Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:What Internet? (Score 1) 365

by Brett Glass (#45624089) Attached to: FCC Chair: It's Ok For ISPs To Discriminate Traffic

Our ISP is in a distant rural area, and the peering point to which we connect is not one of the ones where Netflix peers. We need to cache; this is the situation that caches are for. But just as banks will only give you a loan if you don't need it, Netflix will only give you a server if you don't need it.

Comment: Re:What Internet? (Score 2) 365

by Brett Glass (#45605663) Attached to: FCC Chair: It's Ok For ISPs To Discriminate Traffic
My small ISP asked Netflix for a cache, but was refused. Apparently, unless you're a huge ISP like Comcast, Verizon, or AT&T, Netflix won't let you set up a storage node.... And they won't let you cache on your own, either. In short, if you are small enough to need a cache, you can't have one.

Comment: Re:The author is either a shill or a pawn of Googl (Score 1) 332

by Brett Glass (#44837217) Attached to: Verizon's Plan To Turn the Web Into Pay-Per-View
ISPs have no problems with their business models. It's Google who has a problem with their business models... if there's a penny left on the table that Google (which is the force behind the regulations) can't grab. Or if ISPs, who build the Internet, actually get to make something for their hard work.

Comment: Re:The author is either a shill or a pawn of Googl (Score 0) 332

by Brett Glass (#44837173) Attached to: Verizon's Plan To Turn the Web Into Pay-Per-View
The user is not paying us for the bandwidth or duty cycle to run a server. The content provider is hoping that we won't notice and that it can effectively become an unauthorized, non-paying user of our network resources. Google has had P2P built into the Flash player for use by YouTube, incidentally.

Comment: Re:The author is either a shill or a pawn of Googl (Score 0) 332

by Brett Glass (#44836491) Attached to: Verizon's Plan To Turn the Web Into Pay-Per-View
You, the user -- especially if you are a typical, naive user -- have no idea how much bandwidth you are using. Nor do you know whether the app you downloaded just to "access" a service actually turns your computer into a server, which the content provider hopes will be hosted on the ISP's network for free. ISPs are not making massive profits -- in part due to shenanigans such as these. But Google has multiple monopolies and is making billions.

Comment: The author is either a shill or a pawn of Google (Score -1, Troll) 332

by Brett Glass (#44836291) Attached to: Verizon's Plan To Turn the Web Into Pay-Per-View

Total BS. As the operator of an ISP (and a former columnist for InfoWorld who was dismissed because I didn't go along with Microsoft's monopoly propaganda... not much different from monopolist Google's fearmongering above), I can say with authority that no ISP wants to limit what sites users can visit. That's the scare tactics that the lobbyists are using to push so-called "network neutrality" regulations, which are not neutral at all; they're designed to tip the economic balance away from ISPs and toward content companies such as Google. The regulations prohibit ISPs from charging more when content providers waste bandwidth or attempt to demand priority delivery of their content -- in short, when they ask for something for nothing. They also prevent ISPs from blocking software that exploits the ISP's network for the benefit of a content provider. In short, they're all about regulating the Internet in ways that benefit powerful corporations. Worse still, they let the camel's nose into the tent. If the FCC can regulate the Net to advantage Google, it can also regulate it in other harmful ways. Want to see censorship? Government blocking of sites? Even more intense spying on your Internet activities? If these regulations are not overturned, the precedent will open the door to all of those things.

Comment: ISPs can't "regulate" anything. (Score 1) 388

by Brett Glass (#35728822) Attached to: House Votes To Overturn FCC On Net Neutrality

There's too much competition. I live in a small, rural town of 28,000 souls, and we have 12 (count them!) facilities-based ISPs and more non-facilities-based ones. ISPs know that if they do anything that riles customers, those customers are history.

On the other hand, every government that's gotten control of the Internet in its country has censored it. Without exception.

Comment: Nope; the FCC is trying to pay Google back... (Score 1) 709

by Brett Glass (#32999768) Attached to: GOP Senators Move To Block FCC On Net Neutrality
...for the nearly $1 million that Google gave to the Obama campaign and the similar amount that it gave to the Obama transition team. Not to mention the more than $100K it gave for the inauguration. The so-called "network neutrality" rules proposed by the FCC aren't the slightest bit neutral; they'd tie ISPs' hands while giving control of the Net's future to Google and preventing newcomers from arising to challenge Google's monopolies. And no wonder: they were written by Google lobbyists whom Obama -- breaking his pledge not to hire lobbyists -- hired into the administration. What's more, at least one of the FCC Commissioners -- Michael Copps, the most senior and the one who was Interim Chairman -- has already stated that he wants to use these new regulatory powers to censor the Net. (He's the one who went ballistic over the exposure of Janet Jackson's pastie at the Super Bowl many years ago.) ISPs won't censor the Net; in fact, they have NEVER censored legal content. But the FCC, given the power, will follow in the footsteps of the Australian government and will try to do so.

Comment: Completely bogus argument (Score 1) 239

by Brett Glass (#27195587) Attached to: How Moore's Law Saved Us From the Gopher Web
There's only one problem with Topolski's argument: it's completely bogus. In fact, it is revisionist history. Network administrators, at the time, were cheering the release of something more powerful and flexible than Gopher (which UMN had just decided it was going to try to license for money). Here's the truth behind Topolski's nonsense. The reason Topolski is making this tenuous, bogus argument is that he has just been hired by a Washington, DC lobbying group called the New America Foundation. This group is what's known as an "astroturf group." It pretends to be populist, but in fact is funded by big corporate money and promotes agendas that those corporations tell it to promote. In the case of the "New America Foundation," this is quite blatant: the Chairman of the group is Eric Schmidt, the CEO of GoogleClick (Google, which has merged with DoubleClick and is therefore the world's largest invader of Web users' privacy). Schmidt he has funneled more than $1 million of Google's money to the group. The group, in turn, parrots Google's corporate agenda to the letter. As does Topolski. Both Google and Topolski are seeking to regulate the Internet in ways that benefit Google at others' expense. In particular, the legislation which Google favors would force ISPs to raise prices, harm or even destroy competitive Internet service providers (leaving a cable/telco duopoly), and harm all Internet users' quality of service. In short, this is a corporate scam. Don't fall for it.

HELP!!!! I'm being held prisoner in /usr/games/lib!