Given that Netflix tends to aggravate their upstream costs, which are ALWAYS metered, perhaps there's some measure of fairness in it. Even when it comes to shipping physical things, there's some give and take involved. Sometimes, the buyer pays the shipping; other times the supplier eats the costs. Perhaps the next question to ask is whether or not the amount the customer pays between the ISP and Netflix is sufficient to fund all the upstream costs. If it's not sufficient, then the ISP probably has a case to ask for compensation from either end. It's something that has to be hashed out between all parties involved, just as bulk shippers need to cut deals with transport companies.
4212 posts • joined 10 Jun 2009
Re: Even the story doesn't seem to make sense.
But what about all the TRAFFIC this thing will generate? Who foots the bill for all the upstream usage?
So who foots the bill for all the upstream traffic these things generate when Netflix keeps updating content, according to the article?
Re: ISP level caches are surely one of the first things
I think what he was saying is that Netflix won't accept caches due to the copyrights (the owners won't allow stuff in the clear for fear of MITM piracy). The only way is Netflix-controlled servers on site on the ISP's dollar.
Re: Yes, actually, carriers WILL love it
Followed by more complaints hitting the public airwaves and a possible public outcry over unfair billing. Perhaps even offers by competitors to defect.
That said, I will say that the carriers are up against a ceiling here; there's only so much they can send on their little slice of bandwidth, so there will be a breaking point at some point where the carriers either raise the fees universally or start dropping off as the business model becomes less viable.
Re: why not
And if the conversion steps go bad?
Whatever happened to Keep It Simple, Stupid?
Re: More ports is still the wrong answer
So you'd rather have multiple sets of sewage pipes, gas lines, electrical trees, and so on?
Some monopolies come naturally not because of government regulation but because of aesthetics. Sewage, water, electricity, gas, and many other utilities tend to require lots of big, UGLY infrastructure to operate, and this raises NIMBY issues.
Re: Monopoly = Artificial Scarcity
It depends on the industry. When it comes to water, sewage, electricity, etc. Multiple providers are a problem because the infrastructure is an eyesore, leading to NIMBY issues. But most communication infrastructure isn't such an eyesore, to the point that two more more sets won't be so ugly.
The problem in this case is that utilities have a very high upfront cost (as in you have to put in all the money to lay down your basic infrastructure before you see one penny of return), making it a barrier of entry that favors incumbents who ALREADY have their infrastructure down (their upfront costs are already sunk).
View it another way, and you see the problem is a case of vertical integration. The incumbents own both the content and the means to distribute it (think rail companies that owned mines and timber forests in the past). Perhaps the most reasonable solution is to force a breakup of this integration. If the content and the transport were forced to operate separately, with the transport required to be an open and equal provider, then newcomers can lease time from the transport to get a foot in the door. That's why MVNOs work: they lease abilities from the big guys and compete by serving customers the mainstream doesn't prefer like the price-conscious.
PS. I think I should note: Verizon doesn't seem to allow MVNOs on its network. Sprint does (Boost, Virgin), as does T-Mobile (SimpleMobile, Family Mobile). AT&T seems to, but there seems to be a catch there as none of the MVNOs are able to undercut AT&T on price.
And others outright kick you out because they've installed ad-blocker-blockers. And most of them that do host exclusive content, so it's either bend over or go without.
"Its puzzled me for years why we still work all the time with all the automation compared to 100 or even 50 years ago."
It's a combination of the cost of living going up and the value of human labor going down. Kinda like running up the slope of a downhill-running treadmill. You have to work your tush off just to maintain.
Re: I suppose
The thing is, it's reaching the point where they don't NEED to hide it anymore. The government is such that no sense of privacy is increasingly the norm, and if you don't like it, you probably won't be doing much good anymore. IOW, by this point, the spooks don't care because they're EVERYWHERE.
Re: Linux and FreeBSD malware spreading?
By using PHP, which could be on the server as part of a LAMP setup. It tests to see if the server can take in files via Remote File Inclusion (the Google file mentioned is just the test). If it works, it uses RFI to insert a PHP plugin, which then gets added to the web server and given the server's permissions (not that it really matters if the plugin contains a privilege escalation).
Re: It's all about mitigation
"The thing I don't understand is that if they hard coded 22.214.171.124 as the DNS for finding humans.txt couldn't you just set the hosts file to redirect it as a temporary workaround?"
Doesn't it work the other way around, translating a DNS name to a number? Which means 126.96.36.199 or any other direct IPv4 address gets addressed directly? That's how some ad-blockers work: by assigning 127.0.0.1 (localhost) to all the ad-spewing domain names.
Re: Third time lucky ... @Charles9
Ummm.... I'm NOT. I'm trying to put forth a true conundrum for the flat-earthers: one that can be reproduced by normal people (puncuring the conspiracy theories) and TTBOMK is infeasible on a flat earth.
Re: Third time lucky ...
Has anyone told the flat-earthers of the following experiment?
- Fly around the world TWICE, at right angles to each other (once to the west, once to the south). Start from say Nairobi, Kenya (which is practically on the Equator). The two paths should cross exactly once other than in Nairobi, and on a globe that point can be predicted. It will also be exactly halfway. I tried plotting it out on a plate and found I could not achieve the halfway bit on a flat surface without twists and turns and should be noticeable on a plane because the normal procedure for a turn is to roll AND yaw (meaning to not notice the turn would require a magical force that can turn you without you noticing it, not even with your biological gyroscopes). Then there's the matter of the TWO pole flyovers on the southbound trip, one of which occurs AFTER the intersection (which on a flat earth would require going INSIDE the first flight path, preventing access to the edge).
Re: I know, lets stop breathing
I'll stop as soon as all the other animals on the planet stop breathing, too.
Re: The Butterfly effect.
How confident is NASA that their historical data is as accurate as their current data and that either set of data is not misread or miscalibrated in some way. The article you cite does not describe HOW they come to their findings (the specific sources of all their data). Did they take oceanic CO2 concentrations into consideration or the idea that melting ice could itself release CO2?
As for the Tacoma-Narrows bridge collapse, we know more now than we knew then. The phenomenon isn't as complicated as you make it out to be. We know describe the phenomenon as "flutter". After an airliner broke up mid-flight due to flutter, we learned more about natural metal flexibility when exposed to steady wind and how this flex can somehow oscillate in a resonant frequency resulting in accelerated metal fatigue. We now design things so as to increase bracing at key points to as to prevent flutter (modern airliners and the replacement Tacoma-Narrows Bridge are both built sturdier to prevent another incident of flutter).
Re: now hope for some volcanoes
"Wrong. Humans produce about 5% of the annual CO2 emisions into the atmosphere."
And that's one reason we can't agree. One side says the contribution is immense (over 50%) while the other says it's insignificant (only 5%), and BOTH sides cite evidence and claim their percentage as fact. How is this possible?
I don't because if that were true, a graph of actual temperatures would be flat or downward-sloping AND would be consistent throughout the world. Last I checked, neither is the case. It's still going up, just more slowly.
Re: On the gripping hand..
"We are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. In huge amounts. This is not something that's in doubt, we are burning stuff and producing CO2."
I have to ask. Is it really, REALLY that huge compared to natural phenomenon such as spontaneous fires and animal respiration? Can someone produce some concrete numbers that compare 150 years of human combustion to natural sources? And what about counter-reactions like photosynthesis? Wouldn't increased CO2 be offset by increased plant activity? Why is the CO2 such that plants, diatoms, and such can't keep up?
Re: debate settler?
Speaking of which, I once heard of a port town (in Greece, I think) that's no longer a port town because the water's moved several kilometers away. I've never seen a debate over how that happened or even the name of the place. Could someone perhaps elaborate?
Re: CO2 off the scale...
How? The sensors IIRC are all at the head of the rocket while all the exhaust would be shooting out the tail and away from the rocket.
I don't know how close to accurate most of those claims are, but I suspect the "tile-based" part is entirely accurate. From what I recall of my Dreamcast days, this was a specialty of the PowerVR GPU line.
Re: Old News
And noted the risk could be mitigated with good star charts (to know where the stars were) and a small ship (to minimize occlusion). I think he put them all together in Gray Lensman and introduced a second one in Second Stage Lensman.
Re: If I coat my car with this...
Haven't most PDs switched to LIDAR by this point? Which would make this useless since they tend to aim for your plate (which by law MUST be visible AND reflective) and only need a short burst, usually around a blind curve or over a hilltop, to get a speed reading?
If you're running a 16-bit control app, chances are it's running direct hardware (to the metal) code: one of the types of code you CAN'T virtualize because it's a proprietary interface no one else knows about. A few months back, a few of us were having a discussion about a lathe or some other CnC machine that relied on Windows XP (at the time IT went EOL) and couldn't use anything else because of the proprietary hardware driver that ONLY worked on XP (it was an ISA board IIRC). Since the machine was still in its amortization and the firm was facing stiff competition with razor-thin margins, it was basically chance it or fold.
Re: The problem is......
No, the REAL real problem is having BOTH issues at the same time. Imagine being FORCED to upgrade to an OS where you KNOW your mission-critical, unupgradeable custom software is going to fall flat on its face. Better hope the IT has enough in the budget for a new custom job or the entire company could be hosed.
As I thought. Which means, as far as I'm concerned, they're NOT true quantum computers.
Has anyone verified that these things actually ARE quantum computers by, say, running Shor's Algorithm on them in sufficiently-high bit counts?
Re: Just Because I'm Paranoid The Inevitable Conclusion
The Man would just reply, "It ain't paranoia if everybody REALLY IS out to get you." As far as they're concerned, one man can destroy civilization out of nowhere, meaning EVERYONE's a potential existential threat. And it's against instinct to accept existential threats.
Bet you the MIB are becoming just as good at FILTERING the noise. Plus they know the Internet only works efficiently when the routes are open. Otherwise, you end up like Freenet, where things take forever to get done. Efficient or anonymous--pick ONE.
For the average Joe, when you say a key, they expect a PHYSICAL key, like a dedicated fob (although those can be STOLEN).
The problem is that to make the system as intuitive as possible for as many people as possible, you can't make them come to you. You'll have to go to them, which means integrating with third-party e-mail clients. Now, Thunderbird has an add-on mechanism, but what about Outlook?
Then there's the matter of being rooted outside the e-mail program. Then the malware can control the encryptor, meaning you're hosed in any event.
Re: Presumably . . .
I assume sabotage rounds are no longer so useful in modern conflicts because (1) the enemy probably has its own ammunition supply chain, and (2) the increased likelihood of armed civilians meaning a civilian might get one of the sabotage rounds.
Re: DARPA: The Better To Murder You With, My Dear
But the excuse is that precision guidance to this point has generally been with decently big things: things that can easily hit more than one thing at once or cause enough collateral damage that innocents can get caught up in it. They're precision guided but NOT for the most part precision effect. Now, a .50 cal round is tiny enough that you CAN get a precision effect. It's HERE that your trope would apply barring a case of mistaken identity.
Then the solution for a malcontent is to use one of two things: more power or better direction. With enough power (regulations be damned) you can hit the thing across the room. It's also possible to use a WiFi directional antenna that focuses the directed energy, allowing for a longer range albeit at a narrower angle.
That's always been the fear with NFC. Sure, the spec only provides enough power for a point-blank shot, but what malcontent's going to stick with the standard, and how will the NFC device be able to tell the difference on its end?
Re: I wonder how they got this information?
You're saying they're not vetted thoroughly before being hired?
Re: Gel implant bras
I know a better solution, mentioned it years ago: the dildo bomb. A woman can smuggle two of them: perfect for a binary explosive, and since they're INSIDE the woman, nothing short of a full-on strip search would pick it up. And one huge final advantage: they're removable.
The checks are INCOMING, not OUTGOING. They're being made on flights TO the US.
Re: a Nevada judge
A judgment in Redmond would not affect the operations of No-IP, which is based in Nevada.
Re: Have I understood this correctly?
"Another poster mentioned (can't remember if it was here, probably not) that in North Korea, the security forces have been known to shut the power off in an entire building before doing physical searches, just to check out what DVDs are locked inside people's players."
Did they remember to outlaw the use of top-loading players which can still be opened with the lights out? Or front-loaders with the paper-clip manual opening hole?
Re: Use spotify myself
Here's the thing. What if Spotify goes titsup? Temporarily or otherwise? The big problem with DRM is trying to deal with the possibility that the Right Manager no longer exists.
Well, according to the company, they're only a couple steps away. Inking agreements with chip makers means they're close to the manufacturing stage.
I'm personally curious about long-term static longevity issues. Consumer backup technology is currently standing a touch precariously, as I've had unusual experiences with spinning rust and finnicky controllers.
If the tech is about to hit the streets, bully. For once, an article about technology we'll soon be able to actually use. At the very least, we'll be able to see some concrete numbers.
Don't mix your Ghost in the Shell with your Metal Gear. In Ghost in the Shell it's known as thermoptic camouflage because it also conceals heat. Octocam IIRC is the Metal Gear counterpart.
The problem is that formal verification only works for a very narrow implementation. Break the environmental conditions in any way and you lose the assurance of that formal verification. And as of yet, I haven't seen a formal verification of any program in a real-world networked environment.
Re: In the home arena...
Problem is, that's the foolproof fallacy, and I'm sure most of us can refer to a quote by Douglas Adams concerning "the ingenuity of complete fools". And remember, some people have trouble remembering passwords (some have trouble with PINs). The big issue is that a computer, sitting inside someone's domicile, cannot be licensed (unlike a car that has to drive on public roads). There's no way to reliable ensure that the person sitting at the computer at any given time is actually competent enough to use it correctly.
Re: No they haven't
"No-one will ever accept their supplies to be owned like their entertainment device is .."
And if they don't have a choice...?
And they have justification. ANYTHING that a human interacts with can be subject to human error. ANY such legislation will have the manufacturers crying foul over being held liable for other people's faults. And it can be hard to tell the difference between a genuine fault and a PEBKAC, and you need to know which so as to point the blame (and the bill).
Re: Antisocial people
I put it this way: whereas most people live on food and water, some can only survive on schadenfreude. They're not happy unless everyone else is miserable.
Re: Free Software is a requirement
That's impossible. Many of the IoT items have trade secrets attached to them, usually protected by patents. Free software can do sod all against trade secrets OR patents (this is one of the big stumbling blocks concerning Linux and Android device support). Unless someone is altruistic enough to design an IoT item AND release the specs to the public (and you can forget about the law forcing them--these kinds of people would just move out), everything's going to be locked up tighter than a miser's purse. AND YOU WILL LOVE IT, TOO (if you value your life).