Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 10 Jun 2014 @ 1:43pm
Re:
Can't blame them for trying an argument that works. The problem of not adequately defining unitless measurements: http://xkcd.com/670/ (We can blame them for being evil, greedy, lying jerks though.)
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 10 Jun 2014 @ 12:31pm
Re: Re: Visionary
I don't think oil companies would put charging stations - and remember most gas stations are franchises owned by small businesses, using the Exxon/BP/whoever name.
However, power/utility companies might want to get into the game. Duke, ConEd, FirstEnergy, whoever has a stake in selling electricity just might build some.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 6 Jun 2014 @ 12:13pm
Re: Costs
It is at most a minimal cost, and part of what Verizon's customers are paying for. They don't have to dig up anyone's yard or street for this.
In some cases, it is just a matter of running an extra line from one router to another at an exchange and configuring the connection and networks. In other cases, a new router is needed (to be fair,the routers required aren't something you can run to best Buy and get in an afternoon, but compared to the major ISP's expenses, they'd be nearly a rounding error).
Upgrading these connection has been for most of the internet's history a completely routine and expected minor expense. Up until a few years ago, most interconnections between larger networks were done as handshake deals without lengthy negotiations. When technicians who monitor this stuff saw that capacity at some connection point was getting saturated, they'd just work it out and perform the needed upgrade without fanfare.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 6 Jun 2014 @ 9:27am
>3%
Wikipedia says the population of Australia is about 23.5 million.
If we assume every one of those 685k warrants were only targeting a single person, and that everyone in Australia is on Vodafone's service, that's at least 3% of the population under surveillance or under suspicion of their government. Even for the most conservative estimate, that is staggering. Since not everyone uses Vodafone, and many of those warrants were for multiple people, that number is considerably higher.
Australians, do you know 20 people? If so, odds are at least 1 is under government surveillance.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 3 Jun 2014 @ 6:48am
Re: Re: Misinformed jokes
As an example, Comcast did not downgrade or block connections that would have allowed more Netflix onto their network (as one of their peering providers suggested) but rather stopping ADDING extra bandwidth to support Netflix business model, which is incredibly expensive for an ISP to support.
Thank you for openly admitting that Comcast changed longstanding business practices to specifically force Netflix to pay for access to Comcast subscribers. I think I win now, right?
The alternative would be high customer rates for service, which everyone would yell about.
Since you're claiming to be the expert on Comcast pricing, I'm curious if you know what Comcast's rate of return for broadband services is?
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 3 Jun 2014 @ 6:32am
Need to update my resume
I really need to update my resume.
I played the Thief series, and other various stealth games. I must be a master lockpicker/locksmith.
I played the Battlefield series. I must be an expert explosive ordnance technician disarming bombs, and an expert in all kinds of weapon systems, able to pilot jets and helicopters, tanks and APCs.
I played a bunch of war-sims, set in the Roman empire, medieval Europe, pre-western Japan, and the first half of 1900 Europe and the Pacific. I must be a master general and strategic planner.
I played SimCity (the decent ones) and other city builders. Sign me up for urban planning and budgeting.
I should be making way more money than I am now. (And that's just from the stuff that actually exists in real life. I could be casting magic or flying spaceships too)
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 2 Jun 2014 @ 10:54am
Re: Looks like they may be getting swamped. This is the link now.
Stating the obvious: the government body charged with overseeing the Internet can't manage to keep their servers up reliably when asking for comments over the Internet.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 27 May 2014 @ 12:41pm
I'm just quibbling here, but the taxpayers of the City of London are probably fully supportive of the City of London Police shutting those websites down (even in the knowledge that it has no real authority), since the taxpayers to the City of London are mostly large corporations including those legacy entertainment companies. There's a really good reason that its the City of London Police doing so - they're basically owned by those corporations.
City of London does not equal what most people think of as London. It's basically a couple city blocks where the original London was over 1000 years ago. My description wouldn't do it justice, so go to CGP Grey's youtube channel, he has 2 or 3 videos on it that explain in detail what it is (and yes, he cites his references).
And again, I'm just quibbling over the inference that taxpayers wouldn't be supportive of those actions. I personally find them to be reprehensible.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 27 May 2014 @ 12:17pm
might need my firesuit for this comment
Maybe the app developer should've gone with preparing LSD instead of growing weed. Taking that one down would've drawn the ire of all the Steve Jobs acolytes.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 27 May 2014 @ 9:49am
Re:
Why would they destroy the guardians hardware specifically if the bugging devises exist on all hardware of the same model?
Modern hardware, such as what we're talking about here, isn't strictly "hardware" - it also contains software or firmware. I don't have specs, but they could be talking about EEPROM chips - a type of reprogrammable chips that can be updated with a different version of firmware. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EEPROM
Why would that matter here? I can see 2 reasons. 1) They had somehow compromised those systems and were concerned about being found out. 2) They wanted to force purchase/replacement of new devices that could be compromised. #2 becomes more likely when you think about the recent relevations of intercepting shipments and bugging them.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 27 May 2014 @ 6:23am
Re:
While the algorithm is a major part of any crypto system, the implementation of the algorith into the rest of the system is significant and often overlooked. And it's really easy to screw up either one and leave yourself a very insecure system.
While we don't know for sure if any of the algos that are tainted by NSA involvement are genuinely at risk, the fear that they are could push groups into throwing out their whole systems and needing to replace them with something that may actually be less secure.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 22 May 2014 @ 1:47pm
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If Google REALLY wanted to jack up their efforts...
Typically it can be filtered by port, type or location. Running all traffic to and from Google's network through an encrypted tunnel to the end user takes away the port and type filtering possibility for the ISPs
Sure, traffic shaping encrypted traffic is difficult, but not impossible. So you can sometimes get different responses from a VPN. However, traffic flow is very different based on type of content. Encrypted static web page traffic looks much different than encrypted client/server file transfer, both look different than an encrypted video or music stream, and they all look different than encrypted peer-to-peer activity. You might not be able to tell exactly what content is inside those packets, but you can learn a heck of a lot about what type of packet it is by looking at the flow.
which could bite the ISPs in the ass if they tried to filter all of the traffic from Google's network.
And again, they're **already** purposefully allowing all traffic not flowing through their no settlement links to become congested.
Comcast wants to kill or toll anything that's a threat to their cable TV monopoly. Netflix hiding behind Google isn't going to stop Comcast - they already think Google is their enemy.
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 22 May 2014 @ 10:57am
Re: Re:
News to me. Got a link?
(not that they bought Nest, I know that. but how they're "thinking" of pushing ads through it... and on that note, how the hell they would accomplish pushing ads to a thermostat in the first place?)
Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 22 May 2014 @ 10:50am
Re: Re: Re: If Google REALLY wanted to jack up their efforts...
you can bet connections from all ISPs to servers located in Google's datacenters is plenty fast and given how many services that Google offers are integral to what so many users do daily on the Internet, it is in ISP's best interest to keep it that way as any attempt by ISP's to degrade their users connecting to Google's network would ultimately be very bad for the ISPs themselves.
I don't think you understand exactly what Comcast and other ISPs are doing, or else you don't have a good understanding of how the Internet works.
The ISPs, strictly speaking, are not discriminating traffic going to particular services. However, in order for a Comcast customer to get to Google's datacenter, their traffic needs to pass out of Comcast's network into Google's network (or another ISP's network that connects to Google's). All traffic that leaves or enters Comcast's network needs to pass through one of these edges - all traffic, regardless of whether it is Netflix traffic, Google traffic, Bittorrent, you loading a webpage based in Uzbekistan, or your Xbox traffic to a Call of Duty server, passes through that edge from one network to another.
That edge where the traffic leaves or enters Comcast's network and goes to/from another network is where the congestion is. Here is the issue: Comcast and other ISPs have chosen to stop or slow upgrades at that edge. They are then using that congestion (that they created themselves by not managing their network in a sane manner) as an excuse to charge Netflix and other content companies for additional non-congested access points into their network. The ISPs are *already* doing something against their own best interest in allowing those points to become congested.
On the post: BitTorrent Shows You What The Internet Looks Like Without Net Neutrality; Suggests A Better Way
Re:
The problem of not adequately defining unitless measurements: http://xkcd.com/670/
(We can blame them for being evil, greedy, lying jerks though.)
On the post: Community Organizations Say They Never Actually Joined Bogus Anti-Net Neutrality Astrotufing Group
Fraud, wire fraud, corruption charges for the lobbyists.
Antitrust actions against the monopolists.
On the post: Tesla Seems To Recognize That Its Own Patents Are Holding Back Innovation
Re: Re: Visionary
However, power/utility companies might want to get into the game. Duke, ConEd, FirstEnergy, whoever has a stake in selling electricity just might build some.
On the post: UK Plans To Bring In Life Sentences For 'Serious Cyberattacks'
On the post: Yes, Verizon Is At Fault In Netflix Dispute; It's Not Delivering What It Sold Customers
Re: Costs
In some cases, it is just a matter of running an extra line from one router to another at an exchange and configuring the connection and networks. In other cases, a new router is needed (to be fair,the routers required aren't something you can run to best Buy and get in an afternoon, but compared to the major ISP's expenses, they'd be nearly a rounding error).
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_exchange_point
Upgrading these connection has been for most of the internet's history a completely routine and expected minor expense. Up until a few years ago, most interconnections between larger networks were done as handshake deals without lengthy negotiations. When technicians who monitor this stuff saw that capacity at some connection point was getting saturated, they'd just work it out and perform the needed upgrade without fanfare.
On the post: DOJ Admits It's Still Destroying Evidence In NSA Case; Judge Orders Them (Again) To Stop; DOJ Flips Out
Re: Not so far-fetched
Can I haz a billion dollar government contract for fixing the problem now?
On the post: Vodafone Reveals Government Agencies Have Direct Access To Its Network Around The World, No Warrants Required
>3%
If we assume every one of those 685k warrants were only targeting a single person, and that everyone in Australia is on Vodafone's service, that's at least 3% of the population under surveillance or under suspicion of their government. Even for the most conservative estimate, that is staggering. Since not everyone uses Vodafone, and many of those warrants were for multiple people, that number is considerably higher.
Australians, do you know 20 people? If so, odds are at least 1 is under government surveillance.
On the post: International Men Of Mystery: How Discredited German 'Anti-Piracy' Company May Secretly Be Behind Malibu Media's Copyright Trollery
Re:
On the post: US Patent Office Refuses To Hold Back Beverage-Organization Industry Any Longer, OKs 50% Improvement In Storage Capacity
Re:
On the post: FCC Comment Page Buckles To Its Knees After John Oliver Asks Everyone To Comment
Re: Re: Misinformed jokes
Thank you for openly admitting that Comcast changed longstanding business practices to specifically force Netflix to pay for access to Comcast subscribers. I think I win now, right?
The alternative would be high customer rates for service, which everyone would yell about.
Since you're claiming to be the expert on Comcast pricing, I'm curious if you know what Comcast's rate of return for broadband services is?
On the post: Glenn Beck Claims Watch Dogs Is Teaching Children How To Hack The Public For Realz
Need to update my resume
I played the Thief series, and other various stealth games. I must be a master lockpicker/locksmith.
I played the Battlefield series. I must be an expert explosive ordnance technician disarming bombs, and an expert in all kinds of weapon systems, able to pilot jets and helicopters, tanks and APCs.
I played a bunch of war-sims, set in the Roman empire, medieval Europe, pre-western Japan, and the first half of 1900 Europe and the Pacific. I must be a master general and strategic planner.
I played SimCity (the decent ones) and other city builders. Sign me up for urban planning and budgeting.
I should be making way more money than I am now. (And that's just from the stuff that actually exists in real life. I could be casting magic or flying spaceships too)
On the post: John Oliver: Stop Calling It Net Neutrality; It's 'Preventing Cable Company F**kery'
Re: Looks like they may be getting swamped. This is the link now.
On the post: Patent Troll That Accused FindTheBest Of 'Hate Crime' For Fighting Back Now Has To Pay FTB's Legal Fees
Re: Re: TrollingLawyers.com
On the post: City Of London Police Keep Shutting Down Websites With No Court Order
City of London does not equal what most people think of as London. It's basically a couple city blocks where the original London was over 1000 years ago. My description wouldn't do it justice, so go to CGP Grey's youtube channel, he has 2 or 3 videos on it that explain in detail what it is (and yes, he cites his references).
And again, I'm just quibbling over the inference that taxpayers wouldn't be supportive of those actions. I personally find them to be reprehensible.
On the post: Apple Pulls Popular Weed-Growing Game From App Store, Ignores All The Unpopular Ones
might need my firesuit for this comment
On the post: Do Personal Computers Come With NSA Surveillance Devices Built-In As Standard?
Re:
Modern hardware, such as what we're talking about here, isn't strictly "hardware" - it also contains software or firmware. I don't have specs, but they could be talking about EEPROM chips - a type of reprogrammable chips that can be updated with a different version of firmware. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EEPROM
Why would that matter here? I can see 2 reasons. 1) They had somehow compromised those systems and were concerned about being found out. 2) They wanted to force purchase/replacement of new devices that could be compromised. #2 becomes more likely when you think about the recent relevations of intercepting shipments and bugging them.
On the post: Schneier: Snowden's Leaks Have Actually Made It Easier To Crack Terrorists' Encrypted Messages
Re:
While we don't know for sure if any of the algos that are tainted by NSA involvement are genuinely at risk, the fear that they are could push groups into throwing out their whole systems and needing to replace them with something that may actually be less secure.
On the post: Google Fiber: You Know How Comcast Is Making Netflix Pay Extra? We Don't Do That Kind Of Crap
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: If Google REALLY wanted to jack up their efforts...
Sure, traffic shaping encrypted traffic is difficult, but not impossible. So you can sometimes get different responses from a VPN. However, traffic flow is very different based on type of content. Encrypted static web page traffic looks much different than encrypted client/server file transfer, both look different than an encrypted video or music stream, and they all look different than encrypted peer-to-peer activity. You might not be able to tell exactly what content is inside those packets, but you can learn a heck of a lot about what type of packet it is by looking at the flow.
which could bite the ISPs in the ass if they tried to filter all of the traffic from Google's network.
And again, they're **already** purposefully allowing all traffic not flowing through their no settlement links to become congested.
Comcast wants to kill or toll anything that's a threat to their cable TV monopoly. Netflix hiding behind Google isn't going to stop Comcast - they already think Google is their enemy.
On the post: Google Fiber: You Know How Comcast Is Making Netflix Pay Extra? We Don't Do That Kind Of Crap
Re: Re:
(not that they bought Nest, I know that. but how they're "thinking" of pushing ads through it... and on that note, how the hell they would accomplish pushing ads to a thermostat in the first place?)
On the post: Google Fiber: You Know How Comcast Is Making Netflix Pay Extra? We Don't Do That Kind Of Crap
Re: Re: Re: If Google REALLY wanted to jack up their efforts...
I don't think you understand exactly what Comcast and other ISPs are doing, or else you don't have a good understanding of how the Internet works.
The ISPs, strictly speaking, are not discriminating traffic going to particular services. However, in order for a Comcast customer to get to Google's datacenter, their traffic needs to pass out of Comcast's network into Google's network (or another ISP's network that connects to Google's). All traffic that leaves or enters Comcast's network needs to pass through one of these edges - all traffic, regardless of whether it is Netflix traffic, Google traffic, Bittorrent, you loading a webpage based in Uzbekistan, or your Xbox traffic to a Call of Duty server, passes through that edge from one network to another.
That edge where the traffic leaves or enters Comcast's network and goes to/from another network is where the congestion is. Here is the issue: Comcast and other ISPs have chosen to stop or slow upgrades at that edge. They are then using that congestion (that they created themselves by not managing their network in a sane manner) as an excuse to charge Netflix and other content companies for additional non-congested access points into their network. The ISPs are *already* doing something against their own best interest in allowing those points to become congested.
Next >>