That's exactly my point. They're wanting the ability to take you completely offline. I'm proposing a middle ground where you're not knocked completely offline, and getting back online can be automated.

We agree, that is why I want them to be a coordinator, not the executioner.

Capture their DNS and have it be a website.

Coordinate with the Ad Council to get them to run PSA showing the standard redirect page and how to check the SSL cert of that page. Remind the viewers that this is the ONLY way their ISP will notify them of an issue and that your hardware and software vendor will never call you.

Man, the more I think of it, I REALLY like the idea of a standard remediation zone that all ISPs could deploy.

DNS would be filtered, only DNS responses to hosts on the allowed list. I would even be ok with MitM changes to DNS queries in this case.

Again, the idea is that you are only placed in this zone when your device has attacked another.
Once you think you've fixed the issue, they could allow all DNS traffic again, but watch your traffic to see if the attacks resume. This could be automated, so the end user doesn't have to constantly call the ISP.

If you have a malicious device connected to an ISP, the ISP should be the one to disconnect it. The problem is that the target of the malicious device is often on another ISP.

Rather than allowing the government to be the hammer and force people offline, the government should create a coordination point where attacks can be reported and the proper ISP and their customers alerted to the activity.

One of the activities could be creating OSS that allows for firewall logs to send attack information to this central resource.

Another could be creating a help page that assists end users with understanding why they're having this issue and how to correct it.

Finally, proposing a Internet remediation zone would be the best end result. Instead of pulling the cord on infected devices, put them on a standard ACL/web filter that only allows them to software updates and AV signatures.

These are harder tasks for any one ISP to do, but a good thing for government to do.

Like most things, there are reasons they're better and reasons they're worse.

You can look up the differences between VAWT and HAWT (google it), but basically, VAWT that you're talking about is likely a good idea for personal turbines, but isn't the best for large wind farms. That said, some have discussed using VAWT close to the ground in large HAWT wind farms so they can harvest both ground level wind and wind aloft.

Forgive me for not looking for all of your posts in other threads. I was responding to this thread.

I agree, with FPS gaming and other "twich" games, you're at a disadvantage.

That said, this is still useful for about all other applications, unlike geosynchronous orbit Internet which has latency of 1000ms or so. When you get to levels that high, you can still stream movies and browse web pages, but VoIP and teleconf is unusable, and even casual games become unplayable (poker, etc).

Still, it is a big deal. I know a lake near me that has no options for broadband other than geosynchronous Internet with a very low monthly cap and very high latency. They'd love this!

Yik Yak isn't a valid comparison to the rest of the Internet, because it is only anonymous. It is the smartphone app for /b/, and it comes with the same issues.

If they want to change the app to something that has a persistent ID, then there is all sorts of methods to start weeding out assholes. The moment they do that, though, it stops being completely anonymous and starts becoming just a localized version of Twitter.

Even this site relies on pseudonyms to maintain some level of reputation. Anonymous posts have no reputation, no history of being a productive or disruptive member. The idea of being able to be completely anonymous requires acceptance that some will misuse it. Either embrace it or stay away from it, because there simply is no way to "fix" it without changing it into something else entirely.

Your reference only looked at 3rd shift.

When you look at all workers in the US, your 97% figure turns into 52.6% when you factor in all of the various work arrangements outside of the normal working arrangements.

So, only slightly better than flipping a coin. Try again.

However, if we took all of the money we're spending on trying to find this wreck and build a next-gen blackbox system that streams all cockpit voice and aircraft telemetry over satellite links, we'll never have to search like this again to get those answers.

I downloaded Yik Yak and used it for about a week. I saw what was going on there.

If you are disturbed by what you see on there, delete the app. Let those idiots spew toxic shit at each other, and you can go on unaware of their ramblings.

Eventually, Yik Yak will die off, and the "problem" is solved.

Or, do you somehow think we can pass some law that will change human nature?

That is only for transit. If I want to send traffic THROUGH Comcast to reach Mom & Pop ISP, then yes, I have to pay Comcast.

The way that it has always been is that the ISP charges their customers ONLY, and the ISP has to pay for connections unless they can arrange peering. What is crazy is that Comcast should actually have been paying Cogent for requesting so much traffic from them without sending an equal amount of content in return.

Again, Comcast's customers are the ones increasing the traffic. Netflix has nothing to do with the traffic on Comcast's network.

That would be like blaming UPS and FedEx for creating too much traffic on my street because I'm ordering so much product. I'm the cause of the traffic, not UPS or FedEx. They wouldn't be on my street unless I ordered something.
In this example, the owners of the street (government) pay to make the street able to handle the traffic, and charge the uses of the street (residents) more in taxes to cover it.

Sure, and I never said it was a bad thing. I just don't think it should be legal for a duopoly to impose a fee for peering, nor should they be required to peer. The ISP and the content producer can look at their costs and decide if they want to peer or not.

Netflix has not asked for a dime of ISP money to peer, and will even provide caching devices for free. They're not keen on paying for ISP infrastructure, though, and I don't see why they should.

I'm a network engineer that has been working with ISPs since the early 90's. I do understand this.

Prioritization only comes into play when there is congestion. Yes, QoS can be designed to let the little game packets ahead of the big video packets, but as a network engineer, I constantly see this:

1. Congestion starts
2. Someone implements QoS, taking a TON of time and using all sorts of advanced features on the gear. Sometimes this causes CPU use to spike, requiring more faster hardware. Sometimes you run into a bug that only relates to QoS, etc. Lots of time, money, and maybe some downtime before the dust settles.
3. Everyone is happy for a week because it works right.
4. Since everyone is happy, no additional capacity is ordered
5. Traffic continues to increase, causing even small packets to get delayed
6. Buy extra bandwidth anyhow
7. QoS tuning done before is not used because there is ample bandwidth
8. Traffic increases, reaching bottleneck again
9. QoS engages again, no one notices the increase
10. High-priority packets start dropping again, requiring more bandwidth that takes a long time to show up.
11. Order more bandwidth, and piss everyone off as they wait.
12. GOTO 3
Why do all of that when you can:

1. Monitor usage. Look at history to predict congestion
2. Order more bandwidth 90 days before you must have it.
3. Repeat

Also, keep in mind that QoS only works on traffic your're SENDING, not the traffic you get. By the time you get it, it has already dropped the packets and your link is full.

So, all of this QoS work needs to be done by the people that want you to buy more bandwidth. This is why it will never happen at the ISP level.

Bandwidth and latency are interlinked in most cases.

Bandwidth is how much you can fit down the pipe.

Latency is how long it takes to get there.

If you don't have enough bandwidth, you get latency as the packet queue up trying to get past the bottleneck. Increasing the bandwidth in this case decreases latency.

The only other reason you get latency is because of the speed of light and the distance you're trying to cover. The only cure for this is to reduce that distance.

QoS is only a bandwidth management practice, only coming into play when you have a bottleneck. I've found that in terms of overhead and headache, more bandwidth is ALWAYS cheaper than QoS.

So, for your desire for low latency for one and high bandwidth for the other, they're likely the same thing.