Also, here's a small sample config for serving a particular pool on a particular interface (which would be the vlan "interface" on the Cisco), easily found on Google:

class "vlan1234"
{
                match if
                (
                                (binary-to-ascii(16, 8, ".", option agent.remote-id) = "0.15.63.ab.52.16") # This is the MAC of the switch
                                and
                                (binary-to-ascii (10,8, ".", option agent.circuit-id) = "0.0.0.47") # This is the interface number
                );
}

pool {
                range 192.168.100.5 192.168.100.254;
                max-lease-time 300;

                option subnet-mask 255.255.255.0;
                option routers 192.168.100.1;
                allow members of "vlan1234";
}

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=cisco+dhcp+relay&l=1

You can easily run hundreds of thousands of hosts off a single DHCP server. It is not cpu intensive particularly if you have a decent lease duration.

After the first paragraph I said, "This is what the DMCA is for".

I work for a large provider, we host a number of inflammatory sites. We obviously are not in a position to verify anyones claims, nor do we usually have direct access to remove the content in question to begin with. This is precisely one of the things the DMCA was made for (as bad as it may be, it works well for this). We receive a complaint that anyone can fill out, we give our customer the legally required time to respond. If they choose not to respond with a counter complaint they must take down the offending content. If they do respond, the content stays up. After that we are only required to act upon a legal decision.

| The only way that could work is if Google have mapped the physical location of every WiFi network and are using them to do the locating. I knew that was theoretically possible, but I didn't know Google had actually done it. For some reason, I found that slightly creepy.

Actually, Google didn't do it. This company did: http://www.loki.com/

It's pretty interesting and useful. Personally I don't have an issue with a public company doing anything a government can do without you noticing, it brings those things into the light where people can say 'hey, if $company can track my cell phone/laptop via wifi access points, so can the government'. I personally think Google worked *very* hard to ensure that privacy concerns would be avoided with Latitude. When you start Google Maps it mentions latitude, your icon changes significantly, exiting Google Maps asks if you wish to continue sharing your location. You must enable sharing on a per-friend basis when adding them, and the default is NO (even on the selection box). It's also possible to share at different levels of accuracy, AND to set a location to be reported in case you don't want anyone to know you're "hiding".

If $ISP cannot profitably sell $x mbit/s at $y dollars/month they need to either increase $y or decrease $x. It doesn't cost anyone more to deliver traffic from the BBC than anywhere else (peering ratios/contracts aside). It sounds like the problem is that average people are ... *gasp* ... actually using their internet connection for more than e-mail and web surfing and the bandwidth:customer ratios are no longer extremely in the ISPs favor.

ISPs should instead be looking at ways they can reduce their costs while providing better service to their customers, such as a peering arrangements with the likes of YouTube, BBC, etc. or a local appliance that serves up the most bandwidth expensive content (you know, like any content delivery network does).