That is my point. I posted something awhile ago, before the Netflix/Comcast issue came up, on how Comcast or other companies could improve the speed of certain services and not violate Net Neutrality. I said that all they had to do was let their transit connections get saturated. Create an special network for latency sensitive services and then peer that network at important points in their network. Vonage not working? Use our service. Their network to splits off traffic before it reaches congestion points.

According to you, that little plan is perfectly fine. It is fine with me since it is how the Internet has always worked.

Is Comcast de-prioritizing Netflix? No. I think you just argued why Comcast should NOT be neutral. If they were NOT neutral, then Netflix would have a better chance of working even if their transit link gets saturated. Or are you saying the government should tell ISP's how much bandwidth they should buy for their transit links? It seems to me that Comcast has the correct Net Neutral solution to the Netflix problem. That is, they should create a Yahoo!-like peering agreement with Netflix. If Netflix doesn't go for it, then that is their problem and customers will suffer or go with another ISP.

I have repetitively pointed out that peering is an important feature of the Internet. Networks peer with each other when there is mutual benefit to both parties. For example, at one point it was noted that Yahoo! only payed for half of their bandwidth (transit). Half of their content was delivered to eyeballs via peering. If an ISP's transit link get congested, then the large companies (or Colo's) that are directly peered with the ISP will get their traffic delivered faster. How does regulation help this situation? I thought Net Neutrality was about treating all traffic the same. In the case of Comcast, people complain that they aren't buying enough transit bandwidth. Comcast notices that a lot of their customers are puling a lot of traffic from Netflix. Comcast goes to Netflix and tries to make a peering agreement (a la Yahoo!-style). People complain that this is unfair to other video services because it is not neutral. Excuse me? By this definition most peering is not neutral. So where does it end? Are we talking only limited filtering and QoS? Are we talking about killing peering? Are we talking about forcing companies to buy bandwidth?

All they need to do is put slow links are their Level3 peering points. That way the Netflix traffic gets congested and slow. People will either drop Comcast as an ISP or complain Netflix video is crappy. Comcast could leave the peer points congested to have Level3 help them with the costs... thus a surcharge. Note that net neutrality was not violated because peering is a valid way of handling traffic on the Internet.

New Super Mario Bros Wii has sold almost 17 million copies. According to VGChartz, it sold over 250,000 copies last week. Are you saying that grandma is a huge fan of Mario? I don't think so.

Speakeasy and XO now provide metro Ethernet. It is a sort of business class DSL. Starting price is $380/month for 3Mbit/s (symmetrical). Although the footprint isn't as large as T1's, it is offered is quite a few of the larger cities in the US.

Yes, but the comment said there was a monopoly. In terms of net neutrality that means a person would have to live in a place where a single company controlled the routing of packets. Purchasing a T1 allows the person to make an agreement with an ISP of their choosing. Even though it connects to the phone company, it is the ISP that defines how the packets are treated. Therefore, there is no monopoly, only more expensive options.

There are always choices. It doesn't mean the choices cost the same or have the same feature set, but it is a choice. I don't know if there is such a place in the US where there are copper phone lines, but no T1 service. Yeah, it costs, but having T1 service means you have plenty of ISPs to choose from. There is also satellite and cell towers. Unless you live out in the middle of nowhere, your friendly cable company will sell you Internet service.

Fox News would not be covered by reinstating the old fairness rules because Fox News is a cable/satellite channel. Do you think the FCC has any say on what is played on Cinemax or the Playbox Channel?

That reminds me... where are all the calls for fairness in the context of the Journolist scandal? It is not some sort of hidden conspiracy anymore. We now *know* that people working at news agencies were purposely excluding or spinning news stories. It seems to me that we should appreciate Fox News for being (somewhat) outside the Journolist peer group. Isn't it good to know that at least one channel is not in lock step with the others even it if does make you mad?

To sum up what you said: Easy to play -- hard to master. "Hardcore" games are just complicated and only interest a subset of the game market. There is no such thing as casual or hardcore, just differences in what people think makes a good game. Microsoft and Sony will fail going after casual because they don't understand that "casual" also wants a good game. Nintendo *does* understand and they can make a game like New Super Mario and sell huge to everyone from young to adult. Nintendo kinda showed their cards when they used the word "bridge" game, but I still don't think Sony or Microsoft (especially Microsoft) will understand how to make a good game that has broad appeal.

Chernobyl didn't have to happen. They were doing a turbine experiment (pushing them over 100% of design). No containment dome.

There Mile Island -- how many people died????? How many people die in coal mining each year?

What reason is there to run T1/T3 anymore? I know, by definition, the regulation over T1/T3 guarantees reliability. I have dumped T1's and switch to 2Base-TL (aka Metro Ethernet) and it is extremely reliable. For me, the "more reliable" argument doesn't hold much. The latency is very, very good -- often below 10ms. Even if the network goes down, I can afford some sort of backup link. I'm paying under $1,000/month for 10mbit (symmetrical). The footprint for 2Base-TL is pretty good because it is based on DSL technology. It doesn't have the reach that T1's have, but it isn't bad. The big difference is that is spreads the signal over multiple pairs of wire (in my case, 8 pairs) instead of a single pair.

If your company has T1's, shed yourself of the "regulated" links and check out 2Base-TL. You will be glad you did.

I'm guessing the only reason KVM was slower was because it didn't have special virtual drivers. It does have block and network drivers now, but NO video drivers. Since KVM is more focused on server performance than graphics I have never had an issue with the graphics speed.

Plus, KVM has xenner that provides Xen compatible devices to virtual machines. I also saw some patches going into KVM that provide Hyper-V hypercalls to KVM. Right now they are fairly basic, but it is a start.

There is no doubt that KVM is the future. It is built into the kernel -- no dom0 patches required. RedHat is heavily investing in it. Note the sponsored oVirt project that integrates libvirt and FreeIPA to manage a network of virtual machine servers using kerberos and ldap as the security framework.