Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:Frivolous (Score 1) 88 88

"The Internet is a meet-in-the-middle system in which both sender and receiver pay to reach any of the midpoints where packets are exchanged. Regardless of any ratios, the packets transiting those interconnects have already been paid for in both directions."

No, it's not. That's what some people want it to be, but that's not what it is, nor has it been that way for many decades. A free market did *not* build a meet-in-the-middle system because that unfairly advantages business that can choose their endpoints over businesses that can't. The free market built an even cost split model.

If you want to argue that the Internet should be fundamentally changed to a meet-in-the-middle system, then do so honestly. But don't lie about what the Internet actually is. I know you know better.

Comment: Re:Frivolous (Score 1) 88 88

I agree, the benefit of all the packets is exactly equal.

I'm saying that because the benefits are equal, the costs should be equal too.

For example, say two national networks peer and there's much more outbound traffic from A to B than from B to A. That means that even though the benefits to both networks are equal the costs will be much higher to B because it has a larger length of travel. So thus it makes sense to equalize the costs by having A pay B.

Or say Google is going to exchange traffic with Comcast. The benefits are equal. But Google has lower costs because it puts its computers in well-connected datacenters while Comcast has to take its customers where they live. So Google should be Comcast to equalize the costs to match the benefits.

Comment: Re:Frivolous (Score 1) 88 88

Well, the packet benefits both the sender and the recipient. It makes sense that each of them should bear about half the costs.

When Google sends a packet to a Comcast customer, we presume that packet benefits both Google and Comcast equally. So Google should pay half the cost and Comcast should pay half the cost. With no settlement, Google will pay much less than half the cost, because Google can put their servers where it's cheapest and Comcast has to take their customers where they find them. So Comcast collects a settlement from Google to cover the balance of Google's half of the cost.

Comment: Re:Frivolous (Score 1) 88 88

Sure, folks like Google and Netflix who are trying to shift their share of the costs of their traffic onto companies like Time Warner and Comcast are unhappy about the practice. That's why they want the government to "fix" a functional free market that has been working amazingly well for decades.

Comment: Re:Frivolous (Score 1) 88 88

Outbound traffic is much cheaper than inbound traffic. You can dump outbound traffic off at the nearest meeting point with its destination network. But you have to carry inbound traffic from wherever the source network gives it to you.

With a typical traffic imbalance, when a server on the West Coast is talking to a client on the East Coast, the client's network is carrying much more of the traffic across the country.

Think about it like the US post office and the German post office agreeing to exchange packages with each other. They might agree to not exchange any money so long as each of them carries about 50% of the packages across the ocean. But if the US post office carries 80% of the packages across the ocean, some money is going to have to change hands to keep it fair.

Comment: Re:Frivolous (Score 1) 88 88

It's not "somehow justifying", the justification is quite clear. We presume the traffic benefits both parties equally, thus each party should be about half the cost. Content networks put their servers wherever it's cheapest to put traffic on the Internet while eyeball networks have to take their customers where they find them. Thus, without settlement, eyeball networks would pay more than half the cost of the traffic, which would be unfair. Settlement-based peering splits the costs to match the benefits.

Comment: Re:Human Shield? (Score 1) 160 160

Do you see how that position is 100% inconsistent with your original argument? By the logic of your original argument, a US company hosting a site for a US customer should be able to completely ignore UK law. But your original argument was that if they did so, they have no right to complain if that causes bad things to happen.

You wind up having to argue that every hosting provider everywhere in the world should take note of any content they may have that might be deemed unlawful or inappropriate in any jurisdiction and somehow segregate it. That's the total opposite of "each different country should be to follow its laws", that's, "everyone has to follow every country's laws".

Comment: Re:CloudFlare *threatened* to disconnect the proxy (Score 1) 160 160

It is absolutely NOT the responsibility of a US company to follow North Korean law just because people from North Korea access their Internet services.

You're projecting when you say that, "Only the fucking Americans think their law applies to the whole world." You're the one arguing that a US company servicing US customers should follow the law of every single country from which they could possibly find their Internet site accessed.

Comment: Re:Human Shield? (Score 1) 160 160

The thing is, there's no such thing as an "infringing site". This is a site that the UK has decided should be blocked from people in their jurisdiction. Next Germany may decide to block access to sites that deny the Holocaust and China may decide to block sites that advocate Taiwanese independence. Then the US will want to block sites that have gambling. And on and on it goes.

Comment: Yay (Score 1) 72 72

I'm looking forward to pulling all my mSATA EVOs out of their RAID controllers, inserting them one at a time into a spare PC with one mSATA slot, and upgrading their firmware. The last update (which also rewrites all data) took over two hours per drive, and it looks like this next one is going to take just as long. Anybody want to spend a really boring weekend with me?

The EVO's are still the only 1TB mSATA drive, so not a lot of choices.

Comment: Re:And this is why corporations don't trust the GP (Score 1) 225 225

Actually, their profit is in the software. Their hardware isn't significantly different from everyone else's hardware. The reason most people buy their hardware is because their software makes that hardware very easy to monitor and manage. With routers, just like with phones, good software sells hardware.

When all else fails, read the instructions.

Working...