Considering they had a 6.5 billion dollar net income, I'm sure their executives and shareholders are crying into their money about your one comment that literally accounts for less than 1/24 of their overall revenue streams....
What do you mean, pacifically?
All bandwidth throttling is done by dropping packets or causing timeouts. It can be done in software, it can be done in hardware, but it's done by dropping or delaying packets. It works that way because that's how TCP's congestion control algorithms work. I've not only seen source code to do it, I actually had to implement some TCP congestion control algorithms at uni. TCP is designed to use as much bandwidth as the link between you and the source can handle. It sends more and more data until it's either sent everything it has to send or packets start failing to return before they timeout. Yes you can easily throttle connections, but you do it by dropping packets and if the algorithm you use to determine which packets you drop isn't very good it basically wipes out the network connection. Most high end switches have pretty decent algorithms which don't entirely suck(so long as the link isn't saturated anyway), but those are fixed, not ad hoc. That is, it's not too terribly to reduce you to 24 mbps all the time, but limiting you sometimes is much harder. It'd be possible for you since you've got FTTP, but for connecting to a DSLAM it's pretty well impossible to actually implement in hardware.
It can be implemented on a window (my router at home can do it) for general TCP traffic. I can actually set traffic usage by hourly time frame for the entire day. Yes, you can't ad hoc do it based on current network allocation, but you can impose limitations preemptively by analyzing trends in traffic usage (it isn't quite ideal but it is a significant improvement over just letting it police itself and drop packets randomly causing serious instability). That is what I was referring to. I am well aware there is no ad hoc throttling algorithm, if I could figure one out I'd be damn near a billionaire with the money Cisco alone would throw at me.
What exactly do you think throttling some connections and not others is if it's not treating traffic differently?
Throttling certain SOURCES (i.e. all their traffic types) does not fall under net neutrality guidelines. Now should that fall under FCC regulations is a different story, but it isn't net neutrality. They can't throttle certain types of traffic, but they are allowed to throttle entire sources. They in fact have to for enforcing package limitations.
You have FTTP which is a completely different situation from most people and offers control which isn't available in most cases. Why exactly you would build FTTP out to any large number of customers just to offer them speeds they could get on ADSL I'm not sure, but apparently they have.
Main reason, expandability. Eventually these speeds will be base line though granted it will be a while from now. The ones lagging behind now will still lag behind then, and they will milk that infrastructure for all it is worth.
The regulations you are referring to is a problem in some areas I agree, where only certain groups are allowed to do whatever, but in even mid size markets there is not much for regulations that exist to keep competition at bay.
Half of the monopolies that have been created are because the companies are specifically expanding in areas the others don't exist. Right now this is seen as smart business investment, basically they are expanding "the pie" so to speak and going into areas where the service is desired but not offered yet, which is a no brainer business move.
The problem is in large markets where things are fairly saturated already, they have more or less entered into a silently understood agreement to stay the hell out of each other's territory and instead just gouge the ever living shit out of the customer base they already claimed. Without a way to actually prove they are doing this, they will continue to get away with it until they have saturated everything (which will take forever to actually do, especially considering things like Google Fiber and AT&T Fiber are the next step in service providing, previous ones being internet service in general with dial-up, then cable, then DSL, etc.). They can easily hide under the guise that they are trying to bring better connections to more people. That may be true to an extent, but on the side they know what the hell they are doing by jacking prices up now and just making this the expected norm. It is probably disgusting how high a profit margin they keep.
Seriously look at a service map of Dallas for instance, Verizon and AT&T are literally expanding along the each other's business line and there is VERY little overlap. There is no other provider to speak of because the investment cost is way too high in order to get initial service set up and they can strangle these businesses out before they have a chance.
I general don't like having to layer regulations as I feel like it just bloats and convolutes the system, but most large businesses are not good stewards and some amount of regulation on what they can charge is probably necessary for the time being at least. Once the markets are forced to overlap and real competition can kick in (the backbone of a free market economy), the problem won't be as bad imho.
No no no. My phone line is VoIP with AT&T, those limits are artificially imposed at the switch level. In fact, the copper lines for my house only run maybe a hundred feet, and then it switches to full fiber (it is all cat 5e+, I have actually seen the box that it transitions to fiber). The copper that is running can easily run 1 gbps+ if they didn't have bottlenecks further upstream.
I am friends with several techs at AT&T that do installs and have discussed this with them. You can limit the traffic volume coming from a location really easily without "shaping" traffic like you say at all. This has been done for years and will probably continue to be done for a long time. Hell, it can be done at a SOFTWARE level pretty easily and I know because I have seen source code for doing it. I really don't know how to explain this any differently. Google bandwidth throttling I guess?
This has been practiced for a while and does not fall under net neutrality guidelines. Net neutrality simply states that all traffic should be treated equally and they can't do premium servicing etc. Net neutrality has nothing to do with them putting a limit on how much data you can draw and at what speeds. How exactly do you think they enforce speed and bandwidth packages now? Physical limitations? If I downgraded my speed package to 12 mbps now, AT&T makes no physical changes, they change configuration on their end only and it just limits how much data I can request.
As a note here too, to save yourself some money you can probably use the same windows license to do the other install (assuming it isn't OEM) and get around a lot of the validation problems. Since the two installations physically can't run at the same time you should never have to worry about validation issues and I believe you are still within the end users rights since you are using the license on the same machine. Now when you get money and upgrade your set up to be another computer, you will need to update the license from a legal stand point at least.
You would be very surprised with that. I've actually known 2 or 3 software devs that had very minimal IT related skills, but they were fairly competent developers (wrote better code than some of the jackasses that thought they were amazing because they spout off how to do cisco console commands...).
Assuming the parameters here are that you don't want to buy a whole new PC outright, I recommend getting another hard drive and installing a fresh windows copy to it. Mask it from the other installation entirely so no one messes with it, and if someone asks just tell them its for work and take reasonable security measures (if you can, disk level encryption would probably be good here with your standard account passwords etc.).
Considering the specs of the PC you probably don't want to try and run VMs for a lot of application development because it is much too resource intensive and if you can help it, you want all resources devoted to the actual development environment (I only run VMs if we need a standard environment for an entire team to test against). Plus it can be a pain in the ass in general running everything in a VM.
The reason I would say you want a split install, in my experience, you will run a development machine IN TO THE GROUND doing heavy
Beyond that, good luck,
Very good point actually. That is a normal concern point any time we are expanding a system, because if your scan times get too high, you start missing things and sometimes mis-track certain events and objects causing some reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeally bad things to happen (and in some cases illegal things to happen depending on the industry in which the work is being done).
No it is actually quite a bit different considering you don't need to buy signed baseballs for, well, anything other than collecting....
There are anti-trust laws on the books specifically to prevent this sort of bullshit from happening, but because ISPs are still pretty unregulated they are getting away with damn near murder by doing this bullshit. ONE game update for me would wipe out my data for the month if I were stuck on a 5GB plan, and 300 fucking dollars for 100 GB? I would be fucked. I pay $200 for full TV, phone (VoIP), AND internet (with an un-enforced 250GB data cap, gotta love being outside AT&T's monitoring tool delivery area). I EASILY use that amount of data every month, especially if I work from home at all.
I realize this is a rural area and all but basic principle should dictate they should not get away with the ridiculous gouging they are doing here. If this sets any kind of precedence then man, the internet was sure nice while it lasted. I'd rather start buying and daisy chaining my own fucking fiber so I could do things with my friends then start paying that kind of ridiculous money. I'll mail external drives and flash drives around to people for big shit. I mean seriously, this is getting to where it defeats the point of the damn internet...
What in the hell are you talking about? He is probably referring to basic traffic bandwidth throttling which easily accomplishes the goal of reducing strain on the network. THAT has been legal and practiced for, hell I don't even know how long now. Hell, talking to the AT&T techs for my home line, that is normal practice. They ACTUALLY provide me with north of 70 mbps on the overall data line, but for internet traffic it is limited to use 24 mbps at any given time. TV, phones, and general errors on the line account for the rest.
This is easily implementable too, considering for one, this is how cable connection used to function basically. Everyone was connected to one line with a bottle neck and regulated to certain speeds automatically (in that case it was by virtue of physical limitation). This can also be implemented on most home routers pretty easily too, by just limiting the allowed amount of bandwidth on a time-frame (I can even do it by device IP/MAC address). I know because I have done it on them before, and I've looked at this while at work just for shit and giggles on high end switches and routers (we don't ever need to implement this sort of thing on customer networks though because they are closed networks that are not going to the internet, it is set up for their specific purposes).
I work with a ton of electrical/controls engineers. Yes it is still probably true, mostly because it is still even cheaper/easier to do this through ladder logic. I forget the context of what we were talking about one day, but one day while talking to one of our SENIOR (30+ years) controls engineers I was explaining some logic that if we had to implement it in C# would take probably 300 lines of code. His reply was simply, psh, I could do that in 3 rungs, don't bother.
Its probably because they use a UDP implementation instead of TCP. A lot of networks don't properly secure their UDP because most things just plain don't use it (or even it is secured, most people don't understand the protocol and data transmission types). VNC uses just a straight TCP setup so its pretty easy to block it.
DFW, 200k is high but I still know several people that are currently making it working out here (and with the things they have they DEFINITELY are not lying or they are dealing meth on the side...). DFW has a great market for software engineers and so many people overlook it.
Granted that may be true to an extent, but given time they will be forced to take the lower wage jobs or simply not work therefore this will only be true in the short term. Not only that, but software engineers getting that kind of salary is hardly a long term expectation. There has been a surge in the pay scale even after things like the dot com bubble bursting. I should know, I kind of work in the industry (and not in silicon valley where things are way out of whack).
A committee is a group that keeps the minutes and loses hours. -- Milton Berle
