496 posts • joined 26 Jun 2009
Routing in "the cloud"
In this case, "the cloud" is going to have to be "the ISP edge router", which is a bigger stretch of that phrase than I've seen before. Moving DNS, DHCP and VoIP services to remote servers, I can certainly understand - probably half of us have already done that ourselves, with the likes of OpenDNS, hosted Asterisk services etc.
Performing NAT on all the traffic at the ISP level rather than the customer router seems silly at first glance, but once you forget the "cloud" nonsense, it makes a bit more sense in the era of "carrier grade" NAT. Instead of us all NATting our own /24 onto a single IP address, then the ISP NATting that a second time, the ISP could subdivide 10/8 into a /24 for each of 65k customers and have a single level of NAT, avoiding all the usual "double NAT" problems. (Or they could enter the 21st century and finally roll out IPv6...)
Re: On porn?
I think there are quite a few adult Twitter accounts out there (I've seen a few) which might post that sort of stuff. Definitely not something I'd want popping up on anything you have family connected to you on, though...
All agreed what the problem is...
Really, Netflix and Verizon are in complete agreement that the bottleneck is the bit shown in red - the question is, which of them is preventing that link being upgraded to handle more traffic?
Somewhere behind the scenes, there will have been a communication between Verizon and Netflix's transit provider (Level3?) along these lines: "Hey, this gigabit link between this port of ours and that port of yours is getting busy, can we (plug in a second gigabit|replace it with a ten-gigabit one?" (Probably with higher bandwidths and/or more links than that, but the idea is the same.)
It seems Verizon said something like "we'll charge you $x for upgrading that link", and whatever $x was, the other party thought was too much. Verizon are trying to justify that by saying "ah, but there's 3 times as much traffic coming to us as going out, so we won't do it for free like we would if the traffic were 50-50".
Apart from the 3:1 peak-time traffic ratio, though, the diagram adds nothing to the debate: we all knew it was the transit link between Verizon and Netflix's upstream provider that was the bottleneck, and that one or other end of that link was refusing to upgrade - we just don't know the details of why yet.
Re: Feminists are angry...
"To Mr Cook - may you not see a clit ever again."
Well, since he's not into women, that seems unlikely to bother him in the slightest... He wasn't just at the *gay* pride parade to show support for *other* people being gay!
Re: not round here
A long run of copper between you and the exchange is actually perfectly normal - indeed, better than some people are stuck with: back before privatisation the GPO was using aluminium for a while.
The key thing, though, is that the copper will go from you to a very close DP (distribution point: in blocks of flats and similar, a little grey box on the wall somewhere), then almost always from that to a PCP (Primary Connection Point, usually a green cabinet on the pavement) and on back to the exchange. BT's "Infinity" connects a piece of fibre at that PCP level, which is much closer to people than the exchange.
Until FTTC, *every* line was copper 'all the way to the exchange', unless you were unlucky enough to have 70s cheapskate aluminium instead! (Or, in a few unlucky cases, you shared that piece of copper with someone else thanks to DACS, a 'pair gain' system.)
Performance did drop after Sky usurped and sabotaged the Be/O2 network - a great shame. The static IP address didn't stay the same, or even stick to the one Sky notified me of beforehand! More irritatingly, they've so far failed to hand over VAT receipts (as required by law), though they seem to be willing to comply eventually.
Off to TalkTalk Business later this month (not my choice!) - no idea how that'll go yet. At least I'm only there half a day each week...
Re: Knox sucks, BB is worse
I've used all three, for a mix of personal use and supporting business use. I knew the writing was on the wall when I saw staff being offered "BB on expenses, or buy your own iPhone" - and they were paying the full handset cost themselves rather than use a BB. Later, we got official support for other platforms; I remember the e-mail service manager (a die-hard BB fan IIRC) giving the rest of the computing people an internal presentation on the new architecture, which amounted to "BB email goes through the BES on the left; other devices go through the box on the right. They do the same job, but the one on the left costs us more."
Personally, I hated the keyboard and UI on the BB; clicking up and down through menus felt very much like being thrust back into DOS when a Windows 9x machine went wonky (and this, for an ex-Solaris admin who prefers LaTeX to Word!) There are things that grate on me in Android and iOS too, of course, but I'd take either of them in a heartbeat over a BB.
I haven't seen Knox yet, though (I'm tempted by a Galaxy S5 next, at least on paper): I've heard a few horror stories about it bombarding the user with false alarms, but I hope there's a way to deal with that!
I'm all in favour of taking down spammers and botnets - but when Microsoft can use that as a pretext for seizing a third party's domain name, just because another third party happens to be their customer?! Something's very, very wrong there.
Time someone put a botnet C&C on Azure, to see Microsoft's whole cloud taken offline for a few days on the same basis. After all, they don't get special treatment compared to other service providers ... right?
Amazon has had a burstable CPU offering for years now, with their smallest VM size offering. I had one for a while - it was great for some sporadically-used web applications, but as soon as I ran anything intensive for more than a few seconds the performance tanked. (IIRC you could burst up to two cores, but only average about 15% of a core - so after a minute, you were throttled quite brutally.)
Since most systems don't have a consistent load profile, it makes a lot of sense for a lot of users in theory. The new T2 options sound good: from the blog post description, it's much less abrupt throttling than t1.micro, which should make it much more flexible. (On t1.micro, batch jobs running slowly was fine, but a big surge in web usage could also hit the limit; on a t2.micro, it would just eat up some CPU credits instead.)
Looks good, I might give this a try myself soon.
25 and 50?
Odd speed points to aim at - I'd have liked to see a cheaper 10G option, then you could have a quad-10G link to give a more cost-effective 40G option as well. That would fit in better with the current speed points (10/40/100) - though I suppose something like "same cost as 10G, but 2.5x faster" isn't a bad offering either.
From what I've read about some of the 100G Ethernet ports, they can be four 25G links bonded together internally: does that make it easier for this group to repurpose existing 25G components into something more cost-effective than 10G ones?
It's a shame Ethernet doesn't seem to be following its old pattern. I remember 10M hubs, with switches being pricey server-room kit; the move to 100M, then to 1G, with each of them becoming affordable enough to wipe out the previous speed point after a few years, so motherboards could come with a 1G port (or two) as standard for a trivial price. Why is 10G still so expensive, a decade after we could buy a gigabit switch for small change?
At first glance, it does seem bizarre - free-to-air channels actually pay money to broadcast their signals to people - but then they try to charge third parties extra for doing that for free? The law seems against them though: if US cable companies have to pay a fee to do this, there's really no reason Aereo shouldn't. ('Lots of tiny virtualised aerials carrying the same signal down the same pipe' versus 'single shared aerial' is something I'd expect any judge to chuck out as hair-splitting, as it seems SCOTUS did here.) The fact they were actually converting and processing the signals, not just relaying them, can't have helped their case either.
It's a shame: I'd rather like to see a service like that flourish - but right now, the law doesn't allow it without paying extra.
The Toughbook hardened laptops seem a great product for that engineer task - I have a feeling that's what the last Openreach guy used to download the excuse of the day from the hive mind. Like you say, just the thing for lugging down manholes, balancing while you re-patch the street cabinet etc.
Personally, I rather like the IP67 feature on the Galaxy S5 (in fact, I bought a waterproof 'Lifeproof' case for my current iPhone). I remember getting worried last December, caught in a heavy Scottish downpour (heavy enough that even under my raincoat my clothes were soaked through) - the phone got a lot wetter than I would like, not to mention the fact I wanted to be able to use it at several points but was too worried about getting it even wetter.
A nice hard-wearing water-resistant tablet would be nice ... but a small Windows one? No thanks. Now, an IP67+ Nexus 7/10?
Since the judge is attempting to censor my search results here in the UK, where he has as much authority as I have over matters in Canada, I hereby order that the court order be shredded and expunged from the Internet globally.
It's a dangerous precedent indeed: I hope the judge gets slapped down hard with a map explaining that his authority extends no further than Canada's borders and that what appears on, say, Google.co.uk for users in the UK is precisely none of his court's business whatsoever.
(I'm alarmed enough at the idea of gagging third parties to obstruct the business of someone claimed to be infringing IP, though I know that's long been the case with DMCA; if the court is unable or unwilling to enforce its ruling on the actual infringer, perhaps that's because the case is in the wrong court in the first place? Go after the infringer, wherever that may be, don't go gagging other people instead because real work is too inconvenient.)
It's a pain - having recently been asked about buying some Office seats, I started digging into the options.
One company was selling "3 license packs" of Office 2013. That would do fine, two of those will cover this small business! Except it seems that's actually a single-user 3-PC pack, dishonestly labelled by the seller.
So, we need to buy separate licenses. (There are genuine multi-license packs, but those are for bigger companies it seems.) Pro? Business? Muggle? With or without cherry on top? A dozen different permutations from different companies at different prices - why, when the "product" is essentially a password from Microsoft giving us permission to use their software?
MS would actually be doing us all a huge favour if they simply deleted the whole "reseller" concept for retail software. Stick it all online, guarantee (like some hotels do) the official store has the best prices (easy to do: charge all customers the same per seat, whether reselling or not). It may be different for "corporate" purchases with hand-holding, but when the entire "value added" consists of stuffing a DVD in a Jiffy bag, there is something wrong.
We ended up with two seats of Office 365 (direct from MS) and two copies of Office Home+Business (from somewhere on Amazon), IIRC.
A few years ago now, my office line was cut off by mistake. (I'd asked for a tariff change, moving from one BT Business package to another, a few days later the line went dead. BT Faults said 'but you requested ... oh. Whoops. That shouldn't have happened. You'll have to order a new phoneline now.')
After weeks of messing around - apparently, reactivating the line somehow required an engineer visit, they thought, and the engineer got sent to the wrong address the first time - I dug around and got hold of someone sufficiently clued-up and connected that he just phoned through an urgent re-patch to the exchange building (fortunately, it's also the local Openreach office, so easy for him to get someone) and the line was live again in minutes.
Then I had a fault on my home FTTC line - which took SIX Openreach visits before another bit of BT eventually tracked it to a faulty backbone linecard. That whole finger-pointing mess was getting ridiculous: at one point, I had a BT Wholesale manager phoning the Openreach guy, then setting up a three-way conference call, just to figure out how to get the paperwork done!
"OK the headphones were plugged into the laptop, and the laptop was plugged into... what?"
AFAICS it said she was wearing headphones and holding a laptop, but not that the headphones were plugged into the laptop: if they'd been plugged into her phone/MP3 player at the time, that would explain it all. The laptop would probably act as a convenient earth at her lap - current flowing between lap and ears would be a pretty bad arrangement medically.
Having said that, fake/dodgy chargers are not a USB only problem: I've seen some very nasty cheap laptop power supplies which could easily zap someone into an early grave if they're unlucky - and of course they're designed to deliver much more power than USB ones, which probably makes it even riskier for the user when things go wrong.
I've had some minor shocks when using two laptops at once - one Apple, one Dell, both plugged in to bona fide OEM chargers. Same result when touching a phone charging from the Apple USB ports, so I suspect it's just earthing current coming from the Dell - not nice, whatever the case.
Re: Yeah right ....
Note the wording ... cannot COMPEL ... but can ask nicely and pay them to do it?
On an international level there's probably something like the Vodafone arrangement The Reg featured recently: Verizon, AT&T etc getting paid by the US to keep a tap in place on the backbone links. No German law or German company involved there anyway.
So, for traffic staying within Germany ... does it just happen to pass through a US military base/embassy/consulate/other? So, Verizon Germany isn't actually tapping anything itself ... just looking the other way while someone else does it in a back room somewhere. (It's even plausibly deniable: of course that big US base needs a 10G DWDM connection ... and of course you do that by routing the backbone DWDM ring through their comms room, via an ADM that splits out their 10G lambda - whoops, what's that? It happens to be splitting out all the other backbone traffic too? I wonder how that happened...)
I've been a customer of constituent bits of Daisy twice in the past: Nildram/Pipex, and MurphX the wholesale LLU ADSL operator (via Vivaciti). They were perfectly good at the time, but I'm not sure about the current state: @Mintyboy's tale of AUP disputes doesn't inspire confidence. Yet another "unlimited" which actually means the limit's secret until you hit it!
Rather absurdly, the pages themselves are allowed to stay unmolested - it's just Google's index of pages which must - potentially - be mutilated to comply with Euro-demands.
I'm not a big fan of Google, but I can't find any room for sympathy with demands to change their index, whether for copyright reasons or "privacy rights": if there is an article on The Reg about Bill Gates molesting sheep, or there's a copy of Windows 8 at example.com/warez/win8.iso, why on earth should Google be compelled to keep quiet about that fact? Taking down the actual page/file, fine - but I object on principle to editing the index to pretend the content isn't there when it is.
Lousy broadband indeed
My office line is with Sky right now (since they bought Be and moved the line over) - it's junk. The line itself is fine, as the preceding years of good service from Be proved, but Sky are hopeless. Hence I have a piece of paper with the MAC for leaving them on it. Why on earth Sky went and bought a perfectly good ISP, just to wreck it and lose the customers, I don't know.
(I really didn't want to leave Be before the switchover, because FTTC became available just weeks later: moving to another ADSL ISP for the intervening weeks would have been a pain.)
That said, Virgin are hardly wonderful ISPs: no static IPs, still no IPv6, and they went along with Cameron/Perry's braindead filter nonsense much too eagerly.
I'll stick with a proper ISP thanks. A shame, a proper ISP using cable connections could actually offer a really good service!
Re: 90 iops is high?
If it's 30 IOPS per gigabyte, that's something like a 1Tb 30,000 IOPS drive; a quick glance at an 'enterprise' SSD catalogue shows me things like Intel's S3500 and S3700 drives at 800 Gb and 75,000 IOPS, so RAID10 and a bit of overhead would fit pretty closely for that.
Yes, a single 7200rpm drive can match the request rate of a 3Gb slice of that SSD, but your 50 or 100 Gb chunk won't be a dedicated drive of your own: you'll be sharing that capacity with a dozen other virtual machines, so if they all hit the disk too you'd be lucky to get 5 IOPS average.
Satisfied customer here
I've had a Linode with them since they came with 64 Mb of RAM as the starting point, and never had any complaints - over the course of a decade, that's pretty impressive. Great performance, reliability and pricing too. Not to mention IPv6 and a neat control panel.
Horses for courses
Of course there are some tasks where it's a real choice: bug tracking systems, version control etc - but I suspect for a lot of use cases one or the other has obvious failings. Sensitive internal data might not even be *allowed* out of the building; anything needing high bandwidth (video content, for example) would get painfully expensive on EC2, the extra latency could be a killer for anything interactive.
Conversely, there's licensing. If we needed occasional use of some big expensive package, the per-hour pricing could be a godsend. At my previous place, we had a big hefty Oracle setup for running the monthly payroll, complete with hefty licensing costs: just cranking up an Amazon RDS Oracle instance when needed could have saved a fortune on that workload. (When I left, it was still running in on-site VMWare nodes - which cost a fortune. Of course, any changes to that particular workload were to be approached with extreme caution, getting paid being rather important to us all...)
The downlink end seems quite easy, particularly if you can do satellite-satellite links - Iridium manages global coverage with, apparently, two pairs of stations, all in the US.
The tricky bit I suspect is getting approval for the actual user handsets/modems on the ground. The licenses companies like Three and Vodafone pay don't just cover the company's own base stations, but the use of handsets to connect to them - so, using and selling Google Satellite devices in North Korea would require permission from Kim Jong Il's gang. (Or some way to avoid the need for it: being in an embassy, perhaps, or a black-market deal.)
I'd love to see truly global Net coverage with decent, uncensored service - but I think that's still quite a way off. Iridium has global voice coverage, but truly lousy data service (1800 ms latency at about 2.8 kbps!) - easy to improve on that significantly, but even now, Iridium isn't truly global: it's barred in North Korea, northern Sri Lanka - and, for some strange reason, Poland.
Re: Regretable? Come on, isn't this just imperialism
The whole reason for all those IP addresses being spare in Africa and South America is a combination of (a) a more equitable distribution of address space than demand would justify, and (b) a lack of demand for such infrastructure in those places. Putting infrastructure there, where it isn't needed, instead of in places where it is actually needed, would be absurd. If you were right that IPv4 allocation was somehow biased *against* these places, why are they the ones left with so much more than they need when others are running out?!
I have rather less sympathy for MS here when they still haven't enabled IPv6 on Azure, though. Comcast - the biggest cable ISP on earth IIRC - has finally enabled it for their customers, a few of the more forward-looking hosting companies are even offering IPv6-only hosting now (at a slightly lower price than dual stack, since it avoids consuming scarce IPv4 space).
I don't think you can say IPv6 is "rejected" - it's just there's still a lot of foot-dragging and excuse-making. I know some of the dimmer ISPs are trying to push CGNAT now, but I expect and hope that won't get them very far: they will need to bite the bullet and join their brighter rivals in offering dual-stack services sooner or later.
"Human operators aren't there to make the train go, they're their to make it stop and coordinate the activities of first responders in the event of an accident."
In a major accident, they're probably impersonating a large deposit of strawberry jam already. That's why they're all clearly labelled with Hazchem markings or similar. For example, petrol's '3YE' tells any firefighters responding that they must use foam or dry extinguisher, it's an explosive/violently combustible chemical, use breathing apparatus and evacuate the area. No need to interrogate squished meatbags.
(I remember being quite disturbed after a Virgin train derailed in the UK, then Richard Branson popped up on TV talking about how the driver "tried to steer the train to safety". If that's his level of railway knowledge, no wonder they lost the franchise...)
Re: Solving telemarketers
We need two further steps. 1, prohibit use of CLID-suppression by non-residential lines (or better, have a per-use charge for it: probably 10p or so would be enough to stop abuse by telemarketers without impacting home users). 2. Enforce the existing requirement for networks to allow subscribers to block anonymous calls, and require it to be a non-charged option (better still, make it a free yes/no choice on new lines: "Would you like to accept anonymous incoming calls (Y/N)?" Enough people say 'no' to that, end of telemarketers.
I'd like to see a short code, like the 7726 you can forward SMS spam to: dial 17726 after a spam call and the caller gets flagged as a spammer by the telco, using the network-level identity (whether they block/hide/fake CLID or not). Anyone reported too often gets investigated and slapped with 6+ figure fines - or in the case of foreign operators, blocked from calling the UK.
It seems a bit far-fetched that fixing this "mistake" will somehow take another six months, too - were the Retail and Wholesale bits using different line test data, or different criteria? If it's a different database - just stop doing that and have everyone use the one Retail have. Criteria? Clearly the wholesale ones were wrong - so correct them: it should take six minutes, with a bit of testing, not six months! Indeed, why aren't the Retail bits supposed to order through exactly the same Wholesale systems as other ISPs?
I thought BT were bad - my FTTC install came with the wrong paperwork, because BT Wholesale had "accidentally" missed out a section, so Openreach had to re-book the appointment; later, a fault got me helpful suggestions from the Openreach tech like "you'd be better with BT for broadband"... All very much not supposed to happen, of course.
Personally, I think it might be better if both incumbents were barred from providing retail ISP services directly: make them wholesale-only, giving a genuinely level playing field. Is it actually necessary for them to have the option of selling directly to consumers, given the problems it's causing?
Been there, done that
I had this for a while (switched from iThing to a Nexus for a while, then discovered half my incoming messages were getting delivered to my iPad instead). Quite irritating really.
Then I found MightyText on Android, which was very nice (get your SMSs relayed to their server for web access, send replies through the web site which your phone relays out again) - nice, but of course not available for iOS, so I lost that when moving back. (Until later this year, when I move to a mobile network which routes all the SMS traffic through my own server, which could be nice...)
Re: How long till bandwidth maximum?
For the most part, a faster pipe just means a download is a bigger and shorter spike.
I started out on dialup. 20-odd megabytes per hour on a good 56k line. Want a Linux ISO? That'll be a day and a half (once I finally had flat-rate dialup). Forget streaming anything: even basic-rate MP3 audio took three times as long to download as to play.
Then a half-megabit cable modem. That Linux ISO would be three hours, or I could have streamed music or even low-quality video if I'd wanted - or I could download a CD worth of MP3s in about 20 minutes, which actually made mp3.com useful for me.
Now we're into tens of megabits - I can stream video without it screwing up other stuff or vice versa. Most of the time, though, I'm limited by the far end or bottlenecks in between - even for Akamai downloads - and for the first time, that limit doesn't really matter to me. Do I really care whether that hefty software update takes 10 minutes or 5 to download? Not much - it takes longer than that to install anyway! Even on that 1.5 Tbyte download (restoring from online backup after my home server filesystem went wonky), I just leave it running for a while; it'll get done soon enough, and I can quite happily stream HD video while it's running.
Re: What would be really nice
It doesn't *need* one - it's just demanded by the unions on most lines. (They whined quite loudly up here in Scotland a year or so ago at the modest proposal to have the driver press the door open/close button, pretending there were safety implications - job safety, of course, since the other excuse for employing "guards" is already rendered obsolete by the existence of ticket barriers on platforms.) Scrap them entirely, invest the savings in better/bigger trains!
I switched a month ago to commuting by bus on Fridays. It takes twice as long and costs about an extra pound each time, but I get a seat. The train invariably has 30+ passengers standing in each of the three carriage, making for a very uncomfortable standing journey every time - and of course reserving a seat is completely pointless, you'd never be able to reach a seat anyway! Book a bus ticket, you actually get a seat. Pretty much what train travel *should* be - and no "guard", either, yet somehow they manage to open and close the doors without anyone catching fire in the process.
"BT also berated EE for being a bit creative with metrics on latency, jitter and packet loss"
That, from the same BT whose managers stated to an ISP recently that packet loss is not considered a fault (and is something they neither monitor nor test for)?
(Of course, the fault in question was eventually tracked to a faulty 10GbE port on a BT backbone router and fixed ... though without ever admitting that the problem they had fixed qualified as a fault.)
Best of all networks
It's possible to get a SIM which will roam across multiple UK networks - so if you go out of Three's coverage, your phone just jumps over to Vodafone or whatever. Andrews & Arnold are planning to offer that 'soon' (their current voice SIMs are O2-only, with data SIMs being Three-only) - I'm told there are a few niche providers offering it already, but haven't been able to find any more details or prices, let alone how to order one. (Up here in Scotland, I'm in a blackspot often enough for this to be irritating: one end of my office building has a good 4G signal on Three, the other end has no signal at all - and at home, I only get a reliable signal upstairs. I occasionally check which other networks have a signal around; there's usually an O2 one in most gaps, but then O2 have gaps where Three doesn't...)
I remember being a little surprised Apple didn't go the MVNO route when they launched the iPhone - considering how much more control they had over the whole system than anyone before, including using special iPhone-specific SIMs in some cases (for the different voicemail handling etc) and getting O2 to enable EDGE specially for them. Take over the whole billing arrangement as well as the handset management, nice easy roaming (just lump any visiting Apple customers from other countries in with domestic ones for better wholesale rates from the local Apple MNO partner) - why didn't they?
Residential-only, for business customers...
What baffled me was their determination to shift my "Be Pro" *office* line over to their *residential-use-only* Sky packages. I phoned, and was told "oh, just ignore that bit, we don't mind business use really". Thanks, that's reassuring... I'd asked previously what the Sky takeover meant for business customers, but never had a sane reply from anyone there.
The switchover did actually go smoothly (Be service dropped, I reset the router, everything came back up fine) - except it dropped again later that day, and got a different IP address. Not the static one Sky had assigned, not the static one we'd had from Be, but some other address entirely. In our case, it's not a huge issue (no servers there, it's really only static because that was included in the Be service), but irritating. No reverse-DNS control, either, which is also a pain.
We'll probably jump ship to IDnet in a few weeks, since FTTC reaches this exchange next month. (I was tempted by Zen, but still no IPv6, in 2014?!) A&A would be ideal, but Home::1 is the only tariff the company would go for, and of course isn't available for offices.
Protecting interface monopolies = bad
The whole idea of granting monopolies over interfaces is alarming to me - not new, but still alarming, like one of the printer manufacturers trying to use the DMCA to stop rival ink vendors selling cartridges which would fit their printers.
IMO, if you build sockets you should NOT have the right to stop or extort others making plugs that fit those sockets, or rival sockets that take the same plug. With actual physical plugs and sockets there are exceptions for "functional" designs - which seems to be why Apple go adding proprietary authentication chips to their cables to make them harder to copy, rather than just throw lawyers at anyone making Lightning-compatible plugs.
High time the law was changed to fix that nonsense, the same way we have a protected right to use non-dealer mechanics to maintain or repair our cars. Require interface specifications to be published, for unrestricted use, in roughly the same way MS had to publish some of their protocol details (Activesync, SMB etc) after one of the court battles over their monopoly (though they did leave some strings attached, which shouldn't have been allowed IMO).
Vendor lockin coming back to bite
He also seems to evade the point about his customers suffering from being shackled to Microsoft: "many customers' tech estates - as UK.gov is finding out - are "intertwined" with Microsoft" - this isn't a hidden cost of Google Apps, it's a hidden cost of having implemented Microsoft products in the past!
Interesting, though, that it seems to be only larger customers who struggle to cast off those expensive shackles - and not a good omen for MS.
I had a tough few weeks earlier this year with a broadband fault - it turned out there were two faulty router ports on BT's backbone, but getting to that point required SIX engineer visits to my home and a long conference call between managers from two rival BT divisions to argue over who was going to have to ask the third division to fix the problem for them.
A lot of this was because of automated fault-mishandling flowcharts: BT Wholesale automatically pass all faults over to Openreach to send an engineer out to work on the line - without investigating whether the problem is actually line-related rather than backhaul. Eventually, it got escalated to actual human beings (BT Wholesale's "High Level Escalations"), who knew enough to pass the fault over to BT TSOps (formerly BT Operate), who found and fixed the first router fault, then continue investigating until finding the second fault and passing that to the Ops team at Adastral Park.
The whole saga was a fine example of this article's subject, though: BT Wholesale tried to close the fault ticket without doing any investigation a total of NINE times (*all* new faults are auto-closed twice within minutes of reporting, on the off-chance the fault isn't a real one), then force-closed it once (so it had to be re-opened as a 'new' fault). Even then, there was a lot of luck involved (maintenance meant my traffic was re-routed to another backbone segment for a few hours, which made the problem disappear during the diversion) - which gave enough information for the ISP to get BT investigating the right bits of network at last.
"Why would Uncle NSA be so pissed about Euro data not crossing over to any place they can tap it?"
It seems "any place they can tap it" actually includes quite a lot of the EU anyway, between their UK base with GCHQ and various more covert efforts on mainland Europe.
Of course, *you* can put *your* mail server anywhere you like - but when you're communicating with a typical person with a Hotmail/Gmail/Yahoo address, *those* servers are in the US anyway (a quick trace route from the UK shows Hotmail mail going through routers in NYC and on to somewhere in California). Good luck getting the public to give up all their email addresses.
I have my own domain, so control everything about the inbound email routing. Where did I put it? New York, because I like the email service an Australian company - Fastmail, previously owned by Opera in Norway - offer. Yes, I could have bought hosting in Paris or Berlin, so a different set of acronyms got to snoop on it all, but I wouldn't see that as an improvement; given the choice, I'd worry less about the NSA than about their French or German counterparts anyway.
A truly moronic lawsuit to file - if the US government had ordered Baidu to filter out, say, articles about Snowden, that would indeed be wrong. The First Amendment restricts the government - not private or indeed foreign entities. If I wanted to build my own search engine which only indexes, say, websites hosted on Linux, or websites which contain the word "meh" in the title, I am free to do so - just as Baidu are free to publish an index of websites which are PRC-approved.
Why did this ever get as far as court?! Google, Bing and co have been filtering and tuning their search results for years now to cull spammers, give better results, comply with DMCA takedowns etc.
Re: What about removal protection.
I'm very pleased they're finally going palindromic - "about bloody time too" IMO - but some sort of locking mechanism would be very welcome. Maybe a small hole a padlock could go through? (Our open-access areas are all tied up with nasty kludges involving small padlocks around cables in hopes of stopping keyboards and mice going walkies; smaller plugs would make that impossible!)
Re: Enhance life?
In some ways, yes, things are more complex. My TV is more complex to operate than the TV I had 20 years ago - but that's because this one has a hundred times as many channels and DVR functionality built in. "Watch the news" involves a few extra button-presses - I have to switch on and dial in channel 501, or scroll through a menu - but recording the programme I'm watching right now involves one button and zero tapes, compared to all the fiddling involved in using a VCR - and pausing the programme I'm watching to answer the phone wasn't even possible in those days.
Yes, my mobile phone is far more complex than the only one I'd used 20 years ago - but that one had a shoulder strap (it weighed 4.2kg!) and could only make or receive phone calls, nothing more - not even SMS. My smartphone takes an extra button press or two to make a call - but other buttons access email, the web, music, camera - all things that old handset could never attempt.
I doubt we'll see a "robot" in the article's sense any time soon - more because it's not a good way to solve the problem than anything else. I don't need a six foot pseudo-person to operate my current vacuum cleaner: a tiny self-propelled vacuum like a Roomba will do that much more effectively.
For now at least, we have a very long way to go in improving individual pieces of equipment before we need a full-on human replacement. Self-driving cars, a content-aware fridge (probably RFID-based), a smarter washing machine (maybe RFID again, to identify the clothes inside and appropriate cycle) ... once the Roomba can pick up dirty clothes and get them washed, while the fridge can tell me the milk's off and ask if I'd like the car to go and get more, do we need robot arms and legs involved?
"Install Windows. Install anti-virus. Install WiFi driver. Go online. Update anti-virus. Run Windows update from WSUS offline DVD. Install apps. Validate Windows and Office."
Back when I was doing this all too frequently, I found doing the updates and other applications first, then AV and online updates after that, worked much faster - otherwise, the AV software burns lots of CPU cycles doing real-time scanning of all the updates as they install. (It was XP I was rolling out in those days - fortunately, most of the larger Windows updates could be 'slipstreamed' into the installation directory beforehand, which also helped.)
The 'no photographing houses' thing does seem downright bizarre, as does the idea of needing a permit to go there!
Re: Best common sense tip?
It's not all that easy - but easy enough that BT is rolling this change out on AXE10 exchanges this week, with the older exchanges to be updated later - cutting the delay from 2-3 minutes to 10 seconds.
Re: Punishment should fit the crime.
Community service de-lousing charity PCs for the public would be a nice touch, yes .. maybe put him to work in one of those charities that recycles old hardware?
It's a depressingly light sentence, particularly for a persistent repeat offender - and have there been any consequences for the scammers in India he was working with? I have a nasty feeling the fine just dented his profits a bit, and the rest of the "sentence" will just give him a reason to avoid getting caught for a short time.
This is the electronic equivalent of someone saying "excuse me, you've left your front door key in the lock, so anyone could break in and steal your stuff" - and getting a rant about snooping on his private front door for their trouble.
Meanwhile, in the alternate universe, mirror-Raj Bala is angry at Amazon *not* spotting his stupid newbie mistake, leaving him with a six figure AWS bill and a long time with the police explaining why his AWS account was being used to host malware/child porn/phishing sites...
This is something I've hated about UK broadband in the last few years, with lots of "ISPs" competing to offer "broadband" for 50p a year, free with a tin of beans etc - hacking investment to the bone or beyond, and now comparison shopping sites listing ISPs by price so you can make sure you're getting the bare minimum.
We do see this in low-end web hosting ("unlimited" space and bandwidth! Only 5p/year! May collapse if your site is actually visited...) but I think it's unlikely in this market - hard to oversubscribe RAM or storage, and any shortage of network bandwidth would quickly be well-known.
Re: BT has some very smart and helpful employees...
Absolutely true ... I had a fault which, after SIX engineer visits to test my line, was finally escalated to someone with a clue, who found and fixed two router faults on the backhaul path. (PCHIP errors - a packet processor fault - on an Alcatel router, and a 10GbE port throwing errors on the MPLS core network.) Needless to say, four of the six engineers just shrugged and tried to close the ticket since they don't test end-to-end connectivity to the ISP, one confirmed my diagnosis but couldn't help, and one tried moving me to another FTTC cabinet port to rule that out.
I'm just glad I have A&A for an ISP: I can't imagine many having the tenacity or knowledge to keep chasing BT for almost two months over a core network fault BT refuse to look for!
Still applies: "Infinity" is just VDSL2 instead of ADSL2+. If there's a problem with the wire (like being cut, loose, wet etc) it'll screw up both voice and broadband - and a voice fault is much easier to get BT to fix.
"Mainstream" support for Office 2003 ended back in 2009 - and "extended" support for it ends early next month. I wonder how many installations of this won't get patched, particularly if this issue doesn't get patched by next month's cut-off? 2007 is out of "mainstream" support too, and I'm sure it's far from extinct out there - and probably far from currently patched...
What took so long?
For me, the only surprise here is that it hadn't already happened - particularly for something as simple as a battery. Having seen cars coming off largely-automated production lines in the 90s, the idea that even simple parts of mobile phones would still be hand-assembled two decades later seems bizarre.
As for economic impact: labour is a significant part of costs, and barely a penny of wages paid in China will get spent in Western economies anyway - so roll on robot!
- +Analysis Microsoft: We're making ONE TRUE WINDOWS to rule us all
- Apple: We'll unleash OS X Yosemite beta on the MASSES on 24 July
- Pics It's Google HQ - the British one: Reg man snaps covert shots INSIDE London offices
- White? Male? You work in tech? Let us guess ... Twitter? We KNEW it!
- Apple fanbois SCREAM as update BRICKS their Macbook Airs