Whether or not you make the data publically available, you have to store and make it privately available,
I have boxes and boxes of mag tapes with data on it from past experiments. That's privately available. It will never be publicly available.
putting in public access is a matter of creating a read-only user and opening a firewall port.
It is clear that you have never done such a thing yourself. There is a bit more to it than what you claim. I've been doing it for more than twenty years, keeping a public availability to much of the data we have (but not all -- tapes are not easily made public that way), and there is a lot more to dealing with a public presence than just "a read-only user and a firewall port".
The sad thing is that most scientists don't actually store their data properly, it sits on removable hard drives, cd or an older variant of portable media
And now you point out the biggest issue with public access to data: the cost of making it online 24/7 so the "public" can maybe sometime come look at the data. Removable hard drives are perfectly good for storing old data, and they cost a lot less than an online raid system. For that data, that is storing it "properly".
If you want properly managed, publicly open data for every experiment, be prepared to pay more for the research. And THEN be prepared to pay more for the archivist who has to keep those systems online for you after the grants run out. And by "you", I'm referring to you as the public.
Researchers get X amount of dollars to do an experiment. Once that grant runs out there is no more money for maintenance of the online archive, if there was money for that in the first place. For twenty two years our online access has been done using stolen time and equipment not yet retired. When the next grant runs out, the very good question will be who is going to be maintaining the existing systems that were paid for under those grants. Do they just stop?
"The use of portable electronic devices while driving a motor vehicle is prohibited".
That would ban cell phones, texting devices, google glass, and similar - but not prohibit anything built in to the car.
So what, exactly, is the significant difference between using a cell phone taped to the dash with a BT headphone and a cell phone built into the dash of the car? One's portable and illegal, one's not, under your perfect law.
How about my GPS? What is the significant difference between a GPS that is in a suction-cup window mount and one built into a fancy display on the dash? Other than having to pay the auto maker an exorbitant amount for the built-in one and having to buy it built into each car instead of having one I can move between cars, I mean.
What does "use" mean? Looking at, touching, feeling it vibrate in your pocket to tell you there's a new message, what? Am I "using" my portable electronic device if I pull it out of my pocket to see what time it is?
What if I'm reporting a drunk driver ahead of me? Do I have to stop following him and he gets lost in traffic so I can call it in? Suppose I'm using a ham radio to call it in instead of a cell phone?
What if I decide to build in a TV monitor and I watch DVDs while I've driving down the road? It's built-in, so it's legal. Right?
Simple laws are usually the worst. Many times they are written by ideologs who care little for the practical considerations of what they want to keep other people from doing.
This. Someone found a system that was based on trust and decided to try to beat it. Yawn.
Conferences are not journals. The peer-review comes during the presentation, not when the abstract is submitted. If the session moderator doesn't know the submitter, maybe he'll look at the abstract a bit more closely, but he's not going to send the abstract out to three other people in the field to vet it. So it gets published.
A very long time ago someone did this as a joke at a conference I went to. The talk was about "a hole in the bottom of the ocean. There's a log in the hole in the bottom of the ocean. There's a frog on the log in the hole in the bottom of the ocean..." OMG! How awful. A bit of fun on the session moderator's part. Nobody got shot or fired. We all survived.
No there aren't. This content is being requested by the ISPs customers, not pushed on them.
I didn't say the content was pushed ONTO people, it's content being pushed out the network connection. Yes, indeed, there are large volumes of network traffic being pushed out by sources like netflix that didn't exist before, and that large volume of traffic is creating unbalanced peering arrangements. It doesn't matter to the traffic balance that some ISP customer has request that large volume of traffic, it's still highly asymmetric and breaks the longstanding assumptions of peering agreements.
Either the ISP can provide their customers with an acceptable service, or the local municipalities should step in and replace the failed ISPs.
And this is completely ignoring that this problem is not being caused by the local ISPs, it is a problem IN THE PEERING at the higher levels. The ISP has no problem carrying the packets, the problem is that those packets cannot get onto the ISP network to start with. The local municipalities will NEVER be able to solve that problem because they will never be in a position to peer with anyone. They won't be large enough.
Except there has never been anything close to a 1:1 relationship. There couldn't have been because even since the IDSN days the up/down ratio of what we could get was always in favor of the down.
The peering relationship balance has nothing to do with your ADSL or cable modem data rates. The peering relationships are at a level where the assumption (a reasonable one for a very long time) was that the content providers and consumers were distributed around the net pretty evenly, so that a consumer on A's side of the peering connection talking to a provider on B's would be balanced out by a provider on A and a consumer on B.
The 'A' in ADSL is because the assumption for residential customers (and often written into the service agreements) is that they are mostly consumers and almost never providers. And many businesses are that way, too. Had the net grown up with everyone being a content provider and a consumer both, asymmetric last-mile service would not be the norm.
They aren't being held accountable by their customers,
Your statements would be more credible if you told us which ISPs you have cancelled service with for this issue. That's how the customers and market would hold them accountable. If what you mean is "other customers should hold them accountable, I want to keep my net connection...", well...
We really missed the boat with not having local governments at the city/county level build the infrastructure.
No, we didn't, and this is not an example of that kind of problem anyway. It's an issue of a peering relationship that has changed from "peer" to a heavy bias towards traffic going one way. In the early days of the net peering companies decided not to try to charge each other for packets based on the idea that things would balance out. It was also harder to track that kind of stuff. It would cost more for accounting than any imbalance would cost. That's not true anymore since there are concentrated streaming video sources pushing large volumes of uncacheable content out.
Where I grew up we had an electric coop.
Where I grew up there was a coop. It's not a city or government operation, it was a coop. Customer owned. "Coop" is short for "cooperative", as in the customers cooperatively operating the company.
UPS/FedEx have efficient routing because of hand-tuned algorithms. Whether it's your car or your house doesn't matter, they can reschedule your package to be delivered to your house, your work or any other location in a matter of minutes.
FedEx can't figure out the right place to deliver a package if you tell them in person where it is supposed to go. I shipped myself some loot from Christmas back home instead of carrying it on the plane and they changed the address. I only wrote it on the shipping documents in plain English and they still got it wrong.
It's not like they don't have multiple FedEx deliveries to this location every work day of the week so they already know we're here or anything. And as good as that sentence looks, it means THEY ALREADY DELIVER HERE EVERY DAY, WHY DON'T THEY KNOW WE ARE HERE?
True, but companies that limit mail drop usage probably have badge/gate security as well.
No. The issues are unrelated. Bean counters don't care who parks in the parking lots, they care what packages come in and being able to document them. And if the people in the receiving department don't already have to distribute packages to every employee in the building adding that task would be extra work.
I don't really see the market this idea is trying to service.
People who aren't home during the day and want packages delivered someplace more secure than their front step, like people who aren't allowed to get packages at work, who don't want people at work knowing what kind of packages they're getting, etc.
But it will get you within 30 ish feet and at that point flash the lights or open the trunk you might notice it.
What a remarkable idea. When the driver gets in the vicinity of the car, he pops the trunk. And when he doesn't find the car and drives off, your trunk lid will be open for everyone who passes by. Brings a new meaning to what the brits call a "boot sale", doesn't it?
I expect that any such service will give the driver the "key" as well as a description of the vehicle and the registration data.
What I want to know is if I'm not home to accept delivery, who is going to let him into my garage so he can leave the package in the trunk of my car?
Last time I checked my building have a number on it...
Can't they just use there work address?
Some companies prohibit people from getting personal packages at work. Sometimes it is an issue of the extra work put on the receiving department, and sometimes it is an issue of auditing. Incoming shipments often have to be tracked and tied back to the purchase orders and then the invoice so that stuff doesn't just disappear.
And some companies are large enough that it is hard to know where "there" is. Is that what you meant by "there work address"?
I'm pretty sure the process of getting that digital key identifies you, or at least identifies the owner of the car. This isn't a way to anonymously get deliveries.
Uhhh, if the key doesn't identify you, I'm sure the car registration is a dead giveaway. You know they're going to record that when they do the delivery.
Nor is a simple conical mirror in front of the lens really new. I saw papers on that probably ten years ago. The disadvantage is that you are getting lower resolution by using one sensor, and those at the edges have serious distortion to them.
It's also not a spherical system, it's only circular. While the camera is looking up, the mirror makes it look sideways and blocks "up", and you have no "down" at all.
Type of traffic matters. 1/10th a second for VOIP, 1 second for HTTP, 1 minute for p2p.
Doesn't matter to me. If you think my traffic should be throttled so your internet experience is acceptable to you, then turnabout is fair play. Like I said, devil's advocate. I pay the same, I shouldn't get second class service for how I want to use it just because you want better service for yourself.
And yes, I know what latency is, thank you.
There's always going to be bottlenecks... an honest prioritization is by far the most efficient way to deal with it.
"Honest" is a subjective term. "Most efficient"? Making my internet experience less cheerful is "most efficient" for you, perhaps, but not for me. "Same pay, same service" sounds "honest" to me.
If the government has allowed the duopoly ISPs to collude to introduce binding arbitration,
Well, at least we're one step up from the automatic claim that they're all monopolies. How did the ISP "collude" me into agreeing to something I didn't want to? Guns?
and the government has forbidden anyone else from laying fiber to start a third ISP,
Well, then, it's a good thing that the government hasn't forbidden anyone else from laying fiber, although fiber is not the only medium that can be used for internet service.
then yes, the government is stepping on citizens' rights.
I suppose you could claim that the government is suppressing your first amendment rights to free speech because it gave the bastard corrupt movie theater owner a building permit and a business license and he's "colluding" you into being quiet during the movie.
Then perhaps home users should be paying for two different allocations of bandwidth: one guaranteed allocation for steady streams, such as VoIP and online multiplayer gaming, and another larger best-effort fraction for burstier, less latency-sensitive applications
Perhaps they should differentiate that way. But then you'd have people buying the cheaper service and complaining that their VoIP or Netflix is being throttled.
you forget to mention that hey were using the same equipment in both locations. same router same modem. only difference was location.
I didn't forget to mention that, I didn't mention it because it is irrelevant. The difference that one was residential and one was business is relevant, even if the CPE is identical. Yes, you can make any argument work if you ignore the details. Business service costs more and has more bandwidth, even if the same router is involved upstream.
I've been beginning to feel arbitration courts are a fundamental violation of my rights as protected by the 5th-8th amendments in a fundamental way and should be physically destroyed.
It's a private contract between two consenting entities. You agreed to it. It's not the government stepping on your rights, it's you waiving them voluntarily. It's like you waiving your right to "free speech" when you walk into a movie theater. OMG, the horror, I can't stand up and speechify in the middle of a movie! Those corrupt bastard movie theater owners are trampling on the First Amendment.
Again, in the recent case where Comcast was throttling Netflix
The recent case as covered here was Verizon, and the claim was they were throttling because 1) a script-kiddie tech support person made the mistake of agreeing with a strident customer to get him off the line, and 2) the customer's Netflix wasn't working as well at home under a residential account as it was at work using a business account. (1) was just stupid, and (2) doesn't prove throttling of Netflix, only a difference in the bandwidth that residential vs. business accounts pay for.
I'd accept packet prioritization. That way video calls don't drop while p2p downgrades. Maintain full use of resources.
Devils advocate. I pay the same amount for my network service as you do. Why should your packets (VoIP) get through and mine (HTTP) be dropped (or even delayed)? "Maintain full use of resources" occurs when there are as many packets as the pipe will allow. It doesn't depend on what those packets carry.
IETF should be thinking along the lines of a *local* data hub that you own,
You give to IETF more power than they actually have. They document standards. They don't police them. They can't kick someone who violates them off the net. We have a long history of companies who ignore the standards because they want to either "enhance the user experience" or control it...
You don't want your fire alarm dependent on random external sites, or your internet-enabled door locks, or your thermostat, etc.
Most people who buy this kind of stuff want it to "just work". That means they don't care if it uses some cloud services, they want to buy it, plug it in, and have it do something productive. Making it cost more by requiring a more complex home network with controllers and such will cost sales to companies that don't require that.
That's why the Xfinity et. al. home automation services are there. Someone else deals with it, and then you can do all kinds of stuff from work, the grocery store, etc. The person who is pushing a grocery cart down the aisle and decides to lower the thermostat isn't worried about someone else pushing it back up.
The guy sitting on the front porch of his vacation home quizzing the kids about whether they shut off everything at the real house and then pushing a single button that turns off the TV, kitchen faucet (???!!!), lights, and then locks the doors, doesn't think about someone else being able to turn them back on. And that commercial is one of the scariest ones I've seen. Xfinity will actually let you turn your kitchen faucet on and off remotely. What have we come to as a society if we need that kind of remote control? We really do have people who were raised in a barn, I guess.
...all I see blocked is the constant requests to "184.73.174.14:3478".
Interesting. That's an address in the Amazon cloud. It accepts telnet connections but gives nothing back that I can see.
It may be something like the attempted external connections I found from an internet power switch. Why would an internet power switch be trying to connect to a site in China? The vendor claims it was their aborted attempt at a dynamic DNS service so you could control the switch from the world. I dunno, but I blocked it anyway.
At the same time I found this traffic, I also found that a relatively recent soho WAN/LAN router would honor DHCP requests on the WAN(!) side and this "feature" could not be shut off or configured, and it was doing broadcasts to do device discovery on the same WAN port, which also could not be turned off. Sorry, I forget which brand this was. I think the name started with L or D... I finally bought a more expensive "N" based router that doesn't have these defects.
Anyhow, what's different between that and restricting your WIFI to yourself?
And there's the solution: encrypt the photons so only the authorized cameras can decrypt them. Make sure you use WAP because it is too easy to collect a lot of photons and break WEP.
Why yes, if you assume that the entire system is scrapped and replaced by "the internet", making every piece of existing TV hardware obsolete (or require yet another round of converters), you might as well claim we'll feed all the hungry people with Unicorn steaks seasoned with pixie dust. "Everything" isn't going to switch to IPTV for a very long time, just as everything hasn't switched to VoIP. The cost of such a switchover would be massive, and any savings you think you'll get from competition won't appear for a very long time, if ever.
It's this same "competition" thing that means my home phone bill has a line item for "long distance connection" (not those exact words) even though I have no long distance carrier -- I just get to pay for the privilege of being able to have one if I wanted one.
Slashdot Mirror
Whether or not you make the data publically available, you have to store and make it privately available,
I have boxes and boxes of mag tapes with data on it from past experiments. That's privately available. It will never be publicly available.
putting in public access is a matter of creating a read-only user and opening a firewall port.
It is clear that you have never done such a thing yourself. There is a bit more to it than what you claim. I've been doing it for more than twenty years, keeping a public availability to much of the data we have (but not all -- tapes are not easily made public that way), and there is a lot more to dealing with a public presence than just "a read-only user and a firewall port".
The sad thing is that most scientists don't actually store their data properly, it sits on removable hard drives, cd or an older variant of portable media
And now you point out the biggest issue with public access to data: the cost of making it online 24/7 so the "public" can maybe sometime come look at the data. Removable hard drives are perfectly good for storing old data, and they cost a lot less than an online raid system. For that data, that is storing it "properly".
If you want properly managed, publicly open data for every experiment, be prepared to pay more for the research. And THEN be prepared to pay more for the archivist who has to keep those systems online for you after the grants run out. And by "you", I'm referring to you as the public.
Researchers get X amount of dollars to do an experiment. Once that grant runs out there is no more money for maintenance of the online archive, if there was money for that in the first place. For twenty two years our online access has been done using stolen time and equipment not yet retired. When the next grant runs out, the very good question will be who is going to be maintaining the existing systems that were paid for under those grants. Do they just stop?
"The use of portable electronic devices while driving a motor vehicle is prohibited". That would ban cell phones, texting devices, google glass, and similar - but not prohibit anything built in to the car.
So what, exactly, is the significant difference between using a cell phone taped to the dash with a BT headphone and a cell phone built into the dash of the car? One's portable and illegal, one's not, under your perfect law.
How about my GPS? What is the significant difference between a GPS that is in a suction-cup window mount and one built into a fancy display on the dash? Other than having to pay the auto maker an exorbitant amount for the built-in one and having to buy it built into each car instead of having one I can move between cars, I mean.
What does "use" mean? Looking at, touching, feeling it vibrate in your pocket to tell you there's a new message, what? Am I "using" my portable electronic device if I pull it out of my pocket to see what time it is?
What if I'm reporting a drunk driver ahead of me? Do I have to stop following him and he gets lost in traffic so I can call it in? Suppose I'm using a ham radio to call it in instead of a cell phone?
What if I decide to build in a TV monitor and I watch DVDs while I've driving down the road? It's built-in, so it's legal. Right?
Simple laws are usually the worst. Many times they are written by ideologs who care little for the practical considerations of what they want to keep other people from doing.
Just hooliganism. Which is what this seems like.
This. Someone found a system that was based on trust and decided to try to beat it. Yawn.
Conferences are not journals. The peer-review comes during the presentation, not when the abstract is submitted. If the session moderator doesn't know the submitter, maybe he'll look at the abstract a bit more closely, but he's not going to send the abstract out to three other people in the field to vet it. So it gets published.
A very long time ago someone did this as a joke at a conference I went to. The talk was about "a hole in the bottom of the ocean. There's a log in the hole in the bottom of the ocean. There's a frog on the log in the hole in the bottom of the ocean..." OMG! How awful. A bit of fun on the session moderator's part. Nobody got shot or fired. We all survived.
No there aren't. This content is being requested by the ISPs customers, not pushed on them.
I didn't say the content was pushed ONTO people, it's content being pushed out the network connection. Yes, indeed, there are large volumes of network traffic being pushed out by sources like netflix that didn't exist before, and that large volume of traffic is creating unbalanced peering arrangements. It doesn't matter to the traffic balance that some ISP customer has request that large volume of traffic, it's still highly asymmetric and breaks the longstanding assumptions of peering agreements.
Either the ISP can provide their customers with an acceptable service, or the local municipalities should step in and replace the failed ISPs.
And this is completely ignoring that this problem is not being caused by the local ISPs, it is a problem IN THE PEERING at the higher levels. The ISP has no problem carrying the packets, the problem is that those packets cannot get onto the ISP network to start with. The local municipalities will NEVER be able to solve that problem because they will never be in a position to peer with anyone. They won't be large enough.
Except there has never been anything close to a 1:1 relationship. There couldn't have been because even since the IDSN days the up/down ratio of what we could get was always in favor of the down.
The peering relationship balance has nothing to do with your ADSL or cable modem data rates. The peering relationships are at a level where the assumption (a reasonable one for a very long time) was that the content providers and consumers were distributed around the net pretty evenly, so that a consumer on A's side of the peering connection talking to a provider on B's would be balanced out by a provider on A and a consumer on B.
The 'A' in ADSL is because the assumption for residential customers (and often written into the service agreements) is that they are mostly consumers and almost never providers. And many businesses are that way, too. Had the net grown up with everyone being a content provider and a consumer both, asymmetric last-mile service would not be the norm.
They aren't being held accountable by their customers,
Your statements would be more credible if you told us which ISPs you have cancelled service with for this issue. That's how the customers and market would hold them accountable. If what you mean is "other customers should hold them accountable, I want to keep my net connection...", well ...
We really missed the boat with not having local governments at the city/county level build the infrastructure.
No, we didn't, and this is not an example of that kind of problem anyway. It's an issue of a peering relationship that has changed from "peer" to a heavy bias towards traffic going one way. In the early days of the net peering companies decided not to try to charge each other for packets based on the idea that things would balance out. It was also harder to track that kind of stuff. It would cost more for accounting than any imbalance would cost. That's not true anymore since there are concentrated streaming video sources pushing large volumes of uncacheable content out.
Where I grew up we had an electric coop.
Where I grew up there was a coop. It's not a city or government operation, it was a coop. Customer owned. "Coop" is short for "cooperative", as in the customers cooperatively operating the company.
OMG!!! Ponnies!
I got the "OMG", but I have no idea what a "ponny" is. Am I showing my age?
UPS/FedEx have efficient routing because of hand-tuned algorithms. Whether it's your car or your house doesn't matter, they can reschedule your package to be delivered to your house, your work or any other location in a matter of minutes.
FedEx can't figure out the right place to deliver a package if you tell them in person where it is supposed to go. I shipped myself some loot from Christmas back home instead of carrying it on the plane and they changed the address. I only wrote it on the shipping documents in plain English and they still got it wrong.
It's not like they don't have multiple FedEx deliveries to this location every work day of the week so they already know we're here or anything. And as good as that sentence looks, it means THEY ALREADY DELIVER HERE EVERY DAY, WHY DON'T THEY KNOW WE ARE HERE?
True, but companies that limit mail drop usage probably have badge/gate security as well.
No. The issues are unrelated. Bean counters don't care who parks in the parking lots, they care what packages come in and being able to document them. And if the people in the receiving department don't already have to distribute packages to every employee in the building adding that task would be extra work.
I don't really see the market this idea is trying to service.
People who aren't home during the day and want packages delivered someplace more secure than their front step, like people who aren't allowed to get packages at work, who don't want people at work knowing what kind of packages they're getting, etc.
But it will get you within 30 ish feet and at that point flash the lights or open the trunk you might notice it.
What a remarkable idea. When the driver gets in the vicinity of the car, he pops the trunk. And when he doesn't find the car and drives off, your trunk lid will be open for everyone who passes by. Brings a new meaning to what the brits call a "boot sale", doesn't it?
I expect that any such service will give the driver the "key" as well as a description of the vehicle and the registration data.
What I want to know is if I'm not home to accept delivery, who is going to let him into my garage so he can leave the package in the trunk of my car?
Last time I checked my building have a number on it... Can't they just use there work address?
Some companies prohibit people from getting personal packages at work. Sometimes it is an issue of the extra work put on the receiving department, and sometimes it is an issue of auditing. Incoming shipments often have to be tracked and tied back to the purchase orders and then the invoice so that stuff doesn't just disappear.
And some companies are large enough that it is hard to know where "there" is. Is that what you meant by "there work address"?
I'm pretty sure the process of getting that digital key identifies you, or at least identifies the owner of the car. This isn't a way to anonymously get deliveries.
Uhhh, if the key doesn't identify you, I'm sure the car registration is a dead giveaway. You know they're going to record that when they do the delivery.
It's also not a spherical system, it's only circular. While the camera is looking up, the mirror makes it look sideways and blocks "up", and you have no "down" at all.
This.
Type of traffic matters. 1/10th a second for VOIP, 1 second for HTTP, 1 minute for p2p.
Doesn't matter to me. If you think my traffic should be throttled so your internet experience is acceptable to you, then turnabout is fair play. Like I said, devil's advocate. I pay the same, I shouldn't get second class service for how I want to use it just because you want better service for yourself.
And yes, I know what latency is, thank you.
There's always going to be bottlenecks... an honest prioritization is by far the most efficient way to deal with it.
"Honest" is a subjective term. "Most efficient"? Making my internet experience less cheerful is "most efficient" for you, perhaps, but not for me. "Same pay, same service" sounds "honest" to me.
If the government has allowed the duopoly ISPs to collude to introduce binding arbitration,
Well, at least we're one step up from the automatic claim that they're all monopolies. How did the ISP "collude" me into agreeing to something I didn't want to? Guns?
and the government has forbidden anyone else from laying fiber to start a third ISP,
Well, then, it's a good thing that the government hasn't forbidden anyone else from laying fiber, although fiber is not the only medium that can be used for internet service.
then yes, the government is stepping on citizens' rights.
I suppose you could claim that the government is suppressing your first amendment rights to free speech because it gave the bastard corrupt movie theater owner a building permit and a business license and he's "colluding" you into being quiet during the movie.
Then perhaps home users should be paying for two different allocations of bandwidth: one guaranteed allocation for steady streams, such as VoIP and online multiplayer gaming, and another larger best-effort fraction for burstier, less latency-sensitive applications
Perhaps they should differentiate that way. But then you'd have people buying the cheaper service and complaining that their VoIP or Netflix is being throttled.
you forget to mention that hey were using the same equipment in both locations. same router same modem. only difference was location.
I didn't forget to mention that, I didn't mention it because it is irrelevant. The difference that one was residential and one was business is relevant, even if the CPE is identical. Yes, you can make any argument work if you ignore the details. Business service costs more and has more bandwidth, even if the same router is involved upstream.
I've been beginning to feel arbitration courts are a fundamental violation of my rights as protected by the 5th-8th amendments in a fundamental way and should be physically destroyed.
It's a private contract between two consenting entities. You agreed to it. It's not the government stepping on your rights, it's you waiving them voluntarily. It's like you waiving your right to "free speech" when you walk into a movie theater. OMG, the horror, I can't stand up and speechify in the middle of a movie! Those corrupt bastard movie theater owners are trampling on the First Amendment.
Again, in the recent case where Comcast was throttling Netflix
The recent case as covered here was Verizon, and the claim was they were throttling because 1) a script-kiddie tech support person made the mistake of agreeing with a strident customer to get him off the line, and 2) the customer's Netflix wasn't working as well at home under a residential account as it was at work using a business account. (1) was just stupid, and (2) doesn't prove throttling of Netflix, only a difference in the bandwidth that residential vs. business accounts pay for.
I'd accept packet prioritization. That way video calls don't drop while p2p downgrades. Maintain full use of resources.
Devils advocate. I pay the same amount for my network service as you do. Why should your packets (VoIP) get through and mine (HTTP) be dropped (or even delayed)? "Maintain full use of resources" occurs when there are as many packets as the pipe will allow. It doesn't depend on what those packets carry.
IETF should be thinking along the lines of a *local* data hub that you own,
You give to IETF more power than they actually have. They document standards. They don't police them. They can't kick someone who violates them off the net. We have a long history of companies who ignore the standards because they want to either "enhance the user experience" or control it ...
You don't want your fire alarm dependent on random external sites, or your internet-enabled door locks, or your thermostat, etc.
Most people who buy this kind of stuff want it to "just work". That means they don't care if it uses some cloud services, they want to buy it, plug it in, and have it do something productive. Making it cost more by requiring a more complex home network with controllers and such will cost sales to companies that don't require that.
That's why the Xfinity et. al. home automation services are there. Someone else deals with it, and then you can do all kinds of stuff from work, the grocery store, etc. The person who is pushing a grocery cart down the aisle and decides to lower the thermostat isn't worried about someone else pushing it back up.
The guy sitting on the front porch of his vacation home quizzing the kids about whether they shut off everything at the real house and then pushing a single button that turns off the TV, kitchen faucet (???!!!), lights, and then locks the doors, doesn't think about someone else being able to turn them back on. And that commercial is one of the scariest ones I've seen. Xfinity will actually let you turn your kitchen faucet on and off remotely. What have we come to as a society if we need that kind of remote control? We really do have people who were raised in a barn, I guess.
...all I see blocked is the constant requests to "184.73.174.14:3478".
Interesting. That's an address in the Amazon cloud. It accepts telnet connections but gives nothing back that I can see.
It may be something like the attempted external connections I found from an internet power switch. Why would an internet power switch be trying to connect to a site in China? The vendor claims it was their aborted attempt at a dynamic DNS service so you could control the switch from the world. I dunno, but I blocked it anyway.
At the same time I found this traffic, I also found that a relatively recent soho WAN/LAN router would honor DHCP requests on the WAN(!) side and this "feature" could not be shut off or configured, and it was doing broadcasts to do device discovery on the same WAN port, which also could not be turned off. Sorry, I forget which brand this was. I think the name started with L or D ... I finally bought a more expensive "N" based router that doesn't have these defects.
Anyhow, what's different between that and restricting your WIFI to yourself?
And there's the solution: encrypt the photons so only the authorized cameras can decrypt them. Make sure you use WAP because it is too easy to collect a lot of photons and break WEP.
It's this same "competition" thing that means my home phone bill has a line item for "long distance connection" (not those exact words) even though I have no long distance carrier -- I just get to pay for the privilege of being able to have one if I wanted one.