I'm suspecting that Comcast is doing more than just throttling connections, but they may be outright interrupting data streams they don't like. No clear-cut evidence, but we use a Comcast link to rsync files from a local server to/from our main web server out on the internet every night, in the wee hours of the AM (so I don't think we'd be dealing with node congestion, or inconveniencing any significant number of other users). Total transfers vary, but can get moderately large: A really big xfer might be 2-3 GB, and that amount might move both upstream and downstream over the course of a night's syncs.
After years of pretty much flawless operation, in the last few months we've seen the rsyncs fail fairly frequently. It's clearly not been an issue with the server on either end of the connection, and the connection itself seems to stay active. - Just relaunching the rsync a little while later usually gets everything across that we need to. Running sample rsyncs manually shows that what seems to be happening is that just the particular rsync link seems to go dead for a few minutes at a time, while the rest of the connection stays alive. (Eg, we can still browse, check email, etc over our Comcast link.) Rsync is pretty robust, but if the connection is interrupted long enough, it'll time out. Simply relaunching the rsync once it times out lets everything start back up again just fine.
I'm no network engineer, but it sure looks to me like Comcast is deliberately glitching specific traffic streams it doesn't like, in this case the rsync stream, after "x" amount of data has transferred. It's not a matter of throttling, because (a) the link just goes dead, rather than simply slowing down, and (b) other services over the same Comcast connection seem to continue working just fine.
For this particular application, I'd be perfectly fine if they cut our bandwidth to 1/2 or 1/3 of normal, as the syncs aren't time-critical; we just need them to be done by the next AM. But I'd *really* like them to tell us in detail what the actual terms of service are.
I could just switch our servers' connections over to the redundant AT&T DSL connection we maintain, but Comcast's higher speed (in bursts) is very handy during the day when we want to move smaller chunks of data quickly. So I do have an alternative available, it's just less attractive for various reasons. I do think they should disclose fully what it is their customers are buying, though, and should be required to disclose changes in their bandwidth-management practices. We didn't actually lose any data here, but the consequences could have been severe if we'd had a device failure and needed to call on our "backup".
Has anyone else seen what looks like deliberate interruption of specific data streams like this?
The thing that is particually noticible is that manufacturers are now being actively co-opted into sharing this information under NDA with MS to allow the hardware to work seamlessly with Longhorn.
Actually, that's incorrect. The Longhorn interface is binary-only (no source code or format information is communicated to Microsoft or to the OS). Basically, the manufacturer (or third-party developer) writes a driver with an API that makes processed RGB data available to the OS. This is the same basic mode of operation as Canon and Nikon (and probably others) have implemented already in their free SDKs. Here's a brief interview with a Microsoft exec about the Longhorn interface and the shortly forthcoming "powertoy" RAW thumbnailer/viewer that's coming for XP. -- Not likely the level of detail/. people would want, but more than I've seen elsewhere, may help dispel some of the misconceptions.
Of course, this means that the proprietary RAW formats remain entirely proprietary in the Longhorn era.
For the record, I personally think that some level of open documentation of RAW formats makes a whole lot more sense than trying to come up with a common standard. A number of people (Adobe prominent among them, of course) have proposed Adobe DNG as a "universal" format. This sounds like a wonderful idea until you look at the assumptions underlying the format: It assumes a rectilinear pixel array, with a Bayer color filter array pattern (a checkerboard of RGB color filters on the pixels, with twice as many green pixels as red or blue). This is indeed the format used by the majority of cameras out there, but it completely misses innovations such as Foveon's full-RGB-in-every-pixel sensor, Fuji's hexagonal-pixel/diagonal-array "SuperCCD", and Fuji's latest "SR" sensors, which combine low- and high-sensitivity sensors in each pixel.
While a "universal" RAW format would help with the issue of access to the underlying data, so would simple documentation of the structure of various proprietary RAW formats, and the latter wouldn't have the negative effect of stifling innovation in sensor technology.
...is the part that says "Microsoft... wants to use perks such as bug patches and alerts to demonstrate the value of legal software."
Interesting, that bug patches are cast as "perks." - Of course leaving unaddressed the value of software that doesn't need bug patches in the first place.
So maybe that's why there are so many bugs in Windows -- So we'll all be so dang grateful when we receive the bug patches!
This finally explains why I like Microsoft products so much...
I've participated elsewhere in this thread, but wanted to post this as a separate question (rather than as a response to the responses to my earlier note), to see how people might respond to a voluntary solution.
A lot of the pro-blocker arguments here seem to spring from the fact that the site publisher never stated that receiving ads was a requisite for viewing their site, and that the site visitor as a result never agreed to receive them. (Hence, no contract existed.) The problem of course, is that there's not currently any sort of universally-deployed technology to automate this sort of transaction. (I know, you could always force visitors through a logon screen, but that would also likely hide the site from search engines, leading to certain site-death. Apologies in advance too, if my own technical inexperience means that I'm just overlooking something obvious.)
Here's the question: How would/. readers respond (and how would you feel about it) if you encountered the following text message at the top of every page of a web site? --- "This site depends on commercial advertising for a significant part of its support. If you are using ad blocking software, we repectfully request that you either unblock the ads displayed here, or browse elsewhere. You may also _donate_ to support this site if you find its content useful. Click _here_ to read our ad policies." ---
The "ad policies" page might say something like this: --- "Ads served on this site include a variety of banners, as well as popunders. Here are the ad standards we adhere to:
Conventional Banners: Max file size 25K Animation: Max of 3 loops or 20 seconds duration Most pages have 2 ads/page, 3% of pages have 3 or 4 ads. Total ad content is less than 50K on 97% of pages, less than 75K in all cases.
Popunders: Max file size 30K Animation: Max of 3 loops or 20 seconds duration Max of 1 popunder delivered per browser session NOTE: Limitation of one popunder per browser session requires that cookies be enabled, because that's how we know when we've already delivered a popunder to you. If you have cookies disabled, you'll be bombarded with popunders, and likely be unhappy with our site. Sorry.:-(
"Rich Media" banners: Max file size without reader interaction: 25K Max delivered content with mouseover or click: 100K Rich media will only expand over page contents when the reader mouses over the ad or clicks on it. In the event of expansion upon mouseover, the ad will retract to its original size as soon as the reader mouses away from it again.
Ad Serving: Third-party servers DoubleClick and Atlas are used for some campaigns, their policies for cookies and tracking apply to those campaigns. Campaigns served by ourselves use cookies only for visitor counting, tracking reader paths through our site, and to limit popunder serving to one ad per browser session.
Privacy Policies: See our _privacy policy page_ for full details on our privacy policies. ---
This would make the "contract" explicit, even though reader compliance would be entirely on the honor system. - The site would have no way of knowing whether people were honoring the request or not, and hence no way of enforcing it. But the request would at least have been made explicit, and a copy of the ad policies would be available for anyone interested in reading it.
What would the/. community think of this sort of an approach? Assuming that you in fact did want to read what the site had published, would you unblock their ads? Would you click away instead? Would you leave the blocking active and read anyway? How would you feel, seeing a header like that on the web pages? OK with it? Pissed off? Again, supposing that you find the sites content useful, how likely would you be to donate to support it, in order to leave the ads blocked and feel OK about it? (I know, obviously entirely dependent on how much you liked the site. Also generally a hassle to donate, given that there isn't any viable "micro payment" system that's generally available) Are there other things that should be included on the "ad policies page?"
>>If you don't like a site's ad policies, then don't use the site.
What you fail to realize is that there is no such thing as "ad policies" laid out for the visitor. The site manager might have a business model, but how this is implemented is not the visitor's problem.
This is in fact exactly the core of the problem: There isn't any way that either party can know what the other one is doing. I don't have any way to tell your browser what my ad policies are, and your browser doesn't have any way to tell my server what ad policies it would accept. I'd like nothing better than to have some sort of easy-to-implement protocol that would let websites and readers negotiate this sort of thing. (Any FireFox developers listening?)
There is no "moral code" for readers: If a magazine has a product flyer in it I can throw it away without even looking at it; The magazine publisher still got paid. The "moral code" error is on the part of the online advertisers which do not trust "visit counts" - and with good reason since the numbers can be fudged. So they count actual ad views instead (something that cannot be done in the magazine example).
The magazine got paid for delivering the flyer to you, what happens after that is up to you, and largely dependent on how good the advertiser was at crafting the ad piece. Nobody is talking about forcing people *read* ads, the only issue is whether readers agree to accept delivery of them or not.
>>But in the meantime, if you block ads from a site, yes, you are in fact ripping them off and freeloading on someone else's nickel.
Or, in other words: Web technology can not be forced to support our business model, so we will try to insult people and see if that works.
Excuse me, where's the insult? Am I not allowed to think that people blocking ads are ripping off content? I didn't realize that/. was subject to that level of thought control.
Bottom line, the arguments trying to find moral support for reading site content while blocking ads all come down to "Because you can't stop me from doing this, and because I didn't sign a contract with you, I owe you nothing."
How about this: Having read this discussion, if you visit a site and see that your popup blocker is blocking ads from that site, why not just go find some other site to visit? I'd be happy with that. You didn't know coming in that I was going to use popups, that's fine. You blocked them, that's fine too, none of your bandwidth or time was wasted. But if you see that your browser has blocked something, why not just go away?
If you don't like a site's ad policies, then don't use the site.
The terminology gets people fouled up, I think, using words like "contract," which has a specific legal definition. This leads to all sorts of hair-splitting legalese by people trying to argue their way out of their own moral discomfort.
Bottom line, if you use something of value that costs somebody else something to create and maintain, you ought to pay for it. Payment can be by subscription, for sites that offer that, but subscription-based sites generally haven't done well on the web. If not by subscription, there are two other main ways that sites earn money to keep the lights on, namely advertising or shopping clicks on price-comparison pages. (The latter just another form of advertising, but the business model is different enough to warrant a separate category.) If sites aren't supported by one of these three sources of income, they stop existing. (And yes, of course, people can always publish information for free, but that places significant limits on what can be accomplished, and would result in a whole lot less information being available on the web.)
No, there's no contract, but if someone sets up a site with revenue based at least in part on advertising, and you use the site while disabling the ads, there's no question that you're not supporting them in exchange for your usage. If you don't like their ads, the solution is easy - Don't visit their site. If you're feeling magnanimous, drop the site publisher a line saying you were turned off by the ads and so won't be visiting again. Believe me, it wouldn't take very many emails like that for any halfway intelligent site publisher to wake up. If you use a site's content without accepting their ads though, you're just freeloading off the other readers who aren't blocking.
People seem to think that because something is electronically based, it's subject to a different moral code. What do you do when you come across a hotel that you think charges too much for its rooms? Stay there anyway, and then write them a bad check? I suspect not. The same principle applies for any other product or service you avail yourself of, the web included. The only thing that's different about the web is that there's not an explicit contract, and nobody will come knocking on your door if you disable ads.
As you might guess from my comments, all this hits pretty close to home for me. - I run a site about digital cameras, and advertising is a pretty important part of how I keep my family fed and the people who work for me paid. The site is a huge amount of work, my typical work week is 70+ hours (try it yourself sometime, for say, 7 years or so), and the people who work on the site with me all work hard in exchange for their pay as well. I'd naturally love for every last digital camera buyer on the planet to pass through our portals, but if they don't want to, that's fine too. But people who think they're somehow entitled to spend hours browsing the site without supporting us in any way, shape, or form really raise my hackles.
The big problem in all this of course, is that a relative minority of sites are spoiling things for the rest of us. Popunders are a case in point. Used appropriately, they can be a very good thing, as they can communicate much more information than a simple tower or banner ad can. Ad content that's related to the topic of a site is very likely going to be of interest to a reader, so more information in a more concentrated package (a well-designed popunder) would be a good thing. Popunders also work extremely well for the advertiser and site publisher, as the response rates from them are often literally 10x that of conventional baners or towers. The problem comes when sites throw up dozens of these things, advertising products or services of virtually zero interest to their readers. People have very rightly gotten tired of this sort of thing.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm suspecting that Comcast is doing more than just throttling connections, but they may be outright interrupting data streams they don't like. No clear-cut evidence, but we use a Comcast link to rsync files from a local server to/from our main web server out on the internet every night, in the wee hours of the AM (so I don't think we'd be dealing with node congestion, or inconveniencing any significant number of other users). Total transfers vary, but can get moderately large: A really big xfer might be 2-3 GB, and that amount might move both upstream and downstream over the course of a night's syncs.
After years of pretty much flawless operation, in the last few months we've seen the rsyncs fail fairly frequently. It's clearly not been an issue with the server on either end of the connection, and the connection itself seems to stay active. - Just relaunching the rsync a little while later usually gets everything across that we need to. Running sample rsyncs manually shows that what seems to be happening is that just the particular rsync link seems to go dead for a few minutes at a time, while the rest of the connection stays alive. (Eg, we can still browse, check email, etc over our Comcast link.) Rsync is pretty robust, but if the connection is interrupted long enough, it'll time out. Simply relaunching the rsync once it times out lets everything start back up again just fine.
I'm no network engineer, but it sure looks to me like Comcast is deliberately glitching specific traffic streams it doesn't like, in this case the rsync stream, after "x" amount of data has transferred. It's not a matter of throttling, because (a) the link just goes dead, rather than simply slowing down, and (b) other services over the same Comcast connection seem to continue working just fine.
For this particular application, I'd be perfectly fine if they cut our bandwidth to 1/2 or 1/3 of normal, as the syncs aren't time-critical; we just need them to be done by the next AM. But I'd *really* like them to tell us in detail what the actual terms of service are.
I could just switch our servers' connections over to the redundant AT&T DSL connection we maintain, but Comcast's higher speed (in bursts) is very handy during the day when we want to move smaller chunks of data quickly. So I do have an alternative available, it's just less attractive for various reasons. I do think they should disclose fully what it is their customers are buying, though, and should be required to disclose changes in their bandwidth-management practices. We didn't actually lose any data here, but the consequences could have been severe if we'd had a device failure and needed to call on our "backup".
Has anyone else seen what looks like deliberate interruption of specific data streams like this?
The thing that is particually noticible is that manufacturers are now being actively co-opted into sharing this information under NDA with MS to allow the hardware to work seamlessly with Longhorn.
/. people would want, but more than I've seen elsewhere, may help dispel some of the misconceptions.
Actually, that's incorrect. The Longhorn interface is binary-only (no source code or format information is communicated to Microsoft or to the OS). Basically, the manufacturer (or third-party developer) writes a driver with an API that makes processed RGB data available to the OS. This is the same basic mode of operation as Canon and Nikon (and probably others) have implemented already in their free SDKs. Here's a brief interview with a Microsoft exec about the Longhorn interface and the shortly forthcoming "powertoy" RAW thumbnailer/viewer that's coming for XP. -- Not likely the level of detail
Of course, this means that the proprietary RAW formats remain entirely proprietary in the Longhorn era.
For the record, I personally think that some level of open documentation of RAW formats makes a whole lot more sense than trying to come up with a common standard. A number of people (Adobe prominent among them, of course) have proposed Adobe DNG as a "universal" format. This sounds like a wonderful idea until you look at the assumptions underlying the format: It assumes a rectilinear pixel array, with a Bayer color filter array pattern (a checkerboard of RGB color filters on the pixels, with twice as many green pixels as red or blue). This is indeed the format used by the majority of cameras out there, but it completely misses innovations such as Foveon's full-RGB-in-every-pixel sensor, Fuji's hexagonal-pixel/diagonal-array "SuperCCD", and Fuji's latest "SR" sensors, which combine low- and high-sensitivity sensors in each pixel.
While a "universal" RAW format would help with the issue of access to the underlying data, so would simple documentation of the structure of various proprietary RAW formats, and the latter wouldn't have the negative effect of stifling innovation in sensor technology.
...is the part that says "Microsoft ... wants to use perks such as bug patches and alerts to demonstrate the value of legal software."
Interesting, that bug patches are cast as "perks." - Of course leaving unaddressed the value of software that doesn't need bug patches in the first place.
So maybe that's why there are so many bugs in Windows -- So we'll all be so dang grateful when we receive the bug patches!
This finally explains why I like Microsoft products so much...
I've participated elsewhere in this thread, but wanted to post this as a separate question (rather than as a response to the responses to my earlier note), to see how people might respond to a voluntary solution.
/. readers respond (and how would you feel about it) if you encountered the following text message at the top of every page of a web site?
:-(
/. community think of this sort of an approach? Assuming that you in fact did want to read what the site had published, would you unblock their ads? Would you click away instead? Would you leave the blocking active and read anyway? How would you feel, seeing a header like that on the web pages? OK with it? Pissed off? Again, supposing that you find the sites content useful, how likely would you be to donate to support it, in order to leave the ads blocked and feel OK about it? (I know, obviously entirely dependent on how much you liked the site. Also generally a hassle to donate, given that there isn't any viable "micro payment" system that's generally available) Are there other things that should be included on the "ad policies page?"
A lot of the pro-blocker arguments here seem to spring from the fact that the site publisher never stated that receiving ads was a requisite for viewing their site, and that the site visitor as a result never agreed to receive them. (Hence, no contract existed.) The problem of course, is that there's not currently any sort of universally-deployed technology to automate this sort of transaction. (I know, you could always force visitors through a logon screen, but that would also likely hide the site from search engines, leading to certain site-death. Apologies in advance too, if my own technical inexperience means that I'm just overlooking something obvious.)
Here's the question: How would
---
"This site depends on commercial advertising for a significant part of its support. If you are using ad blocking software, we repectfully request that you either unblock the ads displayed here, or browse elsewhere. You may also _donate_ to support this site if you find its content useful. Click _here_ to read our ad policies."
---
The "ad policies" page might say something like this:
---
"Ads served on this site include a variety of banners, as well as popunders. Here are the ad standards we adhere to:
Conventional Banners:
Max file size 25K
Animation: Max of 3 loops or 20 seconds duration
Most pages have 2 ads/page, 3% of pages have 3 or 4 ads. Total ad content is less than 50K on 97% of pages, less than 75K in all cases.
Popunders:
Max file size 30K
Animation: Max of 3 loops or 20 seconds duration
Max of 1 popunder delivered per browser session
NOTE: Limitation of one popunder per browser session requires that cookies be enabled, because that's how we know when we've already delivered a popunder to you. If you have cookies disabled, you'll be bombarded with popunders, and likely be unhappy with our site. Sorry.
"Rich Media" banners:
Max file size without reader interaction: 25K
Max delivered content with mouseover or click: 100K
Rich media will only expand over page contents when the reader mouses over the ad or clicks on it. In the event of expansion upon mouseover, the ad will retract to its original size as soon as the reader mouses away from it again.
Ad Serving:
Third-party servers DoubleClick and Atlas are used for some campaigns, their policies for cookies and tracking apply to those campaigns. Campaigns served by ourselves use cookies only for visitor counting, tracking reader paths through our site, and to limit popunder serving to one ad per browser session.
Privacy Policies:
See our _privacy policy page_ for full details on our privacy policies.
---
This would make the "contract" explicit, even though reader compliance would be entirely on the honor system. - The site would have no way of knowing whether people were honoring the request or not, and hence no way of enforcing it. But the request would at least have been made explicit, and a copy of the ad policies would be available for anyone interested in reading it.
What would the
>>If you don't like a site's ad policies, then don't use the site.
/. was subject to that level of thought control.
What you fail to realize is that there is no such thing as "ad policies" laid out for the visitor. The site manager might have a business model, but how this is implemented is not the visitor's problem.
This is in fact exactly the core of the problem: There isn't any way that either party can know what the other one is doing. I don't have any way to tell your browser what my ad policies are, and your browser doesn't have any way to tell my server what ad policies it would accept. I'd like nothing better than to have some sort of easy-to-implement protocol that would let websites and readers negotiate this sort of thing. (Any FireFox developers listening?)
There is no "moral code" for readers: If a magazine has a product flyer in it I can throw it away without even looking at it; The magazine publisher still got paid. The "moral code" error is on the part of the online advertisers which do not trust "visit counts" - and with good reason since the numbers can be fudged. So they count actual ad views instead (something that cannot be done in the magazine example).
The magazine got paid for delivering the flyer to you, what happens after that is up to you, and largely dependent on how good the advertiser was at crafting the ad piece. Nobody is talking about forcing people *read* ads, the only issue is whether readers agree to accept delivery of them or not.
>>But in the meantime, if you block ads from a site, yes, you are in fact ripping them off and freeloading on someone else's nickel.
Or, in other words: Web technology can not be forced to support our business model, so we will try to insult people and see if that works.
Excuse me, where's the insult? Am I not allowed to think that people blocking ads are ripping off content? I didn't realize that
Bottom line, the arguments trying to find moral support for reading site content while blocking ads all come down to "Because you can't stop me from doing this, and because I didn't sign a contract with you, I owe you nothing."
How about this: Having read this discussion, if you visit a site and see that your popup blocker is blocking ads from that site, why not just go find some other site to visit? I'd be happy with that. You didn't know coming in that I was going to use popups, that's fine. You blocked them, that's fine too, none of your bandwidth or time was wasted. But if you see that your browser has blocked something, why not just go away?
If you don't like a site's ad policies, then don't use the site.
The terminology gets people fouled up, I think, using words like "contract," which has a specific legal definition. This leads to all sorts of hair-splitting legalese by people trying to argue their way out of their own moral discomfort.
Bottom line, if you use something of value that costs somebody else something to create and maintain, you ought to pay for it. Payment can be by subscription, for sites that offer that, but subscription-based sites generally haven't done well on the web. If not by subscription, there are two other main ways that sites earn money to keep the lights on, namely advertising or shopping clicks on price-comparison pages. (The latter just another form of advertising, but the business model is different enough to warrant a separate category.) If sites aren't supported by one of these three sources of income, they stop existing. (And yes, of course, people can always publish information for free, but that places significant limits on what can be accomplished, and would result in a whole lot less information being available on the web.)
No, there's no contract, but if someone sets up a site with revenue based at least in part on advertising, and you use the site while disabling the ads, there's no question that you're not supporting them in exchange for your usage. If you don't like their ads, the solution is easy - Don't visit their site. If you're feeling magnanimous, drop the site publisher a line saying you were turned off by the ads and so won't be visiting again. Believe me, it wouldn't take very many emails like that for any halfway intelligent site publisher to wake up. If you use a site's content without accepting their ads though, you're just freeloading off the other readers who aren't blocking.
People seem to think that because something is electronically based, it's subject to a different moral code. What do you do when you come across a hotel that you think charges too much for its rooms? Stay there anyway, and then write them a bad check? I suspect not. The same principle applies for any other product or service you avail yourself of, the web included. The only thing that's different about the web is that there's not an explicit contract, and nobody will come knocking on your door if you disable ads.
As you might guess from my comments, all this hits pretty close to home for me. - I run a site about digital cameras, and advertising is a pretty important part of how I keep my family fed and the people who work for me paid. The site is a huge amount of work, my typical work week is 70+ hours (try it yourself sometime, for say, 7 years or so), and the people who work on the site with me all work hard in exchange for their pay as well. I'd naturally love for every last digital camera buyer on the planet to pass through our portals, but if they don't want to, that's fine too. But people who think they're somehow entitled to spend hours browsing the site without supporting us in any way, shape, or form really raise my hackles.
The big problem in all this of course, is that a relative minority of sites are spoiling things for the rest of us. Popunders are a case in point. Used appropriately, they can be a very good thing, as they can communicate much more information than a simple tower or banner ad can. Ad content that's related to the topic of a site is very likely going to be of interest to a reader, so more information in a more concentrated package (a well-designed popunder) would be a good thing. Popunders also work extremely well for the advertiser and site publisher, as the response rates from them are often literally 10x that of conventional baners or towers. The problem comes when sites throw up dozens of these things, advertising products or services of virtually zero interest to their readers. People have very rightly gotten tired of this sort of thing.
On our site, we set a cookie, so