Loading User Information from Channel 9

Something went wrong getting user information from Channel 9

Latest Achievement:

Loading User Information from MSDN

Something went wrong getting user information from MSDN

Visual Studio Achievements

Latest Achievement:

Loading Visual Studio Achievements

Something went wrong getting the Visual Studio Achievements


dahat dahat inanity makes my head hurt
  • Net Neutrality has a new champion

    , ScanIAm wrote


    Anyone who seriously looks at this issue knows this is how it works.  This argument is constantly being used to confuse uninformed people on the topic, and as usual, it tends to make sense if you are clueless.

    So... my statement is correct... but making it makes me look clueless? What an odd thing to say... well not as odd as what you go on to say.

    Of course some traffic requires lower latency than others.

    Did I say otherwise?

    But the traffic of two content providers of the same kind of traffic should not be allowed to be prioritized to the advantage of one and the detriment of the other.

    I don't think anyone is advocating for Amazon to be able to pay UPS to slow down the delivery of packages from Best Buy. But shouldn't they have the option for different shipping speeds depending on need? Sometimes that means lower priority parcels may not get processed as fast.

    Doesn't relate to the internet you say? You really should re-read the specs on the IPv4 packet... specifically the differentiated services field. It's almost as if the idea of prioritization was something that's been around for quite some time!

    The horror!

    You know this is the purpose of 'Net Neutrality(tm)' and yet you still make these "pipes are roads" and "bandwidth is limited" arguments.

    Sorry for seeing the bigger picture.

    If Hulu and Netflix each pay for 1 gbit connections to the network, then every client on every ISP had better get the same latency from each.  Any variation had best be due to geography and physics, not purposeful throttling.

    You assume the routes that Hulu and Netflix take in order to get to your house are the same... and that the routes do not vary depending the ISP someone is using. Spoiler: Not all of the connections between user and service are equal in capacity or utilization.

    Such an assumption is not only woefully naïve, but absolutely incorrect.

    Maybe you need to spend a little more time with tracert and less time arguing about things you don't understand?

  • Net Neutrality has a new champion

    , cbae wrote

    If you're going to use a "pipe" analogy,

    Has that rather common metaphor fallen out of favor?

    then the pipe that your ISP builds, maintains, and controls is the one that goes from your house down to the river.

    Rather simplistic with a single pipe and a single source... also leaving out the decreasing diameter of the pipe from source destination, the variable width at some destinations (residential vs industrial), fire hydrants, etc.

    Nobody owns the river.

    Never heard of riparian rights eh?

    The Internet backbone is the river in this analogy, and likewise no single company owns the Internet backbone.

    'the' Internet backbone? You realize there are multiple networks of backbones... right? And while connected at different points are what ISPs plug into one or more of?

    Your ISP already control the pipes from your house to the river and they can already throttle you and charge a premium for higher flow if they want to.

    Which is what people here don't seem to like... even though the bigger beef that most net neutrality supporters have is with explicit or implicit throttling closer to 'the' backbone where a peering agreement may no longer be effective due to unequal traversal (a common thing with video services) which means either paying more (ie a transit agreement) or suffering with a over saturated pipe.

  • Net Neutrality has a new champion

    , bondsbw wrote


    That's not levying taxes at origin and destination, that's deciding who you want to support through taxes (which is a flaw of the tax structure of our transportation system).  Completely different concepts.

    You'll note I also pointed out registration which also pays for roads (granted to a lesser degree).

    That has nothing to do with net neutrality, at all.  Even with net neutrality, the ISP is free to set up the charging structure they want against their end users.

    Re-read this thread... you'll notice I'm the only one pointing that out, something virtually every net neutrality discussion lacks... in fact some here are arguing against the possibility of a (higher) fee.

    Remember when dial-up charged per hour?  And of course, cell data charges per MB or per GB and home broadband service charges a flat rate with data caps.  All of these are completely fine under net neutrality.

    That depends on who you ask... which you actually argue against below without realizing it.

    What the ISP can't do under net neutrality is throttle, alter, or delete packets based on content within the packet or the origin of the packet.

    I'm familiar with the bumper sticker claim.

    Bandwidth is a limited resource, both how much can enter/leave your home, but also at the ISP. Unlike you, the ISP usually has multiple connections to other data networks, some bigger than others, some more heavily utilized than others. When one of those pipes gets full throttling happens.

    It is no different than if everyone on your block flushed their toilets at the same time.

    Just because the road way says the upper limit is 55 doesn't mean you'll be able to do that if there is bumper to bumper slow moving traffic.

    Like it or not, throttling is a reality, both online and off and net neutrality can do little about it... and sometimes it's even a necessity.

    If a small subset of users are using a significant portion of the available bandwidth, throttling them makes sense to ensure other customers are able to have a quality experience. It's a simply a case of prioritizing the 'needs of the many.'

    Do you want an virtually unlimited connection without any artificial throttling? You can have that today... you just have to pay for it... it's just going to cost more than most are willing to pay.

    For every torrent mad basement dweller there are a couple dozen little old ladies who have a 50mbs connection that they only use for Facebook, email and a Roku. While overkill for them, this makes the economics work out so that we can all have a pretty fast internet connection for not a lot of money (kind of like how insurance is supposed to work)... but does not automatically mean that it's cost effective to upgrade a specific pipe when it is saturated.

    Supporters of net neutrality generally ignore the costs involved in running a large scale network and discount the possibility that heavy users will see significant bills due to them having to bare the costs of their usage.

  • Net Neutrality has a new champion

    , JohnAskew wrote


    No, that is what you are doing.

    So your response is... "I know you are but what am I?

    Unfettered pipe flow is not "unequal treatment", knucklehead.

    You've repeatedly ignored the fact that there are countless other areas in life where pipes exist that you use and which have limitations on them, I am highlighting your duplicity of wanting special treatment only for one kind of pipe.

    Again I will ask: Why should the concepts that rightfully apply to every other pipe you deal with not also apply to the internet?

    Paying for greater bandwidth can be a way to eliminate competition from start ups.

    Because startups have been failing left and right solely because of the cost of bandwidth.

    Again, you keep talking hypotheticals, how about dealing in solid facts instead of feelings?

    Through collusion of Corporations, which is the norm, making the bandwidth necessary for a garage start-up so expensive that only deep pockets can afford it is what you are advocating.

    I know you've got a big hate on for the evil corporations... but it's not the corporations which granted themselves regional monopolies on various utility services... it's your elected or appointed government official who is supposed to be acting in the public-trust that did that.

    Have a beef with the state of affairs because you only have internet option? Take that up with your local government.

    You are turning a blind eye to this anti-public-trust inevitability.

    I don't even know what that means.

    You support oppression of emerging business in favor of the Goliath's. That sucks. That doesn't have to happen. The internet and it's copper or glass is not going away.

    *facepalm* such utter inanity.

  • Net Neutrality has a new champion

    , bondsbw wrote

    This analogy is flawed, as are the remainder of the posts based on it.

    Agreed, which is why I was poo pooing it.

    The one who pays for the roads is the driver of the vehicle (via gasoline tax), but in the analogy the vehicle is equivalent to the data packet.  Obviously, the data packet is not itself paying for the Internet.

    Correct, the operator of the packet/vehicle is the one who pays for it's transport.

    Inversely, if a car were like the internet, then taxes would be levied at the origin and destination of the drive.

    They are actually for any distance driving. I've driven through Idaho plenty along I-90 and have never once fueling up there and with a vehicle registered out of state.

    Speed limits on the road are provided for safety.  There is nothing inherently dangerous about streaming at 100 Gbps versus 1 Mbps, so I don't see how this even compares at all.

    The excuse is safety, however the lack of uniformity and even arbitrariness says otherwise.

    Why is it when driving from South Dakota into Minnesota along I-90 the speed limit goes from 75 to 70? Is the stretch of I-90 in Minnesota that much more dangerous?

    Why is it that when crossing from Idaho to Utah along I-84 I suddenly get to go from 75 to 80 MPH?

    I pine for the German system where there are stretches where you can open it up... just so long as you do so safely.

    You are right though... there is nothing inherently unsafe about higher speed data transfers (other than perhaps reliability and cost)... my point again was pointing out the poor example used.

    , cbae wrote

    @bondsbw: Well, if you wanted to try using a car analogy, it'd be like charging toll on I-5 and adding a surcharge for those cars that are heading home from Disneyland.

    That'd probably depend on the traffic at that exit or section of road way... something we already have an analog to today... congestion pricing.

    Here in Washington it costs a driver more to drive over the tolled 520 bridge to Seattle than it does during non-peak times... just as a bus riders pay more during peak time than not.

    During peak times electricity costs more... (land line) long distance calls, cell phone minutes... odd how so many things react to peak demand and yet this one area we expect to be nearly free and unlimited.

  • Net Neutrality has a new champion

    , JohnAskew wrote

    @dahat: There you go making something simple into something complex.

    That's the thing... it's not a simple thing. In theory it is, in practice it is very complex and you've not considered the implications of what you are advocating for.

    Monetizing the pipe will screw garage-born innovation and start-ups, completely monopolize the internet. You're asking for Corporations to dictate traffic and that's just wrong, Corporations cannot be trusted with something as ubiquitous as the internet and the flow of digital data.

    Yet we trust corporations to handle our power, water, sewer, trash, package delivery, etc. Sure, some places have such utilities run by the government (ditto for internet), your corporate hatred is blinding you from seeing that you are advocating for unequal treatment of a pipe which is not as dissimilar to plenty of others that are already monetized and that you pay for today.

    I look at the internet like a public school or library. You don't charge for admittance, only for late fees. The internet should be an open forum, not the exclusive playground of the well off. Those in favor of 'classes of internet access' are oppressors of competition, start-ups, and the poor.

    Again, nice in theory... hard in practice.

    Who pays for a public school or library? The public... via direct or indirect taxes... so the reason for it being open is pretty clear.

    Who pays for fiber to be buried and cable connections to your home? In general... it's not taxes that do it (except for the small fraction who benefit from the Universal Service Fund).

    You can make the argument of costs here, costs there,

    Which you keep brushing off... so what? They just don't exist? They are unimportant?

    but the philosophy is what is at stake and the philosophy is either 1) open, inclusive to all, or 2) monetized for profit and exclusive to those who can pay for the quick responses that a garage start-up will always need in order to succeed.

    Call me crazy... but the internet has been working well for quite sometime... and under principals similar to what you describe. There was a time when only the well to do and connected (usually at universities) could get access to the internet... now most ISPs have programs which will hook up poor students for less than the service costs.

    If you want to gripe about the existing system and how your alternative system is so much better... fine, at least be specific with specific and real gripes and how your system would fix it... and not end up in a VA like mess which is killing people and at a inflated cost.

  • No MSDN renew with media option

    What about creating a bootable USB drive when needed and copying the contents of the ISO you want to load to a PC?

    I honestly do not recall the last time I burned any optical media... all of my backups are either on hard drives on a shelf at home (just incase of a NAS failure), a shelf at work (offsite) or in the cloud (really offsite)... for PC installs I've been using a thumb drive for... 5+ years now.

  • Net Neutrality has a new champion

    , JohnAskew wrote

    It damned simple. Stop monetizing the flow of digital information.


    Any chance you were the kid in this old Lotus ad? Your argument sounds similarly simple:

    Just like highways.

    You mean the roads which have toll roads from time to time and a large number of cross streets that slow you down? I prefer freeways for my distance driving... but even then there are costs involved: larger passenger vehicles cost more to license for road use than smaller ones, semi-trucks and commercial vehicles pay even more... and are inspected multiple times along the way. Never mind the speed limits which keep a driver from saving time when the roads are clean and visibility is good.

    Anyone thinking it's not this simple is prying open the Capitalist Pandora's Box of Profit Modeling and they are already swimming in the wrong lake.

    Or... many over simplify the issue without considering the implications of such a system.

    Why does anyone want to make this complex? Just stop monetizing the pipe. Send your data and be quiet.

    And who do you expect to pay for improvements and expansion to the pipe? With the exception of private roadways (of which there is a surprising number here in Washington state), no vehicle drives on a public roadway for free... the taxes on fuel & registration pay for those roads.

    Who pays for network access? Oh right... the end users... and some pay more depending on their usage... just like cars. Drive a lot? You are going to pay more in fuel taxes. Send/receive a lot of data... maybe you should pay more per month than the 80 year old woman who only sends email and does light Facebooking.

    , phreaks wrote


    I am pretty much in agreement here. 

    Why should any packets cost more than any other packets. It's foolish. The ideal is probably well intended, but the implementation will have various degrees of unintended consequences.

    Absolutely right! Why can't I have the same kind of cheap bandwidth and a cap in the hundreds of gigabytes with my cell phone that I do over my cable modem? Why should anyone have to pay more based on the transport layer to send their packet... it gets there in the end? Right? Just like there is no difference between USPS & FedEx.

    There is no uniform cost of getting from point A to point B... different providers be they postal, person/object transport or telecom have their own variable costs... even over the same route... and most of those pushing hard for net neutrality tend to ignore than fact.

  • Can you do a completely private lob app on WP?

    If you are just dealing with a phone or two, side loading a custom app with a dev unlocked phone would work... but if you have any desire to scale or update the app easily later it's a bit harder.

    You should look into what InTune offers for device management and private app deployment: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dn600287.aspx

  • Net Neutrality has a new champion

    All of this celebration may be a bit premature as it seems the FCC chairman (an Obama appointee no less) doesn't quite agree with this stance: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/11/11/the-fcc-weighs-breaking-with-obama-over-the-future-of-the-internet/

    I guess this means that 'new champion' is synonymous with 'influenceless lame duck' in this context.