Walk-ins, most probably aren't. "Dude, I'm hungry" may well be, especially for places that offer something unique (late hours, delivery, specialty foods, etc)
Perhaps not all 20-something year olds have money. Some of us do, some of us have a lot of disposable income, and I spend more of it (in absolute dollars) then what my dad spends on fast food / take out food, despite the fact that he makes far more then I do.
Around here, for a small (especially trendy) mainly impulse-buy shop, younger working folks are the target market.
My understanding of the cable world is that there is no similar problem, there is a relatively small number of loops hitting each cable plant -- You have a 1-per dozen houses (for better providers in newer areas) up to 1-per-neighbourhood ratio.
With DSL, you have a one to four lines per house ratio.
Plus cable lines are grounded and shielded, so you get a lot more signal to work with.
So in the real world it is possible to offer different ratios.
How do they accomplish this? Simply, there is enough upstream and downstream frequency allocated to provide enough bandwidth, and they let the modems themselves do the actual rate limiting.
This is fairly trivial, and is sufficient to offer the original poster what they want, the ability to to set their own bandwidth rules.
(Being the original poster, I know exactly what he wants) -- Have the cable company provision for 25Mb/10Mb service, let the customer buy whatever speed they want (either in 512Kb increments, or some fixed packages, 384Kb for lite, up to 26Mb/s for "nitro") and also give the customer a sliding control that sets the percentage allocated to upstream vs downstream.
What the actual frequency spectrum does has little bearing on what the modem caps are, and as long as each of those have the capacity, the result is that the customer could have whatever they want.
I am quite willing to pay reasonably for this service, even a couple hundred a month is not an obstacle to me -- If they're willing to sell 25Mb/1Mb for $100, getting a 10Mb/5Mb for $200 shouldn't break the bank, and if enough customers are paying that $200/month premium, it will pay for the additional gear required to expand the network. If not enough customers are willing to pay the premium rate, the network wouldn't need expanding, and life is good.
Sorry if my post wasn't clear -- They run several separate networks on the same cable;
DOCSIS (cable modem) DOCSIS (VoIP -- No user data allowed, this is their POTS killer service) CyberSURFR Digital TV Analog TV
On the DOCSIS side it's fairly trivial to enforce whatever limits they want, the actual network obviously runs MUCH faster.
And I, for one, am very glad they do enforce caps. On the CyberSURFR network the caps never worked properly, and so speeds were always variable as a very small number of users could saturate the bandwidth for the rest of us. The DOCSIS alternative no longer allows that.
My cable company is already selling several different levels of service without any pain -- The network itself runs much faster and the modems themselves do the rate limiting.
Any speed up to the local plant's restrictions are possible, all you need is a customer interface.
Well, my cable company already offers varying speed ranges over the same wire, going from 512K/128K all the way up to 25Mb/1Mb. They run a second network for the older CyberSURFR gear. They run a third for their VoIP network.
(These all share the same physical coax, obviously, they just have their own frequency/channel assignments)
Running another wouldn't be much of a challenge especially as they shut down the CyberSURFR network and need to purchase more DOCSIS gear to handle those customers.
I'd be willing to spend up to $200/month for a 10Mb full duplex connection, vs the $60 I am spending for 10Mb/1Mb, hosting permitted.
In the cable modem world, yes, they are related and a trade-off -- DOCSIS 1 imposed some additional restrictions, but it's all a matter of "the way the channels are allocated" and DOCSIS 2 is far more flexible and can offer true symmetrical connections if the cable company so desires.
Nothing stops the cable company from re-allocating the channels. Most consumer broadband cable companies are running their entire data services in what amounts to the same frequency allocated to a single analog channel 2-13.
The other cool thing, DOCSIS 1 and DOCSIS 2 can coexist on the network, they just have to be given different frequency space to work with, so the migration doesn't need to be overnight for the networks with mixed devices.
In my case (Shaw), most if not all of the devices are already DOCSIS 2 -- Shaw started out with the CyberSURFR line, and skipped early DOCSIS deployment entirely, by the time Shaw started selling DOCSIS modems, they were already DOCSIS 2 capable. Additionally, Shaw does not activate third party devices, so there isn't a huge consumer base out there that will need to be changed. (Shaw does sell the modems for $60, and then you get a $5/month discount, with a 1-5 year warranty depending on when you purchased. Asking someone if they own their equipment or rent it is like an IQ test.)
If I get 11Mb/s total (I do, 10Mb/s down and 1Mb/s up), let me adjust the caps myself. If I want 5.5/5.5, or 9/2, let me have it. If I want 1/10, it's the same difference to the local cable loop.
That isn't a completely automated tool -- It will capture the data fairly trivially, but this is new, now we have a tool that will pre-populate the browser's cookies.
In other words, capturing isn't new, cloning trivially is...
No, it likely would not be noticed -- Large scale websites will normally use a SSL proxy that sits in front of the web servers, the backend likely knows nothing at all about SSL, except whether or not SSL was used.
This could be implemented reasonably easily, with a few limitations.
During login, the server supplies the client a secret, and a rotating block of garbage. On each request, the client hashes the secret and the garbage together and supplies the hash to the server.
The server can supply a new block of garbage at any time, replay attacks will only be effective until a new block of garbage is supplied.
If you want a fairly secure connection, you rotate the garbage on each significant request (every request that pulls user data -- You don't need to rotate for JPGs, static JS, etc). The downside is that you can't use multiple windows get far more complex (although still possible, each time there is a mismatch, switch back to SSL and have the client supply the original secret, and start a new series -- Multiple windows are possible, but much more difficult to implement)
The advantage is that calculating hashes is fairly trivial, so you won't need the overhead of SSL. The downside is that the data transferred in each session is insecure, so a snoop could still read every email you read, write, every contact you touch, etc. However, the snoop couldn't intercept your session and request NEW data.
Actually this might work if you had enough people to buy out the theatre completely, then all request refunds after the show has started -- This not only wastes the theatre's time, but prevents them from reselling those tickets.
It matters because Ted Stevens wasn't just another politician talking about things he didn't understand, rather, he was in a position to be proposing and backing legislation to change things he didn't (and doesn't) understand.
He actually believes that his email is stuck somewhere waiting for days because of people downloading movies, and is basing legislation on that belief.
I don't have the mechanical skills to rebuild my car, but neither do I propose a laws to dictate how the experts do it.
Which one again brings us to the fact that I can bring empty containers of any size without any problem. If the problem is the contain, it's as problematic completely empty as it would be partially empty or full, no?
Slashdot Mirror
You can't copy and paste on an iPhone?
Which part is the joke, that someone implied you can, or that you can't?
The solution is fairly simple, don't import illegal equipment.
Walk-ins, most probably aren't. "Dude, I'm hungry" may well be, especially for places that offer something unique (late hours, delivery, specialty foods, etc)
Perhaps not all 20-something year olds have money. Some of us do, some of us have a lot of disposable income, and I spend more of it (in absolute dollars) then what my dad spends on fast food / take out food, despite the fact that he makes far more then I do.
Around here, for a small (especially trendy) mainly impulse-buy shop, younger working folks are the target market.
I checked my yard and found one of those books. I can't see where I type in "NEAR " or "NEAR " and it reduces my query to the nearest few hits.
Perhaps you can show me how to work this thing?
How is that the consumer's fault or problem?
In the DSL world, this is a factor.
My understanding of the cable world is that there is no similar problem, there is a relatively small number of loops hitting each cable plant -- You have a 1-per dozen houses (for better providers in newer areas) up to 1-per-neighbourhood ratio.
With DSL, you have a one to four lines per house ratio.
Plus cable lines are grounded and shielded, so you get a lot more signal to work with.
Well... Ignoring what is possible or isn't possible, my cable company currently sells the following services;
POS: 256Kb / 128Kb (2:1)
Lite: 512Kb / 256Kb (2:1)
High: 5Mb / 512Kb (10:1)
Xtreme: 10 Mb / 1Mb (10:1)
Nitro: 25Mb / 1Mb (25:1)
So in the real world it is possible to offer different ratios.
How do they accomplish this? Simply, there is enough upstream and downstream frequency allocated to provide enough bandwidth, and they let the modems themselves do the actual rate limiting.
This is fairly trivial, and is sufficient to offer the original poster what they want, the ability to to set their own bandwidth rules.
(Being the original poster, I know exactly what he wants) -- Have the cable company provision for 25Mb/10Mb service, let the customer buy whatever speed they want (either in 512Kb increments, or some fixed packages, 384Kb for lite, up to 26Mb/s for "nitro") and also give the customer a sliding control that sets the percentage allocated to upstream vs downstream.
What the actual frequency spectrum does has little bearing on what the modem caps are, and as long as each of those have the capacity, the result is that the customer could have whatever they want.
I am quite willing to pay reasonably for this service, even a couple hundred a month is not an obstacle to me -- If they're willing to sell 25Mb/1Mb for $100, getting a 10Mb/5Mb for $200 shouldn't break the bank, and if enough customers are paying that $200/month premium, it will pay for the additional gear required to expand the network. If not enough customers are willing to pay the premium rate, the network wouldn't need expanding, and life is good.
Sorry if my post wasn't clear -- They run several separate networks on the same cable;
DOCSIS (cable modem)
DOCSIS (VoIP -- No user data allowed, this is their POTS killer service)
CyberSURFR
Digital TV
Analog TV
On the DOCSIS side it's fairly trivial to enforce whatever limits they want, the actual network obviously runs MUCH faster.
And I, for one, am very glad they do enforce caps. On the CyberSURFR network the caps never worked properly, and so speeds were always variable as a very small number of users could saturate the bandwidth for the rest of us. The DOCSIS alternative no longer allows that.
My cable company is already selling several different levels of service without any pain -- The network itself runs much faster and the modems themselves do the rate limiting.
Any speed up to the local plant's restrictions are possible, all you need is a customer interface.
The problem is that pesky last mile, it makes maintaining a reasonable SLA potentially expensive.
(Or so the story I was given, anyway)
Well, my cable company already offers varying speed ranges over the same wire, going from 512K/128K all the way up to 25Mb/1Mb. They run a second network for the older CyberSURFR gear. They run a third for their VoIP network.
(These all share the same physical coax, obviously, they just have their own frequency/channel assignments)
Running another wouldn't be much of a challenge especially as they shut down the CyberSURFR network and need to purchase more DOCSIS gear to handle those customers.
I'd be willing to spend up to $200/month for a 10Mb full duplex connection, vs the $60 I am spending for 10Mb/1Mb, hosting permitted.
In the cable modem world, yes, they are related and a trade-off -- DOCSIS 1 imposed some additional restrictions, but it's all a matter of "the way the channels are allocated" and DOCSIS 2 is far more flexible and can offer true symmetrical connections if the cable company so desires.
Nothing stops the cable company from re-allocating the channels. Most consumer broadband cable companies are running their entire data services in what amounts to the same frequency allocated to a single analog channel 2-13.
The other cool thing, DOCSIS 1 and DOCSIS 2 can coexist on the network, they just have to be given different frequency space to work with, so the migration doesn't need to be overnight for the networks with mixed devices.
In my case (Shaw), most if not all of the devices are already DOCSIS 2 -- Shaw started out with the CyberSURFR line, and skipped early DOCSIS deployment entirely, by the time Shaw started selling DOCSIS modems, they were already DOCSIS 2 capable. Additionally, Shaw does not activate third party devices, so there isn't a huge consumer base out there that will need to be changed. (Shaw does sell the modems for $60, and then you get a $5/month discount, with a 1-5 year warranty depending on when you purchased. Asking someone if they own their equipment or rent it is like an IQ test.)
You can get a server on an uncapped 10Mb (full duplex) connection for $300/month without any bandwidth limits at all (dedicated/leased server)
The last mile sucks, but bandwidth as a whole doesn't have to.
So?
If I get 11Mb/s total (I do, 10Mb/s down and 1Mb/s up), let me adjust the caps myself. If I want 5.5/5.5, or 9/2, let me have it. If I want 1/10, it's the same difference to the local cable loop.
Two words: "Closing fees"
That isn't a completely automated tool -- It will capture the data fairly trivially, but this is new, now we have a tool that will pre-populate the browser's cookies.
In other words, capturing isn't new, cloning trivially is...
No, it likely would not be noticed -- Large scale websites will normally use a SSL proxy that sits in front of the web servers, the backend likely knows nothing at all about SSL, except whether or not SSL was used.
This could be implemented reasonably easily, with a few limitations.
During login, the server supplies the client a secret, and a rotating block of garbage. On each request, the client hashes the secret and the garbage together and supplies the hash to the server.
The server can supply a new block of garbage at any time, replay attacks will only be effective until a new block of garbage is supplied.
If you want a fairly secure connection, you rotate the garbage on each significant request (every request that pulls user data -- You don't need to rotate for JPGs, static JS, etc). The downside is that you can't use multiple windows get far more complex (although still possible, each time there is a mismatch, switch back to SSL and have the client supply the original secret, and start a new series -- Multiple windows are possible, but much more difficult to implement)
The advantage is that calculating hashes is fairly trivial, so you won't need the overhead of SSL. The downside is that the data transferred in each session is insecure, so a snoop could still read every email you read, write, every contact you touch, etc. However, the snoop couldn't intercept your session and request NEW data.
It sounds to me like an ideal weapon -- Now we're down to one operator instead of two.
To answer your last, Cheney, of course.
And yet in the real world, everyone isn't the same, nor does everyone get treated the same.
It's not a matter of "us" not valuing a suicide bomber's life. Rather, the suicide bomber himself doesn't value his life.
Notice the difference?
Actually this might work if you had enough people to buy out the theatre completely, then all request refunds after the show has started -- This not only wastes the theatre's time, but prevents them from reselling those tickets.
It matters because Ted Stevens wasn't just another politician talking about things he didn't understand, rather, he was in a position to be proposing and backing legislation to change things he didn't (and doesn't) understand.
He actually believes that his email is stuck somewhere waiting for days because of people downloading movies, and is basing legislation on that belief.
I don't have the mechanical skills to rebuild my car, but neither do I propose a laws to dictate how the experts do it.
Which one again brings us to the fact that I can bring empty containers of any size without any problem. If the problem is the contain, it's as problematic completely empty as it would be partially empty or full, no?