Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?

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 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.

Comment Re:Witness the DoubleSpeak (Score 1) 224

What do you call FCC oversight of peering? Peering wasn't even mentioned when the topic of Net Neutrality first came up years ago. Even when I did bring it up, people just said, "As long as the packets are not prioritized or blocked." Then the Netflix thing happened and now people seem to think it is a good idea to get the FCC involved with peering agreements. Even with Net Neutrality, I'd say NO to FCC oversight of peering.

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

Most people don't understand how the Internet works, even people on slashdot. I've been pointing out for years that peering could be pulled into Net Neutrality discussions. Either people didn't understand what I was saying or the idea seemed to stupid to believe. But look where we are now. People seem to think that the government should get involved with Netflix, Cogent, and ISP's. It wasn't required, Once Netflix fired Cogent as a CDN, things improved dramatically. The whole thing was easy to understand if you know how Cogent works.

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

Considering that many people think that peering should be covered by Net Neutrality, yes, that would make bureaucrats in charge of Internet engineering. Even WITH Net Neutrality in place, I do NOT like the FCC getting involved with peering. It would turn business negotiations into government negotiations, and we all know how well that goes.

The FCC has received plenty of complaints about Net Neutrality violations, were any valid?

Comment Re:Non-neutral "Internet" is a mislabelled product (Score 1) 32

What example do you have of a company purposely slowing down a peering link? If you're thinking Netflix, that isn't a very good example.

Would you rather have every packet coming into the ISP's network through transit links only?

There is no double dipping. There are two ways to get connectivity for Internet. One way is transit. Transit can be expensive especially for companies like Netflix. Transit is pretty simple, you pay for x-bandwidth or port speed. The other option is to peer. For peering, one company/network pays the destination network to deliver the packet. This is less costly than transit, but the packet's destination must be within the peered network. If the networks have nearly equal traffic between them, then they call it a wash and don't charge the other party. Nothing new here. This is similar to how long distance companies work. When a long distance company couldn't connect the call directly (they didn't own the last mile), they would pay the local exchange to complete the connection. Last mile networks are expensive. Delivering a call or a packet for that last mile is valuable.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Show me a good loser, and I'll show you a loser." -- Vince Lombardi, football coach