Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Could be a different route involved for the VPN (Score 1) 392

So it's your assertion that Verizon should pay to run lines to the Netflix data center, and give them all the free bandwidth they can use?

No, that would make them Netflix's ISP as well, in which case I would have no issue with them charging Netflix whatever they normally charge commercial customers.

What I have an issue with is Verizon charging Netflix' ISP (or Netflix directly) for moving bits which effectively now belong to me. If they can get Netflix to agree to it great, but if Netflix refuses, and Verizon starts limiting the transmission of those bits through actions within their control, then they are going to answer to me, because *I* am their customer. I am considering dropping their service as a result of this squabble. Not because I use Netflix (I really don't), but because I have to ask the question: How long until they get around to playing this dumb game with a service that I DO use. If they pulled this crap with Google, Skype, Crashplan, or any of the other online services I use, It would take the duration of a phone call to TWC to dump Verizon.

My issue with this whole thing, is what happens to the subscribers who live where there is no alternative? What do they do? The FCC is supposed to look out for those folks, but they have been completely asleep at the switch...

Comment: Re:Could be a different route involved for the VPN (Score 1) 392

Stupid? I'm the only one here who seems to know what peering agreements are, and how they've worked for the past several decades. There's no question Verizon has plenty of bandwidth. The problem here is Level-3 breaking their peering agreement, and not wanting to renegotiate, so Verizon has ever right to disconnect Level-3 and Netflix from their customers. Instead, they let the peering point get congested, until a new agreement is worked out. It's how peering has always worked. You're the one arguing we need to erase the history of the internet, and turn it into a receiver-pays model, where every site you visit gets a few cents from Verizon.

The peering model is flawed. There are effectively four different entities in any given transaction: ISP1 and Customer1 (aka consumer and ISP). ISP2 and customer 2 (aka service company). Eash customer pays their own ISP to get the bits to or from them to the border between ISPs. These customers have paid their ISP to do this regardless of the direction of the bits. I pay TWC and Verizon to move bits to and from my machines. Google and Netflix pay their providers to do the same. Companies like Level 3 should get paid to move bits from one ISP to another when the ISPs cannot reasonably connect directly to each other. They are paid by the ISPs to move bits from the ISP to the other ISP. As such, the ISPs should never be getting paid by anyone other than the consumer, and the tier 3 providers should not get paid by anyone other than the ISPs. In this regard, direct peering saves both ISPs money in direct proportion to the amount of their own customers traffic. In that regard, peering is always equitable and should be a cash neutral arrangement for everyone involved.

The only time the concept gets more complicated is if there needs to be a 5th party involved in moving bits from one ISP to another, and these parties should be paid by all ISPs, as they have no direct customers of their own. Where it starts getting stupid is when a customer has an arrangement directly with one of these 5th parties. Now everyone seems to think they are owed money by everyone else, when in reality, once the 5th party starts providing internet service directly to the customer, they effectively become either ISP1 or ISP2, and all payments to or from other ISPs should stop. Allowing any other arrangement is idiotic, and will lead only to the kinds of dimwitted inbred redneck fighting we have now. If a tier 3 provider really wants to go into the ISP business, then they should keep that business as a separate entity at arms length. otherwise ISP1 would be fully justified in claiming that it the 5th entity is really ISP2, and as such demanding that the arrangement is a peering one, and not a transit arrangement.

In the end these stupid fights hurt only the consumers and the Internet in general. A tier 3 provider can usually be bypassed pretty automatically, but for end consumers bypassing their own ISP is far more difficult, as many have defacto monopolies in large areas of the country. In the end, Netflix is trying to alleviate the problem by providing content delivery from the ISPs own local blockhouse, thus saving everyone the bandwidth, but when an idiot like Verizon thinks that they are somehow entitled to be paid for allowing someone to save them money, they need to get smacked around.

Comment: Re:Could be a different route involved for the VPN (Score 1) 392

If Netflix got a free CDN setup without paying ISPs anything, Verizon would quickly see all the other CDNs refusing to pay them, too.

I don't have a problem with that. If Verizon thinks that $60 / month for Internet access in my area is not enough, they are welcome to raise their rates, but TWC doesn't seem to have any problems with providing 50Mb down for that price, and I'm going to guess that they allowed Netflix to co-lo without the double-dipping fees. Again, I re-iterate, I have paid Verizon to move the bits, they have no right to bitch about having to actually move them, and nor do they have the right to charge anyone else to move those same bits.

Comment: Re:Could be a different route involved for the VPN (Score 3, Insightful) 392

that link is dedicated netflix and it limits them to the amount of data they send. last year super hd was for a few selected ISP's but then netflix started sending it to everyone over Level 3 and screwed up everyone's service the point is netflix is trying to increase costs on their business partners who will then have to increase prices of their customers. customers will hate the ISP but like netflix. same strategy as TV companies have used with cable TV and forcing them to sell bundled channels, intel has done this, a lot of companies have done this. customer hates the company they do business with for high prices, but it's really because they are being forced to provide services some may not want current system is not perfect but it ensures that people who use the service pay the costs and not everyone pays

Verizon was given an "out" and they refused to take it. Netflix offered to provide co-located CDNs, and all Verizon had to provide was electricity and space (both of which are negligible compared to the cost for Verizon to pay for bandwidth.) Verizon elected not to take the option that would save them money, deciding instead to play a stupid game of chicken with Netflix. While this idiot game may work with smaller companies, Netflix is now the 800Lb gorilla, and Verizon has nothing but downside on this deal. Their best bet would be to quietly put their tail between their legs and give Netflix the Co-lo's they had been asking for. Verizon needs to understand that they do not really have any chance at becoming a significant content provider, and they should know their place. (getting my bits from place to place.) They offer the consumer specific bandwidth, which as far as the consumer is concerned includes Netflix traffic. Verizon needs to understand that in the consumers mind, the customers pay Netflix to provide the bits, and they pay Verizon to get them from Netflix to their device. Verizon can claim all they want to about Netflix not paying for this, or not paying for that, but as far as I am concerned, I am paying Verizon to deliver the bandwidth door to door. I have already payed Verizon for it, and now they are failing to deliver what I paid for.

Comment: Re:I've heard this one... (Score 1) 260

by geoskd (#47515529) Attached to: Google Offers a Million Bucks For a Better Inverter

Given that this would be upwards of 2000x higher density than a lithium battery, does that mean a 60Wh laptop battery has the explosive capacity of half a stick of TNT?

Yes, its just very difficult to get a very fast or efficient energy conversion from the laptop battery to an explosion. In order to produce efficient explosive force, chemical energy needs to be converted into heat extremely fast (milliseconds at least, nanoseconds would be better). Those laptop batteries are designed with exactly the opposite goal, so as to reduce overheating and fire risk.

Comment: Re:I agree; you are making a silly argument... (Score 1) 529

by geoskd (#47491757) Attached to: US Senator Blasts Microsoft's H-1B Push As It Lays 18,000 Off Workers

The remaining 5,500 people are redundancies of the kind you get when you smash a 127,000 employee company together with a 90,000 employee company to get a 217,000 employee company, and then decide that 2.5% of them are duplicate effort which is not necessary.

And I believe it is incumbent upon Microsoft to demonstrate that not one of those existing employees is suitable to replace and H1B visa holder. Should any of those people be capable of doing the job held by the H1B visa holder, Microsoft should be required to ship the H1B holder back instead of laying off the American worker. The fact that the law doesn't address this is in itself a miscarriage of the law.

Comment: Re:Free market economy (Score 1) 529

by geoskd (#47491739) Attached to: US Senator Blasts Microsoft's H-1B Push As It Lays 18,000 Off Workers

You have one party that has completely gone off the rails, who puts its own orthodoxy over the law of the land and the country

That would be both parties. The actions of the Justice department fall directly under the purview of the President, and yet those actions are as inscrutable as any of his predecessors. It should also be noted that in spite of the good that has come of the affordable care act, it is a far cry from what it should have been, and that many of the problems could have been avoided with a little bit of compromise, and some bipartisan work instead of trying to ram through what we have now. Single payer was probably a bit too much to ask, but limited liability wouldn't have been such a terrible thing either. Point is, neither side gives a shit about the people who elected them. All they care about is getting re-elected...

Comment: Re:Free market economy (Score 1) 529

by geoskd (#47489707) Attached to: US Senator Blasts Microsoft's H-1B Push As It Lays 18,000 Off Workers

The only thing limiting you to two choices is you. Many ballots have third parties. You are free to run in those that don't. By stating to yourself and others that there are only two choices, you are part of the problem.

It is only a problem for you. I am perfectly capable of dealing with whatever government shows up to run things. My only concern is that the transition from what we have now to what we have after the open revolt will be somewhat taxing, and what concern I have for my fellow citizens leads me to want to help out where I can, but the fact remains that regardless of how you vote, the problem remians the system itself, and no amount of fiddling with the dials is going to fix a broken system. The fundamental problem of government isn't that people cannot govern themselves, its that they are fundamentally incapable of refraining from governing others. Once you reach this conclusion, *any* form of government is eventually going to be corrupted to the point of open revolt. It is inevitable. We might or might not be nearing that point in the USA. I tend to believe that we will live to see it in the relatively near future (next 30 years or so). It will be precipitated by a large resource shortage like oil embargo, food crisis, or something else, but our government has been getting less and less stable, and more and more extreme. It wont take nearly as much as most people think to push us into civil war. After the war, we'll get yet another government that might be better, or might be worse, but will eventually fall because all governments eventually fall to greed and corruption.

Comment: Re:Free market economy (Score 2) 529

by geoskd (#47488659) Attached to: US Senator Blasts Microsoft's H-1B Push As It Lays 18,000 Off Workers

I think you've taken a valid point and stretched it a little far here. If we'd had eight years of Gore starting in 2000, do you think Iraq would have played out exactly the same? If we were on our way to eight years of McCain starting in 2008, do you think the trends in health insurance would be what they are?

I heard the same basic sentiment in 2008 about another politician. That doesnt seem to have turned out how anyone expected.

Funny thing about politicians: They will say absolutely anything to get elected...

Comment: Re:it's about immigration, stupid (Score 1) 529

by geoskd (#47488587) Attached to: US Senator Blasts Microsoft's H-1B Push As It Lays 18,000 Off Workers

Y'all are missing the point -- Jeff Sessions is a dumb-ass teabagger from AL. His big issue is immigration; he wants to keep any and all immigrants out of the US (excepting his own white self and his family, in the finest "I got mine, screw the rest of ya" republican tradition). He doesn't give a damn about jobs. He doesn't give a damn about engineers. All he wants is to send immigrant children back to the Mexican and Central American drugs-and-guns war zone he and his fellow congress critters created so he can get them dark skinned Spanish speaking people as far from himself as he can get them.

That doesn't make him wrong...

Comment: Re:Silly argument (Score 4, Insightful) 529

by geoskd (#47488511) Attached to: US Senator Blasts Microsoft's H-1B Push As It Lays 18,000 Off Workers

There's a false comparison being made here... who says the Nokia engineer or the Xbox content maker being laid off has the same skills as the programmer they are wanting to hire?

That right there is the problem. The two groups of people have the same basic skills that are necessary to do the jobs, and the only thing either party was lacking is some limited training related to the specifics of the job. Until the late '70s, it was well understood that a company had to plan for and pay for training to bring every new employee up to speed. colleges and trade schools gave them the basic skill set, but the company had to pay for the rest. Since then, companies are trying to cut costs, and one of the easiest cost buckets is the training budget. Simply wipe it and only hire people who already have the exact skill set you need. The problem is that when every company does this, no one gets trained, and there slowly develops a perception of a labor shortage... The reality is that companies expectations from new employees and employment candidates has become unreasonable and untenable The labor pool hasn't really changed, but the corporate attitude towards hiring has changed. This is truly compounded by the trend towards globalization, where you get tens of thousands of applicants for every position, so instead of having an engineering manager go through the few tens of applications and picking the closest fit, you now have an unqualified HR hack going through 150k applications and reporting back that there is nobody who exactly fits the requirements given by the engineering manager. Never mind that at least 10% of those applicants could learn the skills they need in a very short time, and be productive to meet the needs of the position. Congress needs to shut off the supply of H1B, and tell these companies to fix their hiring practices if they want to fix the "labor shortage".

When it comes to engineering, the difference between an XBox application programmer and Nokia OS programmer is many orders of magnitude smaller than the difference between an HR manager and an engineering manager... The guy being laid off could pick up and do any number of jobs currently being occupied by H1B holders without much fuss at all. Its about time, that these companies had their feet held to the fire.

Comment: Re:Free market economy (Score 5, Insightful) 529

by geoskd (#47488411) Attached to: US Senator Blasts Microsoft's H-1B Push As It Lays 18,000 Off Workers

You as Americans have a choice and a vote, each 2-4 years. You can either do something or you don't want to. The spiral and time is working against you.

Every so often we get to vote, but we are limited to two choices, both of which have been given large sums of money by various PACs, which are essentially just fronts for various corporate officers. Often, the same PAC will back both candidates in any given race, just so that they get the benefit of backing the winner every time. There is no democratically elected leadership in this country anymore, there is only a selection between two candidates presented to the masses by the 1%. In all the ways that really matter (fiscal policy, economic policy, regulation, law enforcement, etc...), the candidates are identical. They will debate and argue over the issues that the public has been trained to believe really matter, but in reality the issues that are hotly contested don't really matter, and the ones that do, are quietly agreed upon behind closed doors. How many politicians that truly have power have done anything to end Guantanamo, or the rights abuses happening there? How many have done anything to end the systematic dissolution of our constitutional rights? How many have actually taken steps to fix the systemic problems that led to the recession? How many have taken any action to help eliminate the vastly disproportional power the 1% wield in our political system? How many have taken steps to address the extraordinary and growing wealth and earnings inequalities in our society?

The answer to these questions is now, and has been: none that matter. The only way we will be able to undo the damage the 1% have done to our country will be through an extraordinary action outside the accepted political system, because everything inside the political system has been thoroughly corrupted by those with the real power: the 1%.

Comment: Re:BBB (Score 1) 183

by geoskd (#47442275) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Best Dedicated Low Power Embedded Dev System Choice?

The comoditization of embedded hardware designed happened over a decade ago. Have you heard of Kontron? PC104? Com Express? You seem to have missed the 2000's.... this is nothing new. These days it is amazing what is put on a DIMM module - far more than the Beagle Bone and Pi toys provide and at far lower unit prices.

The commoditization of these designs depended on several factors happening all at once.

First, processor power had to pass a threshold. Having a processor that is fast enough to handle an embedded system running a custom operating system (or more likely just a simple set of interrupt handlers and startup code) is a lot slower than the processor needed to run a full fledged kernel like modern Linux. The custom Software saves huge amounts of unit-cost, at the cost of time-to-market.

The second item that was needed was price point. Even $45 per unit is still high for the BBB black, but the RPi at $35 is pretty close. Even the BBB is close enough to work with.

Third, mainstream OS support. This is critical, because it turned a legion of higher-level programmers into embedded programmers. This, again, helps to reduce TTM

Last, the availability and maturity of simple to wire peripherals, and the availability of software libraries for using these peripherals. This is probably the most key part because you now have the ability to buy a modular set of components, and wire them all together with very little, if any, electronics knowledge and get a working system. Again, it all drives TTM, and in todays world TTM is everything. Just ask Microsoft how their tablet and phone business' are doing to find out how important TTM really is.

Anyone can do any amount of work provided it isn't the work he is supposed to be doing at the moment. -- Robert Benchley

Working...