it -- move on out somewhere else. I would. I personally believe that would be a very stupid move on ISPs part because competition will get better of them.
Seriously -- vote with your wallet.
Honestly guys, have any of you ever ran a BitTorrent on your network at the same time as you are trying to watch streaming videos? You know, most of the time your video would be crappy. (Because it requires soft real-time delivery... and your routers are busy.)
So what do you do? You go into your router and put some form of traffic control on it (be it QoS or connection limitation or whatever else).
Now let me ask you a quesiton: If you are a paying cable modem user / DSL user, have it not pissed you off (sometimes) when you can not download anything or stream any videos / music because your neighbor kid next door decides to run non-stop BitTorrent movies downloading service? (Few years ago I got safficiently pissed and found that kid downloading 18 titles at the same time... He left them on for weeks!) And you know that the bandwidth in your neighborhood is crappy anyways?
Why should the the ISP not be able to QoS the traffic between the kid and you and allow the same bandwidth, same number of concurrent connections to him as to me? I pay for my Internet too and want to watch my NetFlix and YouTube and even simply browse the Internet unmolested by the crappy page load-times.
I still can't comprehend how, what economic forces could have allowed Sun to be in position to be bought over by Oracle, and not the other way around. Consider:
Sun had EVERYTHING that Oracle had and more:
1. Its own database systems
2. Its own java application servers
3. Its own web servers/w LDAP servers
4. And on top of that pile up Java, Sparc / Solaris, various Java-based tech, etc.
5. Don't forget the Sun VM.
Now look, Oracle is killing many of the old Sun projects. Looking Glass has gone to dust (maybe even before the purchase), mysql is suffering and most likely will die. I found out that they will no longer manufacture sparc desktops, leaving us the sweet memories of blade150 running Solaris9.
Oh and OpenSolaris -- already in danger of loosing its community.
What would happened? Oracle turns out to be more evil then Microsoft ever was.
Hold on a second, mate. According to this definition if I were to write a software purely on linux, (my personal version of "Hello World" for instance), this would have to be GPL'd because it calls GLIBC?
'Earlier, in describing his reaction to a successful wireless transfer, SEMENKO said he was, "like... totally happy."'
Note to self: In order to make a spy "like... totally happy" fix their computer!
Slashdot Mirror
Many providers don't have the backbone to support all of their users maxing their connections 24/7. The ultimate solution would be a unified, equally shared network.
Sorry but a libertarian in me cries out in pain. This is a good recipe for centralized censorship. I was wondering for a long time, how could China so easily block every single web request, every single website inside of their network that is on their "banned" list. Well, the bulk of the "Golden Shield Project" is implemented on the border routers that is directly controlled by their government. (And 30,000 volunteers who continuously monitor the Internet for "anti-revolutionary propaganda", but that's beside the point).
As long as we have various companies owning various portions of our network, we will always have problems.
Have you ever done a traceroute to a website you are trying to reach? You will find that the routers it hits belong to many different corporations (some of whom are competitors). After the packet leaves your server, it might hit AT&T router, BBN, MCI or Sprint. Once it passes through these it will eventually end up on your target ISPs. That's how Internet really was developed, but these large communications companies laying down the cables and connecting various small networks together. Government natural inefficiencies and inherent bureaucracies will prevent them from running global network effectively.
The article says, I quote:
The net neutrality vision for government regulation of the Internet began with the work of Robert McChesney, a University of Illinois communications professor who founded the liberal lobby Free Press in 2002. Mr. McChesney's agenda? "At the moment, the battle over network neutrality is not to completely eliminate the telephone and cable companies," he told the website SocialistProject in 2009. "But the ultimate goal is to get rid of the media capitalists in the phone and cable companies and to divest them from control."
Wow. Just Wow. So is the real goal is to turn an ISP into a public utility? Ok, so the author implies that the net neutrality has been perpetrated by the same groups as those who funded the "Fairness doctrine" attempt. Bad thing in my opinion, I was designed and would have put conservative side of the American public spectrum in disadvantage. But my question is this: Theoretically, how and how could the ability to deny ISPs ability to provide "tierred" Internet put any one of these political wings in a disadvantage?
In the age of global financial transactions' full of micropayment, any way of denying payment to any entity would be futile. After all, people can still send money to Wikileaks with their VISA and Mastercard, just without doing it directly. There are few indirect ways have been published (such as making deposit into the third country bank's account that belongs to Wikileaks)... And after all -- there is nothing illigal about it... unless the government were to declare such entity (be it Wikileaks or a random pirate-movie website) a terrorist entity.
I like your tone and thought-provoking reply. Unlike the other peoples comments it is not driving me mad but rather to think. You forgot probably that discover and AE is available as well, but that's beside the point. Anyways, VISA and MC is a current economic reality and our economy is based on it. When I read the story that small business owners who depend on the online transactions during the Christmas season could not get through because bunch of hackers decided upon themselves to conduct a "punishment session" for the credit card companies -- I realized that they are engaging in economic terrorism. They are not hurting MC or Visa because these companies are in business of lending money and collecting fees on micro-transactions. My personal problem is not necessarily with WikiLeaks but specifically with the "public avengers", i.e. misguided mob. This action in itself is the most undemocratic and barbaric thing that came out of that story, creating by far more harm to the economies of many countries at this time.
OK you want a neutral non-corporate owned payment structure? Then create your "Peoples Credit Card" monopoly and see how far will you go without corporation... If it is government owned -- then it would be be a defeat in purpose. So technically your argument and preposition is either done in sarcastic humorous tone or completely stupid.
Errr ... tell me how it sounds. An American bank financing a person ingaging in violation of Espionage Act of 1917...
And seriously -- they, as private companies have a right to deny their services to whom they choose.
Once upon a time I used to work for a pizza store. My coworker (a black guy) was told by a customer to serve him a pizza, and the customer also called him by a racial slur. I took his pizza in front of him, told him I am refusing to serve it to him and threw it in the trash. The law is on my side (again) because I have the right to whom I choose to accept as customers and whom I do not.
time to close your life account... you're an idiot.
my address is 4513 brittany ct. eau claire, wi. 54701. my house is solid. your house is??? why do you cower? what are you afraid of? you're completely pathetic. ur mum's face choose to have Down's Syndrome. you're an idiot.
you are NOTHING. cower behind your chosen pseudonym some more, feeb. you're completely pathetic.
You know, there are two types of attitudes in the world. There are those who believe that in order to make oneself happy one has to make others happy as well. And the other attitude is of course, in order to make oneself feel happy one has to make others feel bad. Quite vampiric attitude, actually. And since your attitude obviously belongs to the second category I would wholeheartedly urge you to see a shrink as soon as possible because it is a self-destructive path that you are on, and you seriously in need of some anti-depressant medications.
No, I am neither a pedophile nor a terrorist. But it is true, I do hate puppies. Who told you that secret? Joking aside, it has been reported by the ex-employees and associates of Wikileaks that Assange intended to make millions of dollars per year based upon the blackmailing the organizations on whom he has "secrets" for the rights not to publish them. Seriously, in the past he said that he has secret Kremlin documents. Now that Putin has come out so harsh in his defence, wanna bet that we will never see them in the light of day?
Holy shit... That's $125 million becomes $1.925 Billion... That's 15,400 increase! Wow.... I would like to find such investment that would give me such a huge return margin...
Sounds more like the Assange's legal fund. And personal profit fund.
And don't give me this "Freedom of speech" bull. Mastercard, Visa, PayPal, Amazon and many others who got DDOS'ed have the freedom of speech to shut down their services to anyone they choose to. After all, they are not the government corporation.
I said disallow the cable monopolies, not the companies. Please re-read again. In many municipalities the Cable companies have a government-sanctioned monopoly. That means that if you would like to unsubscribe from the Comcast and get a different cable line -- you can not because the said municipalities do not allow them into the market.
Why not deregulate the industry and disallow the cable company monopolies (such as Comcast for example) out there so that we actually have competition? That way if any ISP decides to bill "multi-tier" approach, you can vote with your wallet?
McCain, Hillary and Obama are taking a walk on the streets of DC, and they encounter a homeless person. McCain pulls out a $20 bill and gives it to the man, adding, "Why don't you come tomorrow to my office and we'll talk about the job".
Hillary, not to be outdone pulls another $20 bill from McCain's pocket, then puts it into her pocket. She then takes out $15 from her own pocket and gives it to the homeless saying, "Five dollars processing fee!".
Obama shines his smile at the homeless man, comes up to him, pets him on the shoulder and says, "Have HOPE! CHANGE is coming!"
This device complies with part 15 of the FCC rules. Operation is subject to the following two conditions: (1) this device may not cause harmful interference, and (2) this device must accept any interference received, including interference that may cause undesired operation.
:-)
Was it not obvious that "Hope" and "Change" was nothing more then a slogan and the Great Orator with Teleprompter took everyone for a ride? The mob followed him blindly... Don't feel bad, it happens all the time regardless of the politicians' political affiliations. I believe it was Nikita Khrushchev who once said, "Politicians are the same all over. They promise to build bridges even when there are no rivers."
It was not a DSL connection. Generally cable companies maintain their network on a "bus" topological structure within their point of service box. DSL is different, you are correct.
Please at least read the wikipedia article before posting.
Geez, how fun is it to accuse somebody else of ignorance without any merit behind your own argument? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_neutrality
Current popular versions of P2P (Such as Bittorent) are parasites. They consume as much bandwidth as they can, and it is very difficult to control that traffic, especially after encryption became popular for the clients. Seriously unless the company is a public utility or a government mandated monopoly (such as your favorite cable company) then you should be able to apply the rules of he capitalism and vote with your wallet.
Well here a person like YOU I don't quite understand. Someone who would be quoting the quote that anti-Socialist Thatcher said against the government's regulation would want a solution based on government regulation -- that's... confusing to say the least. Seriously, if the ISP is not enjoying the state-granted monopoly, then should they not be the subjects to the natural laws of competition? If Comcast were to raise their rates I would simply move somewhere else.
I normally don't reply to trolls
It is usually the trolls who start out their argument by belittling their opponent on their intentions.
How about this, I'm trying to have a skype video call with aunt Betty, but keep getting video and audio packet loss cause people like you keep hogging up all the neighborhood bandwidth by watching your netflix, youtube, and other media streaming services ...
Streaming video is a responsible usage. It takes one connection. p2p is irresponsible. Especially protocol like BitTorrent. If you have ever watched BitTorrent traffic through the sniffer you would notice hundreds and hundreds of connections that are being established. Many of them are only "half" way without acks (due to bad clients) and taking long time for the connection table to be cleared. While streaming video is an easily managegable resource and can easly be capped on bandwidth and resource consumption, the BitTorrent is a power-hungry protocol and depending on the number of users that are trying to connect through will eat up much of your bandwidth space. It in itself resembles TCP DDOS. Even if you have your precious 1.5 mbts / 256 bts space, it consumes a lot more then that just by taking up the connection resource space.
The people at fault are the ones managing our connections, the ISP. They're the ones that are suppose to be managing this shit correctly ...round ribbon load balancer...
Ok, snipping the stupid point about the "round ribbon load balancer"... It is actually "Round robin", and that is not how load balancers work. They work on connection-by-connection basis, not bandwidth. And as I already explained above -- P2P is unique. You can't effectively manage traffic balance based on any criteria of such traffic other then limiting amount of packets (yes, packets) each user receives on any protocol. And with p2p encryption it is not entirely guaranteed.
And look at it this way. The ISP sold me a up to 1.5mbps / 256kps DSL connection. So, who are you to say what I can and cannot use it for, and when and when not I can use it?
ISP has sold you this package with the agreement of understanding of its responsible uses. If you come to live in my village paying taxes -- you are welcome to come and live with us. However if you are going to be actively annoying your neighbors with loud music and obnoxious behavior because you also pay the taxes -- move out. We don't want you.
Net Neutrality is an idea to prevent ISPs from deciding that netflix and youtube traffic to their customers isn't cost effective, so they either throttle it way down, basically giving them the lowest QoS priority...
So what? It is also capitalism. Unless the ISP enjoys public monopoly space (such as Comcast or your other favorite cable company) they should do whatever the heck they want. If you (the consumer) do not like it -- move on out somewhere else. I would. I personally believe that would be a very stupid move on ISPs part because competition will get better of them. Seriously -- vote with your wallet.
Honestly guys, have any of you ever ran a BitTorrent on your network at the same time as you are trying to watch streaming videos? You know, most of the time your video would be crappy. (Because it requires soft real-time delivery... and your routers are busy.) So what do you do? You go into your router and put some form of traffic control on it (be it QoS or connection limitation or whatever else). Now let me ask you a quesiton: If you are a paying cable modem user / DSL user, have it not pissed you off (sometimes) when you can not download anything or stream any videos / music because your neighbor kid next door decides to run non-stop BitTorrent movies downloading service? (Few years ago I got safficiently pissed and found that kid downloading 18 titles at the same time... He left them on for weeks!) And you know that the bandwidth in your neighborhood is crappy anyways? Why should the the ISP not be able to QoS the traffic between the kid and you and allow the same bandwidth, same number of concurrent connections to him as to me? I pay for my Internet too and want to watch my NetFlix and YouTube and even simply browse the Internet unmolested by the crappy page load-times.
I still can't comprehend how, what economic forces could have allowed Sun to be in position to be bought over by Oracle, and not the other way around. Consider: Sun had EVERYTHING that Oracle had and more: 1. Its own database systems 2. Its own java application servers 3. Its own web servers /w LDAP servers
4. And on top of that pile up Java, Sparc / Solaris, various Java-based tech, etc.
5. Don't forget the Sun VM.
Now look, Oracle is killing many of the old Sun projects. Looking Glass has gone to dust (maybe even before the purchase), mysql is suffering and most likely will die. I found out that they will no longer manufacture sparc desktops, leaving us the sweet memories of blade150 running Solaris9.
Oh and OpenSolaris -- already in danger of loosing its community.
What would happened? Oracle turns out to be more evil then Microsoft ever was.
Hold on a second, mate. According to this definition if I were to write a software purely on linux, (my personal version of "Hello World" for instance), this would have to be GPL'd because it calls GLIBC?
'Earlier, in describing his reaction to a successful wireless transfer, SEMENKO said he was, "like ... totally happy."'
Note to self: In order to make a spy "like ... totally happy" fix their computer!