For now, the answer is to spread the datacenters across the country. Which causes other issues. https://twitter.com/corbtt/status/1772392525174620355:

The whole thing about the early termination fee is because a contract is being broken. I know, contracts mean nothing these days because... who reads those things anyways? The company is giving a discount if ones agrees to stay with the company for a specified term. The company knows they have the customer for that period of time, so they cut a deal. One could opt into the month-to-month contract, but it costs more. All this rule will do is remove the discount for long-term commitments, which means we will all pay for the month-to-month pricing.

Will they accept reverting the water pistol emoji back to the actual Unicode standard?

Yeah, yeah, I suppose it is too late because every major tech company deviated from the standard and went with a toy gun.

Such silliness!

I suppose you never downloaded BOB_89A.GIF. Seems odd that you would have missed that file since it was a demonstration of the features in the GIF specification. Load that file with CSHOW.EXE (CompuShow) and it would display text over the picture that said: Oh, incidentally, it's pronounced "JIF"

It was definitely out there, and I knew plenty of people that pronounced it that way.

I do! I learned it that way when GIF was new. There was a .gif from CompuServe that stated that it should be pronounced "jif". Back in those days, everyone I knew pronounced it "jif"... probably because they saw the same file.

Ya know there was another party involved during that era, right? It wasn't Netflix vs ISPs. It was Netlfix's CDN (Cogent) vs the ISPs. Look up Cogent in a peering map. Cogent has been very, very savvy in their peering agreements. Taking on Netflix turned out to be a very bad idea for them. It pushed them outside of their peering agreements. Unfortunately the dump press used the drama to spin for the politics of Net Neutrality even though peering has nothing to do with prioritizing packets or traffic shaping.

What if going over a peering connection save 10 hops? But you can't use that shortcut being the device is forcing all traffic over the transit link due to the "relay" feature. I want to know more about the relay feature. If it is a VPN-like feature then it would break all the nice peering that the ISP setup. No one wants to go back to mid-90's Internet where all the traffic traversed a handful a backbone providers. Do we?

Peering games? Peering is critical to the modern Internet. Peering saved the Internet back in the late 90's.

By games are you're talking about how a well known company that was providing CDN services for Netflix? If so, then you should know that the company didn't want to pay for traffic when they fell outside their settlement-free agreement. Nothing wrong with another company trying to hold them to the contract.

I could see where this would, indeed, break how they manage the network. Peering allows a network operator to offload traffic that would normally go over their transit connections. If an iPhone user is watching Youtube or Netflix with this relay feature turned on, that means all the traffic that would normally go over those peering connections go over the transit connection. Not only does this cause more congestion, but it also costs more. Most congestion for Netflix and more congestion for the ISP.

What are the issues with Rear Window Captioning System ? I'm not sure how common it is, but I noticed it at a theater years ago and thought it was a clever system. Can anyone that has used it speak to how well it works?

I don't think the article is claiming that the last mile is congested. They allude it with "struggling ISP in a developing nation", but that isn't what the article is talking about. They are also confusing what happened in the US with what is happening in South Korea. In the US, Netflix solved their issue with bandwidth by changing their CDN provider and going with direct peering. I don't know what the rules are for peering in SK, but in the US, the peer with the most data going to the other network pays to access that network. There is built in financial motivation to create these agreements because it reduces the cost of transit. So is this the case in SK? If they have the attitude that peering is bad because it causes unfair "fast lanes", then they made their own problem.

Can anyone show me the diff of the data? So far I haven't seen it. I remember seeing an article months ago that it wasn't the data being manipulated but it was an argument on how it was displayed on the dashboard. I also found this post: https://polimath.substack.com/...

So what is the truth? So far I've seen lots of claims, but little specifics.

The NY/Cuomo is much more specific. Specific numbers of people that were categorized as hospital deaths instead of nursing home deaths. Makes sense because Cuomo didn't want to look like an idiot for putting infected people in with the most vulnerable. This is something that DeSantis specifically avoided doing.

The Netflix situation was NOT a net neutrality issue. It was an issue with their CDN (Cogent) and existing peering agreements. Cogent prides themselves on peering. Specifically settlement-free peering. That is that they exchange equal amount of traffic with their peers. Because it is equal, the bandwidth is free. When Cogent took on Netflix, the peering ended up sending much more traffic to their peers. Cogent didn't want to upgrade the ports because it would only end up costing them more money in traffic fees. Netflix could send more of their data via transit, but transit is expensive. The better solution was to negotiate peering outside of Cogent. Peering is less expensive than transit and with the amount of data Netflix sends, it is well worth it.

Stop using the Netflix situation as an argument for NN. We should WANT more peering, not less.

My thoughts exactly!

"Fingerprints" as in typing "host" and "whois <ip>"

I thought PVC was only good for irrigation, NOT for drinking.

Wasn't there a thing about PVC and Agent Orange? The issue is the chloride. In theory, Agent Orange might have been safe except the gov wanted so much of the stuff back in the days of the war and they had to increase production. When they did, the temperatures were too high and it created dangerous chlorides. Same with PVC. High temp makes bad cancer causing stuff!

The more recent example (not a chloride) is Zantac. At the right temp it is safe. But, when the temp is wrong, there is an issue with cancer causing chemicals.