There is no concrete information that the NSA or a national security letter was involved. When did we start linking to random blogs for speculation presented as fact? May as well just posted a link to reddit thread about this.
Plenty of large network operators have open peering policies, he.net for example. Charter will has what amounts to an open peering policy (if you use a public interconnect point). Only operators that wish to be a tier 1 monopoly of the past of a bad actor like comcast stand to gain from picky peering policies.
If you want real net neutrality then open peering is an important part of the future. Every piece of traffic that goes through a peer is saved from congesting a link elsewhere.
They list their peering policy as Selective in their peeringdb entry https://www.peeringdb.com/priv.... They should have an open peering policy. Or is only open if you are a interesting content provider?
What does whatever he wants to spend his damages on somehow reduce his right to damages?
This is 2014, people just regurgitates talking points distributed by whatever fake news site they started reading 10+ years ago, preferably with as much emotion, one-upmanship, and self back patting as possible. The nation is full of uneducated morons who think they are gods gift to the world. They have learned in decades of government education that saying anything fundamentally critical of the government is heresy.
This should be done to the entire US goverment, not just the FCC or congress.
This is a good deal for those who are getting Charter or Spinco (will be managed by Charter) out of the deal. Charter has a fairly open peering policy https://www.charter.com/browse....
Who said that that new definition of "civil union" has to be limited to two people?
But just wait 'til someone comes and wants to marry his horse, his bed or his imaginary friend.
A horse, bed or imaginary friend can not enter into a contract. My dog, who I love very much, is incapable of entering into a contract, she lacks the understanding of her actions and I am basically her legal guardian because of her inability to manage her own affairs independently. I signed up for this job with that clearly understood, it would be an abuse of my duty as her guardian to force her into a contract that she is incapable of understanding. Just the same for my desk, who I spend almost as much time with as my wife, can not enter into a contract with me. My desk can not read, understand a spoken topic and the consequences of a decision (same for my dog). On the other hand, two adult humans or groups of them who love each other can clearly consent to such an agreement. Its not our place to judge the basic competence of other adult humans to enter into agreements with others similarly situated.
Marriage is an ancient rite (not a right) that for many is part of their religious practice. Why is the State a party to my contract with my wife? Why does the state provide the language that can not be modified in this contract? I oppose the current incarnation of the gay marriage effort because they support the status quo. They selectively apply "freedom to marry" only to gays, when in fact many other groups are affected, in some cases imprisoned. Marriage is an issue of freedom of association, I choose to enter into a contract with my wife. It should be our choice to decide what the terms of that contract are. The government should have nothing to do with marriage or define the terms of a contract between two (or more) adults. People wanting to get married should be able to have a religious ceremony, should they choose, as their way of entering into this agreement and those who dont should be able to go to marrigecontract.com and template out an aggrement that suits them including a pre-determined disoulation system that does not involve the courts, just like any other contract. They beg the state for permission to engage in a fundamental freedom. If they focused their efforts on personal freedom, including anyone marrying whoever is willing to agree, even groups or siblings, then that is their right to choose to associate and enter into a contract, something the state infringes on, a worthy battle. They support the suppression of fundamental rights by not demanding them, but asking for an exception from the states tyranny on their fundamental rights for their group for this small item.
That does not mean you can not work out effective deals where everyone wins. If I peer with you in several geographic locations, it takes load off your backbone links, lowering your cost (L3 example). If I am a small operator peering in one area, an arrangement could be worked out where my prefixes are only advertised in the region through the use of bgp communities, reducing the other providers backbone costs. This is effectively what should have been done with netflix. L3 taking this issue up is a major game changer though, a old school tier 1 who peers with no one is fighting for capacity on several eyeball networks, rules be a changing...
Since the beginning of peering, the rules have always been that if you have roughly the same amount of traffic inbound and outbound, peering has no charge. If one direction generates more traffic than the other, the source pays for the asymmetry.
This model is outdated, in the good old days networks had a mix of eyeballs and content, now we have completely separate eyeball and content networks. This is mostly the result of the cable/telco monopolies. In the new normal, traffic will never be balanced. I am paying comcast for internet access, it is their responsibility to provide be high quality service. In order to accomplish that they should have an open peering policy and connect at all public exchanges. If the large providers don't get on board with more open peering policies they are going to eventually run into a consumer or small NSP brought anti-trust lawsuit.
I disagree with your assertion. Why can't an interceptor system not address a massive first strike? Are you current on missile defense? The currently deployed ground based midcourse defense system works, its just a matter of rolling out sufficient launch facilities and interceptors. The US has between 30-200 operational ground based midcourse interceptors operational. If we rolled these systems out to deal with a massive first strike, we would likely have good success if it were needed. We should continue to develop this technology, rome wasn't built in a day.
Why do people keep saying that only a 100% effective missile defense system is acceptable? Why is 50% not acceptable? MIRV ICBM's are no different for launch and mid stage interceptors, the thing we put all of our effort into. The Russians have ~350 ICBM's, we should have 5x as many interceptors that are designed for each stage. These can be capable on subs launched ICBM's as well, its just a matter of investment. I would be very happy to have a even a 20% success rate from a missile defense system in an all out attack. Thats a lot of people, equipment, and industrial capacity saved.
On the topic of MIRV's, we gave our up to appease Russia but they backed out of returning the gesture. Its time we bring them back, they were an effective deterrent.
This film gave me nightmares throughout my childhood. Its why I unconditionally support missile defense. We should be making an effort to make such events impossible, or at least very difficult, rather than being held hostage by their threat.
They never left, we just pretend they are gone.
If all else fails, lower your standards.
