Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:I'm confused... (Score 1) 390

by putaro (#47484691) Attached to: Verizon's Accidental Mea Culpa

"That is correct, but you should be able to see that this is an unsustainable model. Let's say Netflix continues growing by leaps and bounds and absolutely dominates as the source of traffic on the Internet, even more so than it already does. L3 gets paid more and more by Netflix for their access bandwidth while Verizon gets absolutely nothing extra but is required to carry more and more load from L3."

The only reason that L3 would get paid more would be because Netflix was fully using their connection and getting their money's worth and needed to purchase additional bandwidth. Verizon would get paid more if either the number of customers increased OR their customers maxed out their bandwidth and needed faster connections. The reason Verizon would not get paid more is because Verizon is selling an oversubscribed service but likes to pretend that they are not.

So, what's really happening here is a mismatch between business models. When you buy a "business grade" Internet connection you pay more with the assumption that you are going to pump as much data down it 7x24 as you possibly can. You get what you contracted for.

When you purchase home internet connectivity, your price/bit/sec is considerably lower because it's on an oversubscribed network. However, the carrier will never say that, merely that your bandwidth isn't guaranteed. If you do try to use it 7x24 they'll try to find some way to wriggle out of the contract they made. And that's exactly what Verizon is doing here, by throttling the bandwidth from Netflix. Suppose all the traffic wasn't coming from Netflix. Would it make any difference? Not really, because as the L3 guy pointed out, the cost of the networknetwork hop is miniscule. Where it does cost is in the haul from the peering point to the house. So anything that increases the amount of traffic from the peering point to the house will cost Verizon money.

If someone were to come up with a peer-to-peer movie streaming service that ran entirely within Verizon's network but only on home connections they'd have a cow as well. What they really want is to be paid on a per-bit basis but that's not palatable in the consumer marketplace.

Comment: Re:Help me understand (Score 1) 390

by putaro (#47483863) Attached to: Verizon's Accidental Mea Culpa

And when you order a product from Amazon and they pay FedEx to deliver it, FedEx doesn't give you another bill when they show up at your doorstep.

There are different payment models. Home Internet access has been sold for a long time as "x bits/sec" use as much or as little as you like. Internet traffic was traditionally bursty, without long sustained transmissions so ISPs got into the habit of oversubscribing their networks and holding onto as much of the money as they can.

Netflix pays their ISP (Level 3) quite a bit a of money to provide network access. And Verizon's customers (collectively) pay Verizon quite a bit of money to provide network access. The problem is that the way Internet access is priced it's in the ISP's best interest to discourage you from using the network while promising you more and charging you more.

Per packet pricing, charged to someone, would be one solution to this problem but it's not very popular with people who have gotten used to "all you can eat". I'd certainly hate having my Internet bills jump up and down on a monthly basis.

Comment: Re:I'm confused... (Score 1) 390

by putaro (#47483711) Attached to: Verizon's Accidental Mea Culpa

How is traffic ever going to be balanced between a last mile provider like Verizon and a backbone provider?

Historically, if my memory serves, ISPs paid backbones for access to the Internet, not the other way around. The cash flowed from ISPs to backbones because ISP customers paid for Internet access and then the ISP paid their upstream provider. Backbones didn't pay each other and set up peering arrangements because they realized it was pretty much a wash.

The way I see it, Verizon is trying to double dip. Their customers have paid them for bandwidth and a connection to other networks. Netflix has paid L3 for their internet connectivity and L3 has delivered up to the Verizon network. Verizon chooses to not provide adequate access even though their customers are the ones pulling the data from Netflix.

Comment: Re:I disagree (Score 3, Insightful) 390

by putaro (#47482215) Attached to: Verizon's Accidental Mea Culpa

Level 3 doesn't pay Comcast for bandwidth. Why should they? Comcast customers have already paid Comcast for the links to their house and they're the ones pulling data from Level 3. Level 3's customers pay Level 3 to deliver to the edge of their network. As the Level 3 post points out, the cost for Verizon to add more bandwidth between the Level 3 network and the Verizon network is minimal.

Comment: Re:They shouldn't have immunity then (Score 1) 534

Right versus left is not always the spectrum to be looking at. There are people on both sides of the left/right spectrum that are for more government control and for less government control.

See the Pournelle Chart for a 2D analysis of political thought.

Comment: They shouldn't have immunity then (Score 3, Interesting) 534

Government officials and organizations have immunity from lawsuits for the most part, however private corporations are not. I'm sure there are any number of potential lawsuits that could be brought against them. I'd say it would be fun to watch them try to dance around the subject but it's not, really. It's sickening.

Comment: The question is can they make enough money? (Score 1) 76

by putaro (#47262541) Attached to: Amazon's Android Appstore Coming To BlackBerry

It seems like anybody can make an Android compatible phone these days so I'll assume that Blackberry has the ability to do that. Now, will they be able to sell their hardware? They have a well-established channel. However, the Android phone market is pretty competitive so the question is will they be able to sell enough and make enough profit to sustain themselves as the large company they've become?

Comment: Re:Desktop-Spoiled Users (Re:Why?) (Score 1) 309

by putaro (#47228211) Attached to: Google Engineer: We Need More Web Programming Languages

Spoiled? You mean they've seen non-sucky applications. That's not spoiled, that's being a discerning user.

Applets and Flash both suffer from the problem of continually downloading code over the Internet, slow startup times, and then all the handicaps of running inside a browser window and running inside a sandbox.

Browsers still suck for running applications. If the browser crashes it takes all your windows with it. The "Back" button is usually there and gives inconsistent results.

Browsers suck for running applications because they're for displaying web pages, not for running interactive UI's.

Comment: Re:Why? (Score 1) 309

by putaro (#47228189) Attached to: Google Engineer: We Need More Web Programming Languages

Don't fuckin hog my cpu and demand I run a supercomputer too as an end user.

Amen! I am sick and tired of people trying to write "applications" instead of just serving up a web page that you can read.

Some sites have started going to this system where they load portions of the article as you scroll through it. Is there a benefit to me? Not that I can see. The only reason I can think of why they do it is to track what you're reading.

Comment: Re:Why? (Score 1) 309

by putaro (#47228129) Attached to: Google Engineer: We Need More Web Programming Languages

Well, you get to program in a paradigm that regular GUI programmers understand, that is an event loop type environment. You also get to program everything in ONE language (that isn't Javascript) and you don't need to manage the client/server communications.

Google uses it for some of their stuff and it works reasonably well. I wouldn't use it for implementing, say, a word processor in a browser, but for things like interactive forms it's quite reasonable.

Comment: Re:Why? (Score 5, Informative) 309

by putaro (#47221683) Attached to: Google Engineer: We Need More Web Programming Languages

Those do exist, for example Google Web Toolkit (GWT) which spits out Javascript and HTML from Java code that you write and manages the communications between the Javascript in the web page and the Java code running on the server. There are difficulties, though, because Javascript and HTML are really kind of sucky for running GUIs and it takes tweaking to get everything looking good in every browser.

Personally, I think that running complex applications inside the browser is just plain stupid but it keeps on getting pushed at us.

3500 Calories = 1 Food Pound

Working...