Campaign finance laws demonstrably have not achieved nothing, or the monied persons would not have bothered to weaken these laws, and would not be seeking to weaken them further.
Politicians are patently not answerable at the ballot box, by and large, or so many unpopular bits of legislation would not be passing.
If you remove too much power from the government, you will create a power vacuum. Someone will step in and fill it. Warlord or (maybe even well meaning) revolutionary. The government needs to be answerable to us, and it never will be as long as it can be bought.
I was sysadmin on an AS/400 back in the 90's. I am pretty sure we had an E35 somewhere in the cycle of upgrades. I know we started off with something "lower", but still a 35. I think it was a B35. I would not say it was fast, but it was fast enough.
We had remote offices, SDLC lines CSU/DSUs and workstation controllers. I don't think we had 250 terminals, but we did have more than 100. The last upgrade we did was to a PowerPC based CPU. Ran a tape, swapped a card, instantly faster. Field rep allowed me to do the card swap.
It was a good machine. The HAL was for everything, not just the OS. When we did the upgrade I spoke of, we didn't have to recompile user apps, the tape loaded the new HAL, I expect.
Sway bars counter but do not entirely eliminate this effect. They for certain do *not* raise the other side of the car. So, no, you dont get what mercedes is doing.
I think you missed the "good" part of "good governance".
What you have described I would attribute to bad governance. Your city leaders see full well that either taxes really do need to go up a bit to provide necessary services, or something else needs to be cut. They are not making the correct decision to either go to their constituency and say why taxes have to go up, or to cut something. They didn't have to change the street cleaner schedule. They took the cheap and easy way out.
Another problem. If the patent troll has already threatened litigation against others, and those others caved & paid, there is ( in my opinion ) undeserved income. If it is shown in a subsequent court case that the patent troll's claim was unsupportable, it was unsupportable to begin with, any monies paid should be reimbursed.
Where is this so called "free market" in all of this? I thought it was the commies that wanted to control the market? Doesn't this make Amazon communist by your assessment?
Amazon explaining how this benefits whatever doesn't make it any of ( so, OK, a good deal for the authors, a good deal for Hachette ).
More likely, that call is to say "hey, dude, I really think you need to consider...". And we all know that most people will consider, since that donation happened. And if they don't, well, they wont last long at this game.
Fact is, we, as an electorate, wont elect a person of character. We elect, by and large, according to team affiliation. We, by and large, are pretty damn stupid.
If that were really the case, corporations would not be so likely to donate, as they would have gotten what they want without the price tag.
It's like a bunch of plants, with money as the fertilizer. The more fertilizer, the more the plant grows, so all the plants/candidates that would favor common people's needs/wants desires wither as they don't get the fertilizer, the ones that get the fertilizer from the corporations and wealthy thrive and make sure they get more.
It may not be direct bribery, but it makes no real difference. The public interests are not served, only the interests of the few are.
My recollection was that that was the one and only reason for his presence. And it was lightnings, but I think he may have taught some corsair pilots as well.
You are assuming that peers means exactly and only balanced traffic. Aside from "that is the way it has always been", what arguments are there for this kind of arrangement?
I don't agree with the idea that Netflix *must* pay. Comcast customers are paying Comcast for access to "the internet", which includes Netflix. Comcast customers are the ones requesting Netflix content. Netflix is making broadband internet more attractive, which means more Comcast customers.
I've done some reading, and it looks like Cogent isn't a model citizen. I'm not sure how that changes the basics of the discussion.
How does Cogent violate peering agreements? And why would Comcast allow Cogents shenanigans to affect their customers ( in terms of bandwidth thru their interconnects )?
I am truly curious. In all my reading on this subject, I have yet to run across Netflix not wanting to pay Cogent. From all I have heard, Netflix was fine with paying Cogent, and that Comcast was refusing to update their connection to Cogent to keep up with the levels of traffic, causing problems for Comcast customers that use Netflix.
Where are you getting this information?
Netflix is not an ISP, why would they be accepting traffic to deliver to anyone?
"free transit" Are you referring to the caching equipment Netflix offered to stand up on Comcast's premises?
I'm not sure what preferential treatment Netflix was demanding. To what do you refer?
I thought peering was connecting to one another. I think you mean settlement free peering, where there is no money being transferred from one entity to another for this service. And if "balanced traffic" was the criteria, then all Netflix would have to do is to have their client transfer enough bits to balance things outbound. That would truly suck But I can see how, if you accept the criteria for settlement free peering as being exactly and only "balanced traffic" that Netflix would be wrong. I dont agree with that criteria, and to me it looks like Comcast holding access ( requested by their customers ) to Netflix hostage.
I felt the same about it when it was google that was "using too much". I'd even feel that way if it was microsoft "using too much".
The principal is the same, regardless of the players. ISPs and other internet participants should not be playing games to extort money. If they are not making enough, they need to look to their customers and business model. I believe they make enough, they are just looking for more.
I understand that the internet is multiple participants and is not a firm, monolithic thing, but I disagree on the 'no "the internet"' concept. It's about connection and bits being transported.
What variations? Netflix was not a Comcast customer. ( they are now, because of extortion ). The various Comcast customers are the Comcast customers. And they paid for access ( bandwidth ). So, Netflix was not trying to get anything for free, they are providing a service on the web that is part of what makes it attractive for Comcast's customer's to pay them for *their* bandwidth ( to Netflix, among other destinations ). Netflix paid their ISP for their access to the internet.
"and the ISP makes a deal with Netflix to put in a separate exclusive pipe"
You should have a problem with it.
Netflix's costs are higher than they should be. ISPs should not be picking winners and losers. As the ISP's customer, you are being defrauded.
It's extortion. Netflix paid for their connection to the internet The customer paid for their connection to the internet. The whole reason the customer pays for their connection is access to such sites.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but sometimes, firemen, in a brush fire, will set fire to burnable things in the path of the fire in a controlled way as a fire break.
Get started.
Can you get 3/4's of the politicians from the states to enact such legislation?
They are also benefiting from this arrangement, so, I don't think it will fly.
Campaign finance laws demonstrably have not achieved nothing, or the monied persons would not have bothered to weaken these laws, and would not be seeking to weaken them further.
Politicians are patently not answerable at the ballot box, by and large, or so many unpopular bits of legislation would not be passing.
If you remove too much power from the government, you will create a power vacuum. Someone will step in and fill it. Warlord or (maybe even well meaning) revolutionary. The government needs to be answerable to us, and it never will be as long as it can be bought.
I was sysadmin on an AS/400 back in the 90's. I am pretty sure we had an E35 somewhere in the cycle of upgrades. I know we started off with something "lower", but still a 35. I think it was a B35. I would not say it was fast, but it was fast enough.
We had remote offices, SDLC lines CSU/DSUs and workstation controllers. I don't think we had 250 terminals, but we did have more than 100.
The last upgrade we did was to a PowerPC based CPU. Ran a tape, swapped a card, instantly faster. Field rep allowed me to do the card swap.
It was a good machine. The HAL was for everything, not just the OS. When we did the upgrade I spoke of, we didn't have to recompile user apps, the tape loaded the new HAL, I expect.
Sway bars counter but do not entirely eliminate this effect. They for certain do *not* raise the other side of the car.
So, no, you dont get what mercedes is doing.
I think you missed the "good" part of "good governance".
What you have described I would attribute to bad governance. Your city leaders see full well that either taxes really do need to go up a bit to provide necessary services, or something else needs to be cut. They are not making the correct decision to either go to their constituency and say why taxes have to go up, or to cut something. They didn't have to change the street cleaner schedule. They took the cheap and easy way out.
Another problem. If the patent troll has already threatened litigation against others, and those others caved & paid, there is ( in my opinion ) undeserved income.
If it is shown in a subsequent court case that the patent troll's claim was unsupportable, it was unsupportable to begin with, any monies paid should be reimbursed.
Where is this so called "free market" in all of this?
I thought it was the commies that wanted to control the market? Doesn't this make Amazon communist by your assessment?
Amazon explaining how this benefits whatever doesn't make it any of ( so, OK, a good deal for the authors, a good deal for Hachette ).
More likely, that call is to say "hey, dude, I really think you need to consider ...".
And we all know that most people will consider, since that donation happened.
And if they don't, well, they wont last long at this game.
Fact is, we, as an electorate, wont elect a person of character.
We elect, by and large, according to team affiliation.
We, by and large, are pretty damn stupid.
If that were really the case, corporations would not be so likely to donate, as they would have gotten what they want without the price tag.
It's like a bunch of plants, with money as the fertilizer. The more fertilizer, the more the plant grows, so all the plants/candidates that would favor common people's needs/wants desires wither as they don't get the fertilizer, the ones that get the fertilizer from the corporations and wealthy thrive and make sure they get more.
It may not be direct bribery, but it makes no real difference.
The public interests are not served, only the interests of the few are.
My recollection was that that was the one and only reason for his presence.
And it was lightnings, but I think he may have taught some corsair pilots as well.
And, so I looked it up.
According to this, it was corsairs first
http://www.charleslindbergh.co...
And this seconds it
http://www.eyewitnesstohistory...
and this says that it was corsairs, but the issue he solved was taking off with large bomb loads ( the corsair was designed as a fighter, but was in use with the Marines as the Navy didnt like it's landing characteristics )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...
Yep. I read about his missions fairly recently. IIRC he was there to teach the kids how to stretch fuel for long trips.
IIRC, Lindbergh was not a fighter pilot in WWI. Rickenbacker was.
Comcast's network needs to be paid for by Comcast's customers. They are the ones requesting and paying for the traffic.
You are assuming that peers means exactly and only balanced traffic.
Aside from "that is the way it has always been", what arguments are there for this kind of arrangement?
I don't agree with the idea that Netflix *must* pay.
Comcast customers are paying Comcast for access to "the internet", which includes Netflix.
Comcast customers are the ones requesting Netflix content.
Netflix is making broadband internet more attractive, which means more Comcast customers.
I've done some reading, and it looks like Cogent isn't a model citizen.
I'm not sure how that changes the basics of the discussion.
How does Cogent violate peering agreements?
And why would Comcast allow Cogents shenanigans to affect their customers ( in terms of bandwidth thru their interconnects )?
I am truly curious. In all my reading on this subject, I have yet to run across Netflix not wanting to pay Cogent.
From all I have heard, Netflix was fine with paying Cogent, and that Comcast was refusing to update their connection to Cogent to keep up with the levels of traffic, causing problems for Comcast customers that use Netflix.
Where are you getting this information?
Netflix is not an ISP, why would they be accepting traffic to deliver to anyone?
"free transit" Are you referring to the caching equipment Netflix offered to stand up on Comcast's premises?
I'm not sure what preferential treatment Netflix was demanding. To what do you refer?
I thought peering was connecting to one another.
I think you mean settlement free peering, where there is no money being transferred from one entity to another for this service.
And if "balanced traffic" was the criteria, then all Netflix would have to do is to have their client transfer enough bits to balance things outbound.
That would truly suck
But I can see how, if you accept the criteria for settlement free peering as being exactly and only "balanced traffic" that Netflix would be wrong.
I dont agree with that criteria, and to me it looks like Comcast holding access ( requested by their customers ) to Netflix hostage.
Unrestricted where? From the ISP to the customer? Or from the ISP to the sites the customer wants to visit?
Yeah, I get that. I disagree with applauding, approving or condoning it.
There should not be a law to deal with Netflix.
I felt the same about it when it was google that was "using too much". I'd even feel that way if it was microsoft "using too much".
The principal is the same, regardless of the players.
ISPs and other internet participants should not be playing games to extort money.
If they are not making enough, they need to look to their customers and business model. I believe they make enough, they are just looking for more.
I understand that the internet is multiple participants and is not a firm, monolithic thing, but I disagree on the 'no "the internet"' concept.
It's about connection and bits being transported.
What variations?
Netflix was not a Comcast customer. ( they are now, because of extortion ).
The various Comcast customers are the Comcast customers. And they paid for access ( bandwidth ).
So, Netflix was not trying to get anything for free, they are providing a service on the web that is part of what makes it attractive for Comcast's customer's to pay them for *their* bandwidth ( to Netflix, among other destinations ). Netflix paid their ISP for their access to the internet.
Nothing more should be required.
"and the ISP makes a deal with Netflix to put in a separate exclusive pipe"
You should have a problem with it.
Netflix's costs are higher than they should be.
ISPs should not be picking winners and losers.
As the ISP's customer, you are being defrauded.
It's extortion.
Netflix paid for their connection to the internet
The customer paid for their connection to the internet. The whole reason the customer pays for their connection is access to such sites.
And then they mark the parking spots under the carports as "reserved" so that ordinary peons cant use them.....