Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Peering and Bandwidth Symmetry (Score 2) 182

by thule (#46546983) Attached to: Level 3 Wants To Make Peering a Net Neutrality Issue

No, I believe the article stated that Yahoo! was getting the bandwidth for "free". That is, Yahoo! is its own national network with POP's in all the big cities. Yahoo! is like an ISP, but unlike an ISP, Yahoo! did not sell transit. The only point of their network was to peer with large ISP's. They would drop in a router and get as many ISP's to connect their POP's to their router for free.

The difference today is that Netflix has a lot more data. A LOT more. Gone are the days of simple web sites. Depending on the size of the ISP that router and interface port might cost a heck of a lot of money. They might even have to upgrade the routers within their network. As demand for things like Netflix grows, the cost of that equipment grows. For what? Just so their customers can get Netflix? They think to themselves, "Why upgrade that port?" Customer start complaining to Netflix. The solution? Let Netflix (or Cogent) pay for the router/port. Seems fair to me. In the mean time, customers have to complain loud enough to get something done.

Not all content providers have this kind of network. Netflix is not Yahoo! or Google. They used Cogent to do all the work for them. In some ways that is better. If I was a small start up that was going to launch a new streaming service, I know where I would place my servers for good connectivity to Comcast. I'd place them in a Cogent colo!

Comment: Re:Peering and Bandwidth Symmetry (Score 2) 182

by thule (#46546715) Attached to: Level 3 Wants To Make Peering a Net Neutrality Issue

Since the beginning of peering, the rules have always been that if you have roughly the same amount of traffic inbound and outbound, peering has no charge.

That must have been *very* early on. I remember reading an article in the late 90's that stated that Yahoo! only payed for half of their total bandwidth requirements. Transit was costing them too much money. So they peered with large ISP's to cut their transit costs. They were connecting eyeballs to content. Both sides of the equation won because ISP's would take traffic off of their transit connection and so did Yahoo!. Yes, it does cost money to peer, but for Yahoo! it saved them money. How is this any different than Netflix? Same deal, eyeballs and content. The difference is that Netflix sends a lot more data. Even more reason that ISP's should want the traffic off of their transit connections.

Comment: Re:The Slippery Slope (Score 2) 182

by thule (#46546657) Attached to: Level 3 Wants To Make Peering a Net Neutrality Issue

The scenario with Netflix and ISP's is exactly what I've been describing for years. That is, use congestion on links to beat net neutrality. I would point this out and people would still focus on filtering and shaping. Who needs to filter when an ISP can just peer with a preferred VoIP provider? The link would have plenty of extra capacity and get very good quality of service. No neutrality rules have been broken because the ISP isn't shaping or filtering. They are using the inherit capability of the Internet to route traffic. So did the net neutrality people always see this issue or do they just not understand? Was the goal, all along, to control peering and they just hid their motives?

I've been skeptical of net neutrality because as soon as it was implemented, it wouldn't be "good enough" and they'd move on to more and more control. We all should be very skeptical of the government stepping in to regulate peering.

Comment: Re:Net Neutrality laws? (Score 1) 289

by thule (#46327199) Attached to: ISP Fights Causing Netflix Packet Drops

You are mixing apples and oranges.

Peering agreements have been the same forever. As long as there is nearly a 1:1 ratio between the providers, everything is fine. The issue comes up when one side is using more bandwidth than they are giving in return.

Not entirely true. I remember reading an article years and years ago that Yahoo was only paying for half of their total bandwidth usage. At the time Yahoo was generating a lot of traffic. It helped Yahoo and the larger ISP's to bypass their expensive transit links, bypass the backbone, and connect eyeballs to content directly.

Netflix is breaking the long standing status quo. Last I checked, they accounted for ~30% of ALL of the traffic on the internet. Obviously that is going to skew the metrics, and that is why Netflix is trying to push their own CDN. I do not know the particulars there. IMO, if Netflix expects ISPs to pay for their CDN, they are on drugs.

It is a little bit more complicated than this. Netflix uses Cogent. Cogent has pissed off other backbone providers over the years. Netflix is suffering with Verizon because of the relationship with Cogent. Netflix should see if Verizon would be interested in peering with them "directly".

What they should do is run the numbers and figure out what costs more; "overage" charges from Cogent, or eating the cost of paying to deploy their CDN hardware and network links to the other Tier1 ISPs.

Are you suggesting that net neutrality should address situations like this? Are you saying that it is a good idea to have the government force a business to eat the cost of supporting someone else's business model? To me, that sounds like a big fat subsidy for Netflix at the expense of everyone else.

I DO NOT want the government to have any say in this stuff. I would rather the market figure out the details. Yeah, there might be bumps along the road, but I would rather have that than the long arm of government regulation causing stagnation.

Comment: Net Neutrality laws? (Score 3, Insightful) 289

by thule (#46306363) Attached to: ISP Fights Causing Netflix Packet Drops
I've been saying this for ages! Even mentioned this here on slashdot. Peering is peering. They are not degrading performance by configuration, they just let the link get congested. How do any of the proposed net neutrality laws address this issue? Answer is, they don't. To me that means that Net Neutrality laws are about something different than neutrality. More likely with government regulation, it becomes Net Control. With that, increased stiffing and limiting reaction to market dynamics, not improving it.

Comment: Re:Your task: explain how Net Neutrality stops (Score 1) 298

by thule (#46168235) Attached to: Is Verizon Already Slowing Netflix Down?
Why would it be illegal to have a saturated peering link? Are you saying that the government would control to whom and what the link speed for each peering link should be?

I'm not saying that the Verizon to AWS link is saturated for this reason. I'm just pointing out that Verizon could handle all traffic in a neutral way to the letter of the law and still have an issue with traffic going to AWS/Netflix. It would be the responsibility of Netflix and Verizon to work out a mutually beneficial agreement that would carry the traffic without congestion between their respective networks. That is exactly how this all works right now.

China's PandaX Project Looks For Dark Matter In the Heart of a Marble Mountain 62

Posted by timothy
from the In-hollow-halls-beneath-the-fells dept.
the_newsbeagle writes "Chinese engineers love their superlatives: Biggest dam, fastest train, etc etc. Now they've constructed the deepest underground dark matter detector beneath a mountain in Sichuan province. Such dark matter seekers have to be buried deep to shield them from cosmic rays, because that radiation would be picked up by the detector and could be confused for radiation generated by dark matter. Other dark matter detectors are similarly subterranean: LUX, in the United States, is at the bottom of an abandoned mine in South Dakota, and a European effort called XENON lies below the Gran Sasso mountain. The Chinese researchers hope their PandaX detector will finally reveal the much-hypothesized, never-seen dark matter particles known as WIMPs."

Comment: Re:Creationists love Social Darwinisim (Score 1) 770

by thule (#45995125) Attached to: Creationism In Texas Public Schools
Yes, it is confusing. It is a reflection of the sad state of affairs with American churches. They should have nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with Ayn Rand. Unfortunately people think Ayn Rand aligns with their thinking. Yes, there is *some* overlap. But it is not at all Christian thought. I certainly hope that a majority Christians don't adopt Ayn Rand thinking. Ayn Rand was against charity. Christianity is *for* charity as has been for hundreds of years. Charity without government. True charity, not "charity" with the force of the government. That is what is wrong with charity these days. People expect the government to be the agent of charity when it is incapable of true charity.

Comment: Re:Creationists love Social Darwinisim (Score 1) 770

by thule (#45994985) Attached to: Creationism In Texas Public Schools
I think this is only true because the government has stepped in. If it was only the church's responsibility to take care of the poor then you would see more action. Traditionally, the church is one of the few organizations to take care of the poor... all over the world. Just look at the larger charities, they all have their roots with churches or Christians.

Comment: Re:Creationists love Social Darwinisim (Score 1) 770

by thule (#45994241) Attached to: Creationism In Texas Public Schools
Yes, I know what is happening. Even James Dobson admitted it was a bad approach. Dobson admitted that the gospel took a back seat to the gospel. He is right. The Bible is right. Politics is not above the gospel. I really, really, really hope that some big denominations get this. Politics is rendering to Ceasar. Let the church be the church and take care of the poor and needy. The government does a terrible job at that task.

Comment: Re:Creationists love Social Darwinisim (Score 1) 770

by thule (#45990681) Attached to: Creationism In Texas Public Schools
People take what happened in Israel and try to apply it to the US. That is incorrect. The US is not Israel. The Bible doesn't tell Christians to create a government and force people to live as Christians. It is silent on the issue. It just tells them to go into the world and preach the gospel. No matter what the government is.

BTW, The communal living described in Acts was in the church, not the government.

So as Jesus said (Matthew 22:20-22):
and he asked them, “Whose image is this? And whose inscription?” “Caesar’s,” they replied. Then he said to them, “So give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.”When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away.

Administration: An ingenious abstraction in politics, designed to receive the kicks and cuffs due to the premier or president. -- Ambrose Bierce