Your ISP probably already does that. Or, maybe your ISP doesn't do that, but their upstream does. They notice that a lot of their customers go to those networks, so hey... peer with them. If the content provider turns "evil" then traffic will not go over that peer link anymore and drop to the point that it is not worthwhile to keep around. That is the way it works. Are we going to have the government decide peering now? Yeah, like that is going to work out just fine!

Re-read my example. It does just that! I didn't need to "lower" anything. I just route traffic to peering links. If I'm a big enough ISP, I don't even need to pay for the peering links! Are you telling me that the government will tell me which networks I can or can't peer with because I don't upgrade my transit connection? Are they going to *force* me to upgrade my transit link?

...though, I still don't know what the real problem is. The biggest issue I hear people talk about it capping the traffic. Okay, fine, make companies advertise the fact they cap. Do you really think net neutrality will increase or decrease the amount of companies wanting to cap traffic? The government doesn't have to stomp around defining QoS and shaping.

Have there really been issues where ISPs have purposely blocked traffic -- and if they did, I would think it would be found out pretty quickly.

So? What's wrong with that? Do you actually believe that government control never leads to unforeseen problems? And really? Telco's only? Many places have copper pair, coax, satellite, and cell network access to the Internet. Not to mention many large cities are now getting fiber. In the office building I work at an ISP pulled fiber to the building (10GbE) and is offering business class 100mbit/s service for $800/month. The closest thing to that previously was 10mbit/s10base-TL service (kind of a super DSL) for $900/month.

I think most of the wining is people that want to p2p a lot and complain that they get shutdown. If you want a network what services 100% of bandwidth to all customers 100% of the time, go build one.

Okay... so let's say I'm an ISP. I don't shape any traffic. A small percentage of my customers are slamming my transit connection with p2p traffic. What if I setup peering connections to large content providers (google, Netflix, Directv, yahoo, large hosting company networks, voip providers, etc)? Now all non-peered BitTorrent traffic will go through the transit link where is could get clogged up. All the sites the most of my non-peering users are interested in get nice fast connectivity. I also setup an alternate network for my own VoIP services -- no QoS, but traffic gets routed off congested points on my network.

If an ISP does this, are they violating net neutrality? Does the government get to tell me which networks I peer with? Is peering now a *bad* thing if the government has too much control over the "neutrality"?

Did you read the article I linked to?

BTW, nuclear power is a good way to make hydrogen during non-peak hours. I seem to recall nuclear power plants near oceans could make large amounts of methanol.

It will take a very long time to run out of nuclear fuel. There is hundreds (thousands?) of years of uranium in sea water:

URANIUM FROM SEAWATER

Not to mention that were have barely (as compared to oil or coal) started to seriously look for a mine the stuff.

Nuclear power does not create all the much waste. Unlike coal, we know where the waste goes.

Nuclear Waste: Amounts and On-Site Storage

"Over the past four decades, the entire industry has produced about 62,500 metric tons of used nuclear fuel. If used fuel assemblies were stacked end-to-end and side-by-side, this would cover a football field about seven yards deep. "

According to the Yahoo! article, Supervisor Liz Kniss said:

"With this kind of ordinance it is really difficult to be first," said Kniss, who voted in favor of the ban. "It is easy to say that we as parents should make the decision but kids can be so persuasive."

So because parents don't want to be the "bad buy" and make their kids unhappy, we loose a little bit of freedom. Maybe these parents need to learn the word "no" and stop relying on the state.

See?

MSNBC: ‘Law makes it a crime to be illegal immigrant’

Best headline ever!

I don't have problem seeking DVD dumps and as far as I know, MPEG-TS does not have indexes -- it is a pure stream. In fact, you can seek in an MPEG-TS stream even if it is partially corrupted or incomplete.

They are NO WAY near violating the spirit of GPL *or* the law. That statement is completely ignorant.

They *bought* Sistina for $31 million and fully open sourced GFS (Global File System).

They *bought* iPlanet Directory Server from Sun and open sourced it.

They *bought* iPlanet Certificate Server from Sun and open sourced it.

They *bought* Qumranet for around $107 million and are currently working to open source the virtual machine management software.

I haven't even started to list the projects that RedHat engineers directly contribute to in major ways. RedHat has been an *extremely* good citizen of the GPL because they put their *time* and *money* into GPL software. It has also payed off for them. RedHat is a Fortune 500 company now. They *only* thing they ask is that if you take their SRPMS and redistribute them, you remove their company trademarks. That is a completely reasonable request and is consistent with trademark law.

Just use KQEMU. libvirt will launch the basic qemu with the Accelerator. This is equivalent to VMWare without hardware visualization assistance.

libvirt will launch plain qemu instead of the KVM version. You could use the QEMU Accelerator to speed up the basic qemu.

I expect that you will find out pretty quickly that you will want special bittorrent pigeons to separate the traffic from the ones carrying email and web. :)