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


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:fuck telus (Score 1) 80

by green1 (#48522745) Attached to: What Canada Can Teach the US About Net Neutrality

Funny you should bring this up, because that's exactly what this is all about.
Currently the incumbent telephone companies are legally required to offer their network to their competitors at prices that do not cover the costs of build or maintenance. This means that competitors can always undercut prices of the incumbents because they don't have to pay full price for the circuits. Pricing for the customers of the incumbent on the other hand have to cover not only the cost of their own circuit, but also the portion of the cost of the competitor's customer's circuit that wasn't covered by the mandated fees.

Should the CRTC continue to mandate that customers of one provider subsidize customers of another?

Comment: Re:There is only one way to do this (Score 1) 80

by green1 (#48522599) Attached to: What Canada Can Teach the US About Net Neutrality

In Canada the taxpayers paid for the network up until about 25 years ago. After that it was privatized and every cent spent since has been done by the private companies, not the taxpayers. Given that the past 25 years has included huge amounts of broadband build outs (it effectively didn't exist before that) and entire new technologies (fibre to the home) this becomes a much more complicated question.

What incentive will a big player have to develop it's broadband infrastructure if they legally have to give subsidized access to it to their competition? That's actually the state of affairs right now in the copper/ADSL world. The prices that companies must offer to their competition to use that network don't cover the cost of building or maintaining it. This has been justified by the fact that the original copper plant was built with taxpayer money, however even that is a bit questionable because a lot has happened with private money since (including all the ADSL equipment, and in many cases the wires themselves (any community less than about 25 years old, or anywhere that required replacing the wires for any reason). Fibre to the home platforms have been, up until now, exempt from these sharing agreements, a competitor is welcome to try to negotiate directly with the incumbent for access, but there is no legal requirement that the incumbent allow it. These fibre networks are all new enough that they were paid for 100% with private money, not taxpayer funded. The current CRTC hearings are discussing whether this should continue, or if the fibre too should be required to be open to the competitors at discount prices.

Unsurprisingly, the incumbents don't think they should have to share the networks that they paid for with their competitors, and in any other field it would be considered ridiculous to even ask them to. But there's also the obvious question of how many lines we want to run to each house? We don't want 100 competitors all running their own wires.

I think the best outcome for all involved would be if the incumbents do share their network with their competitors, however, the mandated prices must be more than the cost of building and maintaining that network (which is not currently the case on the copper side of things) I also think that if they do this, it should be done evenly. Currently only telephone companies must share their outside plant, cable companies are immune, as there is no difference anymore between the products provided by either (phone/cable/internet) or the technology used (fibre optics) there is no reason to give the cable companies preferential treatment.

Comment: Re:Waiving data charges is fine with net neutralit (Score 2) 134

by green1 (#48473787) Attached to: Wikipedia's "Complicated" Relationship With Net Neutrality

It's hard to say, imagine a world where your data cap is zero, overage is $100/meg, and certain sites don't count. How is that not the same problem as one where providers are being extorted for money if they want people to see their data? And why does it become any different if the data cap is now 500 meg instead of zero? or the overage is $5/meg instead of $100? Adjust the numbers any which way you want, but the whole idea that one company can pay to get access to the customer while another may not be able to afford the same access is where the problem lies, and allowing this paves the way to a future more like cable TV than like a free internet.

Comment: Re:Please wait here. (Score 4, Interesting) 419

by green1 (#48392351) Attached to: Japanese Maglev Train Hits 500kph

You think the Japanese drove individual cars to the station? That's actually rather funny... Everyone driving their own car everywhere they go is not the culture in Japan (nor would it be even remotely practical with their population density in their major centres)

I'll agree that the train was likely quite safe though.

Comment: 240km/hr? (Score 2) 419

by green1 (#48392321) Attached to: Japanese Maglev Train Hits 500kph

Sure 500kph is a great achievement, but put it in perspective of what places that are interested in rail travel do, don't compare the speeds to the rail backwater that is North America. Normal trains in Europe do 300kph routinely.

The problem with North American rail travel has never been a technology barrier, it's always been about having any interest in doing better.

Comment: Re:Bad submission (Score 2) 258

by green1 (#48392193) Attached to: Comcast Kisses-Up To Obama, Publicly Agrees On Net Neutrality

And if that works, we just permanently stop upgrading all links that don't have someone handing us piles of cash from the other end.

We get to claim that we don't throttle any connections, and at the same time, we get to extort money from anyone trying to send our customers more than a ping reply.

Comcast is claiming that not upgrading does not equal throttling, but that's exactly what it is. Their customers are paying for access to the internet, if they don't provide adequate bandwidth on their peering points to support that, it's them that are in the wrong.

This whole thing is really just an attempt to stop government regulation though "you don't need to regulate us, we're already doing what you want!" which really just shows that they're scared because they AREN'T already doing what they fear would be in the rules.

Comment: Re:Just ask your bank to send you (Score 2) 126

by green1 (#48306055) Attached to: Flaw in New Visa Cards Would Let Hackers Steal $1M Per Card

Depends on your bank. I have credit cards with 2 different banks. At first both of them flat out refused to send me cards without NFC, and as the NFC chip is integrated in to the chip-and-pin setup you can't simply destroy the chip as many Americans can (swipe isn't the usual way of paying around here)

More recently though one of the banks has wisened up and has sent me a non-NFC card, the other one is still NFC enabled.

That said, I have modified my NFC card to significantly reduce it's effectiveness, I scored the edge of the card near the chip deeply enough to break the antenna wire that runs around the periphery of the card. I know I can't make it detect on any NFC pad anymore, so hopefully that makes it relatively secure.

As for people suggesting Faraday cage wallets and such, I'm unconvinced. A proper Faraday cage has to have no gaps, and most of these are not that tightly constructed. I would not be at all surprised if many of them provide only a feeling of security rather than actual security.

All the simple programs have been written.