OCinBuffalo

I can't decide who contributed less to this thread, you, or not-Crayonz. And believe me, that is a rare occurrence. I have it: why don't you take not-Crayonz with you and keep him at OTW? I'm sure you guys could be just as...witty there as you have been in this thread. Oh, the whimsical times you will have. It has the added benefit of saving us from our weekly reminder of what has become of a once-awesome handle here.

Schit I forgot. That was the other fun bit. We had to make everything work with VAX too. My boss and I were the only 2 people who knew PC and TCP/IP in the entire division. Every day we had to fight on two fronts: the scientists/applied engineers with their stupid F'ing macs, the operations people with their "never say die" vax nonsense, as well as our own department who were all vax programmers/techs. Meanwhile, we had the salespeople screaming for Stinkpads and the line engineers talking "orders of magnitude" of losses for every day we didn't drop a brand new PC on their desks...that could talk to the macs and the vax. That's probably why I forgot. Post traumatic stress.

We've already established above that you think switches do things they don't do. All you've done in both subsequent posts above is backtrack....and go googling for things to try and play CYA. I'm not gonna waste bits tracking and reply to your entire backpedal. I am going to pick out some of the dumber things you said. for their humor value: 1. This all started because you said "there is no server"(or routers). Switches do everything. Now you are linking to a vid about a DNS SERVER? So, what, did you think we forgot? Post 1000 links: You're not walking this idiocy back. 2. Unequivocally? All you have unequivocally shown is that you can do what I told to you do, literally: "google DNS Server". You proven again that you still don't understand how things actually work. You can coordinate some of the key words into sentences. But coordination is not the same thing as command. 3. For example: DNS's DO NOT do what you say they do. Jesus. The word DOMAIN is in the name of thing. What is a domain? Or, let's use your example: http://www.google.com. Using that, please define domain. 4. Yes, what a surprise that your own 3 (internal) DNS severs, aren't publicly facing. This, right here, shows it all in a nutshell. How the hell does a DNS server do what it does, if the "public" can't access it? How do we get to http://www.google.com, if by your own, albeit shoddy definition above, a DNS doesn't send us there? None of this yap contradicts my original statements: a.) Clearing traffic off of ALL (DNS) servers, in general, but specifically off servers responsible for propagation/maintenance of address is literally in everybody's best interest. b.) The notion that somebody would intentionally slow that activity down, NO MATTER WHAT, and especially regarding who paid for what. is buffoonery. 4. "Routers don't assign addresses" Wait: you can't seem to make up your mind, do these various terms you throw around actually combine more than one thing,or don't they? Find me a DHCP-only, "commercial" appliance. I wanna buy one(you can't). No: we call them Routers, because we have for a very long time, and one of things they can do is DHCP. Go ahead and use my link(Cisco) and find me a DHCP machine, since...according to you: " In the commercial world these functions are not usually combined in one box". Nonsense. The real reason is that DHCP is largely a software thing now, and that software can be installed on my phone, TV, or just about anywhere else, including: a router. Yeah, and Cisco hasn't been doing exactly that, and getting into the software business because of it, for the last 10 years. Make up your mind. You carelessly explain that DNS servers are combined with...stuff...when they aren't, AND, tell me that DHCP is sold separately? 5. In ALL cases: a switch STILL doesn't do everything, and it never will, no matter how much buffer it has. There will ALWAYS be something called a DNS server, and always be something called a router, and it will NEVER make sense to combine their functionality into a mere switch. And yeah, if CISCO ever does that? I WILL know better than them, because I already know better right now. Go ahead and prattle on. The fact remains that you said "there is no server"...when servers, of all sorts, ARE the internet.

This was in 1996...when I was a punk ass high school kid, but also a part-time contractor for a company you've heard of. So, no, back then, we couldn't just "go buy a router". And especially: not for Macs. That's the problem with this thread: words mean things. The word "Macs" changes the entire discussion. Back then, Steve Jobs was still convinced he could force the entire world to buy a Mac, so, he made them network with each other, but with nothing else. My "original" hackintosh server/router, fooled them into thinking it was just another mac.

If the request comes from you and you get a response from a google site, that is full of garbage javascript, that takes your browser longer to process. It also means(warning: technical knowhow alert!) that even when it looks like your browser is doing nothing, service requests are being sent. That means the connection has to stay open, for longer until the response is completed, or, always. XO communications gets extra packets they have to ship, for no good reason. That costs them big $ when we talk about all google responses, and that cost has to go somewhere. Wanna bet it goes to Time Warner, who then passes it on to us? Of course it does. This is in no way different than what Microsoft used to do: ship bad code, and fix it later, if at all. The only real difference now is: when one person used Microsoft, it was just their PC that got screwed. When google ships bad code, the entire internet gets screwed. What's worse, google, just like Obamacare, can run and connect to as many useless(EDIT: to us, lucrative to them) web services as they want, most of which we didn't ask for, and don't want, and there's nothing we can do about it: those requests are now coming from YOUR browser, not google, so your ISP is now handling them. Tier don't matter much now, does it? What recourse do we have? Can we charge Google more because their schit code chews up bandwidth? Can we force them to optimize their code, and stop adding in unwanted service requests/client-side callback requests, or face paying huge prices for bandwidth? No. Not with our hero, net neutrality! Net Neutrality to the Rescue! People that don't even use Google still get screwed...because bandwidth...is bandwidth. The biggest problem with net neutrality is: nobody is even talking about this, mostly because nobody knows enough to be talking about this. It's a giant unintended consequence just waiting to happen. And I am unfairly picking on Google here. What's to stop Facebook, or Amazon, or me, from chewing up bandwidth for no good reason? But, you know, those of us who actually know about this shouldn't talk about it, because us knowing things hurts the egos of people like GG. EDIT: I have been waiting for the "you chew up bandwidth for no good reason every day" joke...I left it out there...

Yep. Now we are getting somewhere. So much for price being the sole driver of what bandwidth actually gets delivered, and when, in the real world. I wonder. Could it be that overages in the lower bandwidth ranges, or giving people more than they paid for, is...because it's cheaper to clear those requests off of a server than to hold them up? Why would the cable company want to intentionally slow down a request, when it could clear it, and risk having that slowed-down request still be hanging around...when a new "I paid for my speed, dammit!" request comes in from GG? Nah, they'd rather have packets hanging around in buffers instead of moving them out, and have GG pull his hair out because his Little House on the Prarie video is choppy. Yeah, they want that phone call. This is silly. Sure, at an individual home, testing packets is going to show...whatever the modem is supposed to show. But, when we get out onto the real network, it's absurd to think that everybody's traffic isn't being treated the exact same way: move it asap. The concern with net neutrality is the effect on the real network, or "transport network" as GG likes to say.

You are conflating 2 things I said that have little to do with each other. I said that service is capped because, as GregF said: any network has a limit, not because of Google. Learn. To. Read. Whether Google wants to consume most of the bandwidth has nothing to do with whether it is limited. It is limited, because we only have so much wire in the ground. Every day, we add a little more. That's what I said right here: Again: Learn To Read. Bandwidth is not immediately available, just because you say it is, or because you pay more. One cannot simply conjure it up out of thin air. This is why I say you don't understand bandwidth at all. You keep acting like it's a commodity, a constant. The truth: It is a point in time thing, and a variable. Bandwidith is not limited by price. It is limited by supply, at any given point in time. I'll try to help you: Everybody in a Connecticut town can pay $1000/min for bandwidth, but if they are all streaming video at the same time, they are all going to be slow, no matter how much they paid, and no matter how much they B word. And, they can all offer to pay $2000/min to be faster...but they won't be. Why? Because of technical realities in and around that town, that as I have already said: you don't know. Now, if Google is pushing data to that same town, and everybody there is using it, thus chewing up all their bandwidth, it doesn't matter if you paid $5 or 1000, you're gonna slow down. Google wants to be able to do that, slow everybody down with poorly optimized, "new, fresh, thingys"!, but not have to pay for it. That's what this is really about: a license to sell piss poor code(EDIT and in google's case, unnecessary code == ads and spyware) that chews up memory and bandwidth without consequence and for the hardware companies: a license to tax google et al without adding any value to their customers. Now, again, you don't really understand this issue, because you really don't understand the business motivations at work here, because you don't understand the technology at work here.

That's the upshot. My question is why do they allow that .2 extra bandwidth to escape their clutches, since, in GG world, everyone is getting exactly what they pay for, nothing less and nothing more? Could there be a technical reason? Hmm. One wonders.... Also, is there a chance that 25/5 people see less "extra bandwidth" than those who are paying for lesser plans? Like say, it is pretty common for a 15 plan to see bandwidth of 15. 8 or even 16 sometimes?

It's pretty bad when even Alan Dershowitz, famed defense attorney, won't defend you. He knows she doesn't have a case. So? Better leave it for the public defender to deal with. I suppose they'll get Elizabeth Warren. Or better, Nancy Pelosi. If that happens, Yates is sure to get the "death" penalty.

GG: You know I'm only asking because, in your infinite wisdom, you missed this, sitting right on this very page. but yeah, I'm the moron. I wasn't asking you. I was asking him. He didn't even bother to pay attention to what you wrote above. But, I'm the know it all. GG personified. IF there ever was a clinical projectionist in this world, it is GG. So, GregF, what's your theory on why "speeds tend to run a little higher then[sic] the quoted tier speeds"? EDIT: And when you say any network has limits, surely you don't mean that bandwidth is limited, right? That would contradict the great and powerful GG's post right here.

Nah. Speak for yourself. It's just you that can't add to this discussion, or most discussions. Now run along and get to work on that pun. Or is it a hashtag? Answer my question: is there a bandwidth throttle for GG? Or, since you're so inured with tiers, is there a throttle for them?

They really don't get it. They really don't see how hard their friends, like this guy, are laughing at them. And their solution: do more. So, we get to laugh more.

Ah, Rupricht the Monkey Boy. Classic.

Be more specific. How and why do they tier their service? Do you think they've got a throttle just for you? Answer that question. Your standard babble isn't adding anything to the discussion as per normal. I heard somebody needs a pun over at OTW. Why don't you see if you can help them out.

What exactly am I wrong about? You can't say, because you don't know. EDIT: No, seriously, I might be wrong about something above....but you can't say, because you don't know.

Obama has merely joined the board as one of the pieces Trump will be moving around, as predicted. If anyone thinks Team Trump wasn't prepared for Obama to open his mouth, isn't planning on it, and in fact counting on it? You're an unmitigated moron.

Call me an idiot again, I dare you.

I'm not at all alarmed, but that's because I think I understand what he is doing. And keep in mind: Hogan was every bit as wise and funny, as Colonel Klink was dopey and funny. So...are you not entertained at least? See, Trump doesn't just want the office. He wants to crush, and I mean crush, the globalist elite, open-border multiculturalists, global government activists(George Soros and everything he funds), billionaire donor environtologists, PC mavens, and the inner city government/grant money allocation revolving door, permanently. He doesn't just want an 8 year presidency. He wants to ensure that he destroys the potential for them, after 8 years or 100, to ever get power again. He's doing that by following Napeleon/Sun Tzu. He chooses where the battle will be fought, how he is going to win it, and most importantly: makes that ground too inviting for the other side to ignore. Then, the other side rushes to that place to fight(like protesters rushing to the airport), without ever realizing that they are being set up, and without thinking how they are going to win once they get there. They are in too much of a hurry to get there. Ask yourself: what did the protesters win at the airport, besides the eternal annoyance of people who work there, and travel as part of work? Now, let's be clear: He's taking a huge risk, by increasing the scope beyond just being POTUS. However, he is being extremely smart about it. Everything so far is one piece at a time, and these pieces are diverse. He's not putting all his eggs in one sweeping reform program, like Bush did with SSI, or Obama with Obamacare. Nope. He makes one quick strike and moves on to the next one. Sure it's weird, and sure it seems unsettling. But, so did mobile warfare seem to people who were used to the idea of massed army, set piece battles. Or, the concept of the aircraft carrier eclipsing the battleship. Trump is using a mobile warfare strategy. He lures the enemy. He hits them hard, but leaves before they can mass and counter attack, then lures/hits them someplace else. Eventually, the goal is to sap the strength/will of the opposition. They keep chasing, but never get the big fight they want. Meanwhile they are eventually exhausted, lose #s to attrition, and starvation(or in this case eyeballs/attention of voters). They never win anything, which is demoralizing. Sooner or later, they will make a big mistake, and that is when Trump will stand and fight them, just like Houston did to Santa Anna, and crush them. Hey, I could be wrong. Or, I could be right but Trump finds a way to F this up. However, so far? I'm pretty sure we seeing a real intellectual treat: the tactics of Sun Tzu/Napolean practiced in real life.

He believes in 21 Jumpstreet?

The chances that verizon or any of the above is more interested in cutting away stories/slowing you down, rather than charging $ to see stories/keeping you fast? Negligible. So, you've identified a possible but highly unlikely issue. There is simply no money in these conspiracy theories. Again, I remind you that the accounting staff/traffic monitoring necessary to throttle bandwidth depending on every single user's current url at this micron, vs the next micron? It's cost idiocy. You'd have to have legions of machines and legions of people to do that. Nobody is going to spend $100 to make a nickel, and those are the actual #s, and literally what would be necessary. Don't tell me software is the answer here either. The architecture necessary to do this from the software side is untenable, and pointless. Hell, the database updates every minute, just to keep track of the adds/deletes of accounts/usage changes because somebody bought one of GG's "tiers" would consume way more resources in people and tech than can be justified. Look: you know what this smells like? It smells like marketing people. Word to the wise: marketing people are 99% of the cause of IT problems. Their constant bungling interference is why the Obamacare "website"(it was never a website, it was a massive enterprise integration) failed, it is why the IPhone App business will die soon, and its why none of what you are saying is ever going to happen. They love making unkeepable promises. They think ideas are all that is required, and that engineering is for the little people. Even if everything you say comes to pass? The systems necessary WILL crash in on themselves, precisely due to the ridiculous requirements imposed by marketing people. Exactly like Obamacare did. Call me an idiot again, I dare you.

Yeah, and you are once again defeated by your own willingness to be fast, rather than accurate. Reading comprehension is important.

Are you F'ing high? "I've helped" doesn't mean "I alone". Only somebody who has a particular derangement is blind to the difference in meaning. The truth is: I have written a ton on this issue. Unmitigated moron. Another unmitigated moron. Re-read what I said. It is at a fixed point. at ANY point in time. This does not mean that the point won't increase over time or, "literally, tomorrow"-->which is literally what I wrote. You still don't get it. They are willing to "give away" upper tiers...because they are just as willing to gamble that you don't use them fully. Now, surely a Wall Street person has the understanding of what the word "gamble" means, right? EDIT: And praytell, why does TIme Warner have "Business Class" which costs 2x what normal cable does? Why do they have tiers in their consumer offering at all? This is bandwidth. Clearly a concept you don't understand at all. Do you really think that if I am consuming bandwidth right now, and nobody else in my range is, that the cable company is going to slow me down, because I am getting higher speeds than I am supposed to get? If you do you are a complete buffoon. No. It is in the cable company's interest to clear my request as soon as possible, making room for potential new requests, as soon as possible. These "classes" that you are clinging to as some sort of point? They only exist as a way to get people to pay more...for what 4/5 times they are going to get anyway, given their usage.

This board is highly educated on net neutrality. I've helped see to that. So, they already know they won't be impacted. Or, if they are, they know that their ISP bills won't go up now, as they would have under net neutrality, because Google, Netflix et al had bought up most of the bandwidth on the cheap via bulk purchase, and crowded the rest of the market into paying inflated prices for what is left. It's supply and demand 101. There is a fixed supply of bandwidth today. While it is true that tomorrow, literally, there will be a small increase in supply, it will take years(a decade?) to be at a place where we have surplus bandwidth. The big software companies want to buy up most of the supply at reduced/fixed rates. The hardware companies want to charge them more, via preferential access, because if they don't, they have to charge their other customer's more to make up the difference...and...they also want to rent-seek on Google/Amazon/Netflix. Rent-seek: take a cut of Amazon's success, by charging a toll for all the bandwith they use. The hadware companies are absolutely not looking to charge a toll on OUR bandwidth.The accounting/billing alone makes it not worth doing(remember when paying for texting was done by the text? Yeah, the accounting staff and systems required to charge that way cost 5x what they were making instead of just doing unlimited texting) If anything they are in steep competition to get us to pay for set amounts of bandwidth, that most days we don't use. They are balancing price vs usage. They gamble that we won't use what we pay for, so, they can drop their price for more/the same, and compete against each other. That's why: when you call the cable company and B word, automagically, you seem to get higher speeds/less outages. They have the bandwidth on hand, it's just that you weren't demanding what you paid for, until you did. That's also why they are so willing to give you a free month as compensation. It's peanuts, as long as you keep paying the next month and beyond. The whole thing is merely business being business. There is no moral high ground here. What there is: a bunch of donors on both sides that are paying both sides to make this into a political issue, complete with a phony moral component. This is a lie.

That is the most interesting thing I've learned all week. Sad. EDIT: Beck made it worse by singing "passing the dutchie from coast to coast". Since I was a little kid and the first song came out, I've always wondered WTF that actually meant. I could guess, but now I know.