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

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re: Gonna have to laugh (Score 1) 128

Bottom line, it isn't a matter of "willing to pay for" (I would LOVE my fiber idea), it is a matter of *capable* of paying for.

Yes, exactly. But the point still stands that there are choices. For example you can use cable company fiber to pull into a large building and just buy Ethernet service from them. That way you can choose your transit and bypass the possibility of Net Neutrality issues. You can also re-sell the bandwidth to others in the building so the cost can be shared. It works! It took months (only!?) to get all the permitting and agreements done to pull the fiber into the high-rise building.

Comment Re: Gonna have to laugh (Score 2) 128

I don't know about where you live, but I have exactly *one* choice for high speed Internet where I live. I am sure I could get ADSL -- maybe even 3mbits, but I don't think I will be streaming Netflix on that.

You have exactly one choice that you're willing to pay for. I'm sure there are more options, but they could be a lot more money. In order of cost you probably have, dialup, cable/DOCSIS, DSL, WISP, satellite, cellular LTE, 2Base-TL (a cheaper form of metro Ethernet via copper pairs), T1/T3, metro Ethernet (via the cable company, but you can choose your transit. Also, construction cost).

If there is no WISP, why not build one?

Comment Re:Net neutrality lasted less than 18 months (Score 0) 141

Exactly! Thank you! People keep mixing up the Netflix issue with Net Neutrality. It was NOT an issue of Net Neutrality. Once Netflix took an interest in negotiating their own peering agreements, the issues went away. Netflix could have also chose NO peering and let all the traffic flow over transit. But that is expensive. Peering saves money and improves the total Internet experience for end users.

Comment Re:The NSA should Compensate.... (Score 1) 197

Not AppArmor, SELinux. I know the accusation has been around for quite sometime, but I have yet to find anyone pointing out the backdoor. The code is GPL'd so people can audit the code.

If anything, SELinux has saved systems from 0days by restricting the vulnerable process to only what it should do. Filesystem permissions or chroots only get you so far. SELinux goes farther. For example, it prevents a process from making outgoing IP connections.

Comment Re:Well.. So what? (Score 2) 118

Exactly! And don't forget that LA used to be a decent oil producer. There are still pockets of natural gas under LA. The current subway project has run into them.

He's going to run into the same issues Google has running fiber in some cities. My guess is that LA much be at the top of bureaucratic nightmares compared to other US cities. I've seen first hand how it took months for fiber to get pulled into a building because they had to tear up a section of the street. That was ONE building and the fiber was a short block away!

Then again, he was able to get CARB to buy into features of the Telsa that weren't available yet (I'd say it was a scandal). He's quite a salesman.

Comment Re:"Forget net neutrality" (Score 1) 197

Define toll. Are you talking about shaping traffic? Or are you talking about peering? Peering pricing is based packet delivery to the destination network. It is a different pricing model than transit, but an important part of how the Internet works. The example people usually use is Netflix, but that wasn't an issue of net neutrality. It was a three party dispute over peering and content delivery. Once Netflix took charge of their peering agreements, the problems disappeared. It wasn't a shakedown. The problem was the CDN partner they used (Cogent) prides itself in their settlement-free peering agreements. Cogent didn't want to pay for peering and had no reason to upgrade the peering ports. Netflix had another option. They could have just used standard transit into the ISP. It would have cost them a bundle, but it would work.

Comment Re:Senator? Clean up your own shit first! (Score 1) 224

Yup, that is where the real fight is! Not at the FCC level! People need to get involved with LOCAL politics and make sure that local policy changes with regards to pole access and permitting. The telco's will complain, but support your local elected officials and make it happen! This is where the action is, not some peering oversight bureaucracy.

You should also note that Pai wants the FCC to push for easier access to poles, it is just not clear on how much can be done at the FCC level. More competition is good and would greatly reduce issues with Net Neutrality violations.

Comment Re:Regulate ISP's not Regulate the Internet (Score 1) 224

Yup, that is why this one rural ISP specifically states that they don't want people using bittorrent. It is explicit and understandable.

I wasn't saying that Comcast is a small rural ISP. I'm just saying that sometimes a network needs to manage their traffic, specifically smaller ISPs.

Comment Re:Regulate ISP's not Regulate the Internet (Score 1) 224

Considering what a handful of bittorrent users can do to a network, it is not surprising an ISP would try to figure out a way to manage it. I consulted with a small ISP and torrents could really cause problems for customers just wanting to watch the videos on ESPN.com. Eventually the small ISP was able to upgrade their transit, but for a time, it was painful.

I've heard small rural WISPs ask users not to use bittorrent and put that in their customer agreement. Another reason that I don't like the government making these rules. If I were to start a small rural WISP I would ask people not to use bittorrent because I want all my users to have a good experience with the service. Are you saying that I, as a small WISP, shouldn't have the ability to block or strictly manage bittorrent usage?

Comment Re:Senator? Clean up your own shit first! (Score 1) 224

If government was efficient, then Google wouldn't have so much trouble getting fiber into some cities. Google Fiber in Los Angeles is a long shot. Way too much bureaucracy.

Who positioned the cable companies to have a monopoly for a city? The local city government did. They agreed to give the cable company an exclusive for the area. Why? Because, like you said, it costs a heck of a lot of money to string wires around the city. Now that cable companies have made their money, the city should be doing everything that they can do to encourage others to compete.

Maybe the best thing the FTC could do is break up the cable companies so that at least two entities exists where a single one used to exist.

Comment Re:Regulate ISP's not Regulate the Internet (Score 1) 224

There was a lot of finger pointing. But I am fairly certain that the blame was Cogent's. Cogent prides itself on a transit-free network. Cogent has plenty of settlement free peering agreements. When they took on Netflix, that changed the traffic flow. They started sending way more traffic out of their network than they were used to. This violated the peering agreement and the network asked them to pay up. Cogent didn't have any interest in paying up. They like settlement free peering. Their best play at the time was not to upgrade the peering ports. This fact was pointed out during all the finger pointing, but based on what I know of Cogent, it is the most likely. Netflix did the right thing and found another CDN and started negotiating their OWN peering agreements. Netflix has much better control over the peering now that they have done that. The upside is that Netflix still saves on their transit costs.

Bad business is not a Net Neutrality violation.

Slashdot Top Deals

You can tell the ideals of a nation by its advertisements. -- Norman Douglas

Working...