Definition of On-Ramp: Allows driver to speed to traffic flow to merge properly. Reality: You're stuck behind the timid moron who would rather cause the highway traffic to brake so he can merge at the ungodly speed of 45mph. Definition of Off-Ramp: Allows driver to exit the highway and then slow down. Reality: The a-hole in the right lane decides to slow to 40mph and then enter the off-ramp.
I've found these are the TWO main reasons traffic bunches up on the highway.
than anything else. I live in Alaska and can tell you the driving force behind this is actually "The Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment and the Native American Rights Fund -- plus six law firms." The natives in the village use gas-powered vehicles for transportation and (generator) electricity for their homes, suing the people who provide the source for those items.
Shoot, why don't we all climb on board. Oh, wait - I drive a car to work and use natural gas to heat my home, plus electricity to power my net activities...
either no changes and an ISP will continue to do business as normal, forced equality (no shaping) and your Internet access pricing will double or triple, forced equality (no shaping) and ISPs will move to a base-rate plus metered billing solution, based an $/meg/gig (although some already do this) where the cost goes up exponentially.
>>Can you imagine the shitstorm that would ensue if they're wrong?
Not to mention the number of people claiming to have been treated for a one-nighter, yet never received any treatment. How would you verify? (See first post.)
>>Then iTunes users would see 1/2 the speed they were seeing previously.
This a common error many people make about bandwidth, throughput and tcp. TCP works on windows (not MS) and acks. No acks equals retries. This lowers throughput because of windowing. It's not an exact science. Most providers in tier 1 likely leave their buffers on routers at fifo. This means if an isp's users are throttled back on itunes from 4 to 2, it doesn't mean you'll get half. While everyone is trying resends and windowing is dropping throughput, invariably there will be just too many connections for all to be maintained, and connections will time out and drop, I've watched it happen. When it does, the client will attempt a new tcp connection and the process begins all over again - this increases the overhead for the 2mbps. At the same time, additional users may decide to do some itunes, streaming or downloading, increasing the load even more.
As I stated before, the isp oversubscription model is broken. But there has been no solution to this short of raising prices and charging users more so the isp can afford additional bandwidth.
Imagine your ISP has 10mbps of traffic for all of their users (suppose for the sake of argument that if they buy any more at their current subscription base, they will bleed money). Suppose they begin to see over 4mbps of that traffic to itunes (now that you can rent there) 2mbps to bittorrent 2mbps of audio/media streaming other than itunes, and a myriad of ftp/smtp(consider spam traffic as part of this)/ssl/ipsec/etc... What does that leave for http traffic - the most common way of browsing the internet? Barely enough, causing slow loading of web sites. If the most common method of browsing becomes slow, what percentage of your users will complain? 99 percent?
No suppose you decide to throttle the itunes to no more than 2mbps. Wow, a whole new world just opened up for your 99 percent. This is the way traffic shaping often keeps the majority happy and the business afloat. Many ISPs have to pay quite a bit to the tier one providers for their bandwidth.
Keep in mind I'm discussing a third party ISP. Not the major ones. The internet bandwidth model has been broken for years. It was built on the premise that over subscription would ensure enough bandwidth.
Yes I can read... there are several products on the market that can throttle traffic based on protocols or destinations... I'm aware of their capabilities and I can tell you the one I have worked with (Packeteer) can throttle Itunes traffic (as well as shoutcast, bitorrent, etc...). It can shape on the protocol itself as a whole, a protocol with a limit and then dynamic allocation within it or on per-connection tracking within a protocol.
yes-in fact, you can. As long as it does no harm to me and is not classified as an assault, it is no different than shining a flashlight in my direction.
Yes well, the article references New York... so my reply is based on an inaccurate sumamry by slashdot's editors claiming it's "invasion of your privacy".
I didn't say that the technique was proper nor if it was legal (IANAL). Just that slashdot's editors wrongfully labeled this as invasion of privacy - which it is not.
Umm, there is NO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN A PUBLIC LOCATION! Now that I have your attention, this is why anyone can videotape you walking down the street, record a vocal conversation on a street corner without your permission, etc.... When you are in public, you do not have any expectation of privacy.
on a method of locally delivering stored digital content (Video-On-Demand) for fees, such as subsidizing the cost of VOD servers, more content would make it to the end users legally. I would see that as a win-win-win (MPI,ISP,User) for everyone. They get their cut, the ISP doesn't have to pay for the excess bandwidth in/out of their network and the end users get quick access to VoD.
>>because the shared node topology of Cable can't handle all of the connection requests.
Umm, sorry to maybe enlighten you and some others, but the public Internet - as a whole - is a shared node topology. If all connections on the big "I" tried to pull all of their available bandwidth, all at the same time, you would have "Severe" congestion and retransmits, very much like the shared-node of broadband cable. Fact is ISPs build on a shared-node concept for bandwidth oversubscription. You just can't put millions of broadband connections online who want their "fair-share" and not expect throughput issues.
Internet delivery is a non-regulated service - no matter if you are a telecom or not. Most telecom companies have a separate sub-company that deals with non-regulated services, such as internet or voip. Therefore they "MUST" provide nothing more than an access port and other ancillary services as part of your contract (ie, email accounts, dns, etc...) just like you don't have to buy service from them.
Slashdot Mirror
True.. but gluttony fits there "smorgashboard-all-you-can-eat" mentality when it comes to ways of skimming off the top.....
I think he is referring to - gluttony.
Definition of On-Ramp: Allows driver to speed to traffic flow to merge properly.
Reality: You're stuck behind the timid moron who would rather cause the highway traffic to brake so he can merge at the ungodly speed of 45mph.
Definition of Off-Ramp: Allows driver to exit the highway and then slow down.
Reality: The a-hole in the right lane decides to slow to 40mph and then enter the off-ramp.
I've found these are the TWO main reasons traffic bunches up on the highway.
Now I will not have to purchase add-on equipment to keep my users from seeing non-approved sites....
than anything else. I live in Alaska and can tell you the driving force behind this is actually "The Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment and the Native American Rights Fund -- plus six law firms." The natives in the village use gas-powered vehicles for transportation and (generator) electricity for their homes, suing the people who provide the source for those items.
Shoot, why don't we all climb on board. Oh, wait - I drive a car to work and use natural gas to heat my home, plus electricity to power my net activities...
space shuttle any time soon, I guess.....
Most telcos run an ISP with a non-regulated sub-division which are not subject to "common-carrier" rules.
either no changes and an ISP will continue to do business as normal, forced equality (no shaping) and your Internet access pricing will double or triple, forced equality (no shaping) and ISPs will move to a base-rate plus metered billing solution, based an $/meg/gig (although some already do this) where the cost goes up exponentially.
>>Can you imagine the shitstorm that would ensue if they're wrong? Not to mention the number of people claiming to have been treated for a one-nighter, yet never received any treatment. How would you verify? (See first post.)
I promise...... Trust me....
>>Then iTunes users would see 1/2 the speed they were seeing previously. This a common error many people make about bandwidth, throughput and tcp. TCP works on windows (not MS) and acks. No acks equals retries. This lowers throughput because of windowing. It's not an exact science. Most providers in tier 1 likely leave their buffers on routers at fifo. This means if an isp's users are throttled back on itunes from 4 to 2, it doesn't mean you'll get half. While everyone is trying resends and windowing is dropping throughput, invariably there will be just too many connections for all to be maintained, and connections will time out and drop, I've watched it happen. When it does, the client will attempt a new tcp connection and the process begins all over again - this increases the overhead for the 2mbps. At the same time, additional users may decide to do some itunes, streaming or downloading, increasing the load even more. As I stated before, the isp oversubscription model is broken. But there has been no solution to this short of raising prices and charging users more so the isp can afford additional bandwidth.
Imagine your ISP has 10mbps of traffic for all of their users (suppose for the sake of argument that if they buy any more at their current subscription base, they will bleed money). Suppose they begin to see over 4mbps of that traffic to itunes (now that you can rent there) 2mbps to bittorrent 2mbps of audio/media streaming other than itunes, and a myriad of ftp/smtp(consider spam traffic as part of this)/ssl/ipsec/etc... What does that leave for http traffic - the most common way of browsing the internet? Barely enough, causing slow loading of web sites. If the most common method of browsing becomes slow, what percentage of your users will complain? 99 percent? No suppose you decide to throttle the itunes to no more than 2mbps. Wow, a whole new world just opened up for your 99 percent. This is the way traffic shaping often keeps the majority happy and the business afloat. Many ISPs have to pay quite a bit to the tier one providers for their bandwidth. Keep in mind I'm discussing a third party ISP. Not the major ones. The internet bandwidth model has been broken for years. It was built on the premise that over subscription would ensure enough bandwidth.
Yes I can read... there are several products on the market that can throttle traffic based on protocols or destinations... I'm aware of their capabilities and I can tell you the one I have worked with (Packeteer) can throttle Itunes traffic (as well as shoutcast, bitorrent, etc...). It can shape on the protocol itself as a whole, a protocol with a limit and then dynamic allocation within it or on per-connection tracking within a protocol.
I'll be happy to offer you dedicated - unthrottled bandwidth to the internet..
Thank you,
Your ISP
when your candidate loses most people have some sort of a confidence problem in a public election. It's called - being a sore loser.
why not blackhole the source IP blocks?
Why would you want to watch a HD Movie on that tiny-ass screen? Good waste of bits if you ask me.....
http://www.dummies.com/WileyCDA/DummiesTitle/productCd-0470121025.html On the one side - do it yourself next time moron.... On the other side - he should rot in prison and let the folks there show him how they feel.
yes-in fact, you can. As long as it does no harm to me and is not classified as an assault, it is no different than shining a flashlight in my direction.
Yes well, the article references New York... so my reply is based on an inaccurate sumamry by slashdot's editors claiming it's "invasion of your privacy".
I didn't say that the technique was proper nor if it was legal (IANAL). Just that slashdot's editors wrongfully labeled this as invasion of privacy - which it is not.
Umm, there is NO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY IN A PUBLIC LOCATION! Now that I have your attention, this is why anyone can videotape you walking down the street, record a vocal conversation on a street corner without your permission, etc.... When you are in public, you do not have any expectation of privacy.
I hate the paranoia that creeps into slashdot....
on a method of locally delivering stored digital content (Video-On-Demand) for fees, such as subsidizing the cost of VOD servers, more content would make it to the end users legally. I would see that as a win-win-win (MPI,ISP,User) for everyone. They get their cut, the ISP doesn't have to pay for the excess bandwidth in/out of their network and the end users get quick access to VoD.
>>because the shared node topology of Cable can't handle all of the connection requests.
Umm, sorry to maybe enlighten you and some others, but the public Internet - as a whole - is a shared node topology. If all connections on the big "I" tried to pull all of their available bandwidth, all at the same time, you would have "Severe" congestion and retransmits, very much like the shared-node of broadband cable. Fact is ISPs build on a shared-node concept for bandwidth oversubscription. You just can't put millions of broadband connections online who want their "fair-share" and not expect throughput issues.
Internet delivery is a non-regulated service - no matter if you are a telecom or not. Most telecom companies have a separate sub-company that deals with non-regulated services, such as internet or voip. Therefore they "MUST" provide nothing more than an access port and other ancillary services as part of your contract (ie, email accounts, dns, etc...) just like you don't have to buy service from them.