Re: It is InTelSat, not IntelSat
Possibly once but at least now it is called Intelsat.
23 posts • joined 13 Aug 2009
Possibly once but at least now it is called Intelsat.
Level 3 wouldn't be paid more for the bigger pipe with the ISP (usually) as it would (typically) be a 'settlement free peering'. However, at the other side of their network they have content providers who are paying and they don't want them pissed off that their traffic is being throttled on peering points. And bigger peering points means more traffic from the ports on their network where they do charge...
I don't have problem with the concept of a police force, I don't have a problem with charities and I don't have a problem with political lobbying groups. But when they're all three, like the RSPCA, I feel deeply uncomfortable about it.
Great journalism El Reg!
No reason why they can't. If someone wants to pay for it, why not?
This is new because the ground antennas are physically pointing at and tracking the 'moving' satellites. This is to get both low latency and high bandwidth using high frequencies (Ka band) . Globalstar and Iridium use L-band, which doesn't require a directional antenna, therefore no need to track, but the datarates are very low.
O3b's own ground stations that uplink and downlink the signal have three antennas, one active, one slewing to pick up the next bird and one hot spare. The far end terminals would typically have two (one active, one slewing).
So if they give everyone an IPv6 address only, how would these users access hosts that only have an IPv4 address without some kind of NAT, somewhere?
I think it's commendable that they're dipping their toe in to this area and feeling around for what the best way forward is. Just because other ISPs aren't doing this, doesn't mean they're not considering more draconian options when the time comes. They're doing a trial and appear to be being transparent about it...
Re: Phased Change...isn't that really the same as what Plus is proposing? Where the NAT is done is a technical choice, but NAT is NAT is NAT.
Absolutely. The dire state of local print journalism is also a serious matter that affects us all. If local rags disappear completely, as is very possible, then there will be no checks against local government corruption. Lots of tricky issues to resolve, but subsidising media is not necessarily a bad thing.
>Buckles did say that he regretted signing the contract with the Olympic Games in the first place.
Hardly surprising really. Adam and Joe should focus on getting themselves back where they belong on 6 Music on Saturday mornings instead of diversifying in to impossibly large security contracts.
And wasn't Windows 95 and MSN supposed to replace the Internet?
I only know a little about this but I understood that half the problem was the expensive cost of international transit IP in to Aus (USD70ish per Mbps per month) as opposed to Europe and US (USD10ish), partly due to the location of Aus and partly due to the aledgedly anti-competitive ownership of the undersea cables. So that's before all the political, monopolistic and low punter/Sq Km issues with the backhaul networks.
>Expensive? Well most of APNIC runs on it one way or another so no, its not.
Are you sure about that? APNIC IPv6 deployment is tiny, just like everywhere else. This report is the recent survey of their members that APNIC did
Didn't USG already make such a declaration before, a couple of years ago? I can't see this making any difference. I think we'll need more effort on making IPv4 work for another decade, e.g. creating a market for IPv4 space even with all the problems that has.
That is all.
Respect for the pedantry. If you can't be pedantic here, where can you?
"This is an interesting source, given the Government’s preference for only basing its "evidence-based" policies on evidence that it likes."
What, like the Reg and climate change evidence then?
That is all
That's bollocks. Any plugin can cause havoc on any browser - that's why you click the button to say you trust the source before you install it.
I agree. Posting copyrighted data that isn't part of some coverup or conspiracy isn't right - it's just piracy.
PAF is overpriced and a data monopoly, but that doesn't mean it should be unlicensed, free or pirated. Yes, it's our data but 'we' also get revenue from it.
For sure, there's been more outages on it that there should have been, but I still like the product at home and hope to buy a couple more for the office. Also, there's a dedicated support team for the product who are reasonably clueful and are tuned in to the fact that most of their customers are tech savvy early adopters (they didn't help me find out if I could get it to support diffserv though!)
@AC "OK, I'll bite" . Er....it's about getting your 'phone working when you don't have coverage. Whilst the Reg did hypothesize that it may be to replace wifi due to a couple of benefits over wifi (much lower power consumption, and seamless roaming), I'll wager 95% of people don't care about the 3G - they just want to get coverage at home. In fact the 3G-only feature is a draw back in that my treasured fleet of Nokia 6310i handsets won't work at home.
Of course, allowing domestic roaming between networks would solve many coverage problems overnight....
That's been the biggest problems with BlackBerries. Trackballs are for playing Missile Command and nothing else.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017