Language:
switch to room list switch to menu My folders
Go to page: First ... 30 31 32 33 [34] 35 36 37 38 ... Last
[#] Mon Nov 10 2014 14:28:30 EST from fleeb @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


Well, most people do 12 hour clocks. I prefer 24 as well, but... y'know...

[#] Mon Nov 10 2014 14:49:30 EST from vince-q @ Cascade Lodge BBS

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


But when you say "they shouldn't be able to charge netflix money", I'm

not sure I agree. Netflix is collocating boxes in local cable-company

datacenters. That's resources that are being devoted solely to Netflix.



When you "co-locate" your machine in an internet provider's "machine room", be it your local ISP or a Tier 1 provider, you pay for the bandwidth you use, and if you exceed your allotted bandwidth, you pay more - you do NOT get "throttled." It's included. Just by colocating, Netflix (and any other such entity) is **buying** their bandwidth.

To charge SEPARATELY for TRANSPORTING the bandwidth for which they have already paid is larcenous and anti-competitive. Period.

--Vince (founder, NetK2NE)
"Serving the OnLine Community since 1983."

[#] Mon Nov 10 2014 15:56:12 EST from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

Subject: Re: Obama wants ban on Internet 'fast lane' deals

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Strange.
Obama said this.
And I agree with it.
Weird...

It's the standard liberal position on Net Neutrality. And it's one of the few liberal positions I agree with, although not for the same reason they do.

Folks like us know that the tendency of last-mile providers to conduct business in an anti-competitive way is a big problem, and that we need to protect end nodes from those providers making themselves a choke point or a toll booth.

Liberals want Net Neutrality because it's an easy in-point for the government to control the Internet.


I have two answers to the problem. Both make more sense than any traditional answer.

Solution #1: If you act as anything other than a dumb pipe, totally blind to who or what is going over it, you lose your common carrier protection.
You can and will be named as a party to any lawsuit involving something that happened over someone's Internet connection.

Solution #2: The Bell System Breakup done right. If you provide last mile wiring, you can't provide anything else. Equal access begins as soon as the cable enters the central office or head end building. The last mile provider gets you into that building; someone else colocated there provides you with voice, data, and television.

(We should also put Barack Obama and Bill Gates on a rocket which explodes shortly after liftoff, but that's just something all sensible people want, not really something that will solve the Net Neutrality debate.)

[#] Mon Nov 10 2014 16:00:30 EST from LoanShark @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

more - you do NOT get "throttled." It's included. Just by colocating,

Netflix (and any other such entity) is **buying** their bandwidth.

I'm not sure Netflix actually *is* paying. I've read some of the open letters they've been sending to some of the cablecos they're fighting with... I admit I don't know all the details, but I think Netflix is taking the stance that "hey mister ISP, your customers are sending a lot of traffic to us. We'll be nice and provide a free box you can colocate so all that traffic doesn't have to transit. As part of our free colo program yada yada yada. Look how nice we are. OBTW, we won't pay you a cent."

[#] Mon Nov 10 2014 18:48:07 EST from vince-q @ Cascade Lodge BBS

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

I'm not sure Netflix actually *is* paying. I've read some of the open


They're paying.
You do NOT get rack space and a connection in *any* NAP site for free unless you are the ISP that owns the NAP.
Period.

The exact terms of their co-lo agreement, including the money part, may well be confidential. I know that all of *our* co-lo agreements with our co-lo customers were confidential. We even included a "will not disclose to law enforcment except on presentation of a warrant signed by a judge and issued out of a Court of Competent Jurisdiction" clause. In fact, our collection of Acceptable Use Policies and customer contracts were judged by the EFF, back in the mid 1990s as "the example by which all others must be judged."

I do absolutely know that of which I speak on this issue.

[#] Mon Nov 10 2014 18:52:49 EST from vince-q @ Cascade Lodge BBS

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

One thing which seems to have been overlooked in all of this hoopla...

You can have all the boxen you want co-located at any NAP site you choose, and pay the owner of the NAP whatever they set as the price to "be there."

...and then there's the Elephant In The NAP....

Peering.
Good luck with that.
Hint: it ain't free these days, UNLESS you bring HUGE amounts of content to the table.
And therein lies the area where Netflix just might be getting something without paying money. They are bringing HUGE amounts of content to the table. And in the "peering negotiation" content equals currency (money).

[#] Tue Nov 11 2014 10:23:46 EST from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


It's very frustrating to see the moonbats and wingnuts take positions on this issue which are, at first glance, opposite of what one would expect.

It's because looking at a technology issue with a political eye makes you go completely in the wrong direction.

The left wants net neutrality not because they understand it, but because they want the government to control the Internet.

The right is against net neutrality not because they think they're protecting free enterprise, but they don't fully understand the antitrust implications of last-mile monopolies.

So really they're both wrong. They should just put me in charge and I'll have the problem solved in a week.

[#] Tue Nov 11 2014 11:00:11 EST from LoanShark @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


So here's how you end up with Netflix dealing directly with Comcast after they "already paid for" their transit:

http://blog.streamingmedia.com/2014/02/heres-comcast-netflix-deal-structured-numbers.html


"Remember, Netflix is the one paying Cogent and Cogent is selling Netflix on the principle that it can get all of Netflixbs traffic into an ISP like Comcast. As a result, Cogent has to take all the necessary business steps to make sure Cogent has enough capacity to pass Netflixbs traffic on from Cogentbs network to Comcast. But Cogent isnbt doing that. [...]

"Netflix is getting an install SLA, packet loss SLA and latency SLA from Comcast, which guarantees quality. This is very different from what Netflix was getting from Cogent because Comcast is providing fully dedicated capacity, unlike sending it through someone like Cogent where those connections are potentially over-subscribed if a transit provider over-sells their capacity, which Cogent has a history of doing.

"To date, Cogent has had peering disputes with AOL, Teleglobe, France Telecom, Level 3, TeliaSonera, Sprint-Nextel and Verizon. I find it interesting no one in the press mentioned how Cogent always seems to be the one major transit provider who continues to have disputes with so many other network providers, year after year."


Interesting, if true.


Also, if true, most of this whole debate is much ado about nothing.

[#] Tue Nov 11 2014 11:21:20 EST from vince-q @ Cascade Lodge BBS

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


Also, if true, most of this whole debate is much ado about nothing.



Or much ado about peering.
To a neophyte, or even to an experienced internet "civilian" peering may not sound like a big deal. However, in reality peering is **the** big deal.

You can co-locate in my NOC and pay me all the money you own, but if nobody *else* will "talk to you" then it does you absolutely no good to even be there.

[#] Tue Nov 11 2014 18:17:57 EST from IGnatius T Foobar @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


I do plenty of peering. Settlement-free peering happens when both networks are on equal footing in terms of what they have to offer, either in the form of content or subscribers. Lopsided peering arrangements usually involve one party paying a settlement to the other. It really is that simple.

Greedy last-mile providers are looking to be paid twice to carry the same traffic, once from the subscriber and then again from the content provider.
This is the practice that needs to be stopped. But it needs to be stopped by people who don't have a hidden agenda of letting the government take over the Internet.

[#] Tue Nov 11 2014 19:24:17 EST from zooer @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

It's very frustrating to see the moonbats and wingnuts take positions
on this issue which are, at first glance, opposite of what one would
expect.


hmmmmm.... I can't believe people are ignorant of the issues.

[#] Tue Nov 11 2014 20:00:03 EST from vince-q @ Cascade Lodge BBS

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


hmmmmm.... I can't believe people are ignorant of the issues.


Heh. In today's world, both online and off, stupidity and ignorance abound.
How *else* can one explain Barack Obama as POTUS? Even once, nevermind twice?

[#] Tue Nov 11 2014 20:54:19 EST from LoanShark @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


Ok. Why does it need to be stopped? In a world where customers don't want metered service, it still makes sense for network providers to charge the heaviest users for their usage. If that means they charge their end-users a more-flat or mostly-flat rate (perhaps tiered by bandwidth caps), and they turn around and charge Netflix (a HUGE bandwidth user) a bunch of $ which Netflix passses on to their customers, I don't see a huge problem with that.

I'd rather live in a flat-ish rate world, so I don't have to stress out about every little frigging packet I send.

[#] Wed Nov 12 2014 08:40:27 EST from rss @

Subject: Dead California candidate leads in race

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

A candidate for a seat on a Central California board may win his race, despite having died last month in a small plane crash.

http://feeds.foxnews.com/~r/foxnews/politics/~3/gTaH6no4KoM/


[#] Wed Nov 12 2014 09:14:13 EST from vince-q @ Cascade Lodge BBS

Subject: Re: Dead California candidate leads in race

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Nov 12 2014 5:40am from rss @cascade in >
Subject: Dead California candidate leads in race
A candidate for a seat on a Central California board may win his
race, despite having died last month in a small plane crash.

http://feeds.foxnews.com/~r/foxnews/politics/~3/gTaH6no4KoM/


Now how about that!
If he should win, will they administer a Conditional Oath of Office at the gravesite? You know - ....

There's Conditional Absolution, and a few other conditional Rites in the Church, but this one would take the proverbial political cake! <evil liturgical grin!>

[#] Wed Nov 12 2014 10:10:45 EST from fleeb @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


I forget where, but I think voters nearly voted a plant instead of a human for one political office.

This really should wake up our government to the fact that they do a terrible job of representing us, that we don't particularly care what goes into office.

[#] Wed Nov 12 2014 10:25:18 EST from LoanShark @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]


ZOMG, BEING INELIGIBLE FOR THE JOB DIDN'T STOP OBAMAR SO THIS GUY IS A SHOO-IN!!!1

[#] Wed Nov 12 2014 10:55:08 EST from zooer @ Uncensored

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

He will do less damage as a dead politician so let him serve out his term.

[#] Wed Nov 12 2014 11:30:34 EST from vince-q @ Cascade Lodge BBS

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Assuming him to be a demoCrap (and here in California that's a rather safe assumption from Sacramento on south), he was probably elected by all those dead VOTERS!

[#] Wed Nov 12 2014 11:37:29 EST from vince-q @ Cascade Lodge BBS

Subject: Re: Obama fires latest salvo in war on coal

[Reply] [ReplyQuoted] [Headers] [Print]

Nov 12 2014 7:48am from rss @cascade in >
Subject: Obama fires latest salvo in war on coal
New emissions deal with China that industry says could cost U.S.
jobs deepens battle lines between the president and Congress over
Obama's climate change policy.

http://feeds.foxnews.com/~r/foxnews/politics/~3/EpwDpfR3ZI8/


1. Communist China is NOT a 'friend' of the United States.
2. Communist China has thermonuclear-armed ICBMs targeted on the US.
3. POTUS is over there treating them as friends. Offering "aid and comfort" to them.

#3 constitutes "treason" under the statutory definition of the term. The Communist Chinese are our enemy. Have been since 1949. Nothing has changed. They'd just as soon see us dead as anything else.

When that idiot is finally out of office he should be indicted and tried.
You only need TWELVE votes on a jury.

Go to page: First ... 30 31 32 33 [34] 35 36 37 38 ... Last