Trump Planning On Turning Internet Into Toll Road

[OCinBuffalo]

There is no server. Perhaps you should learn a bit about networking before you ramble on about something you obviously know nothing about.

 

What? Google: DNS Server. I once built an old 286 into a DNS Server/TCP IP Router for networking Macs, and you are gonna talk to me...about learning networking? Every single request in the world travels through a series of DNS servers. The company you work for has 100s of them, if not 1000s. And, yes, packets move from one DNS to the next.

 

No sever. How absurd. I hope the rest of your post is better than this. I hope I'm not going to spend the rest of it teaching the cable guy how the internet actually works, but this tells me I am. Perhaps you are trolling? Whatever. I can't let this stupidity stand either way.

 

They don't "slow down a request". All the packets travel at the same speed. What they do is limit the number of request you can make over a given time period. The person with the higher speed can send more packets over the same given time period.

 

What? Packets travel at whatever speed they can, depending on how many of them there are, and how thick the "pipe". Christ, read this. Notice the equations and variables here? Yeah, packets don't EVER move at the same speed. How many tests have you run? Do they all come back with the same answer? No, they don't. And those are tests, using the exact same data and process every single time.Then how can packets move at the same speed? Volume of packets alone should tell you...never mind. I'm done with this idiocy.

 

The person with the higher speed can't send packets at all if a DNS Server won't take them, or can only process their request slowly via allocation, until it has more room, regardless of time period. Period.

 

All packets go through the buffers. Generally first in first out unless QoS is involved. It is called stored and forwarded. It is stored so the switch can figure out where it is suppose to be sent. There are some basic networking resources on the Internet. You should check them out.

 

Thanks, but I'm pretty sure, given the above, that we've already established who needs to do some reading on networking. Yeah, there are these magical things called buffers, that do everything, because "there is no server". These buffers exist in on the back of a giant turtle, otherwise known as a switch, and all these packets get stored there, until they get sent down the wire to the next giant turtle's buffers.

 

These giant turtle switches (actually don't really do anything except allow cables to connect to them, and temporarily store network packets to move them from one connected cable to another.) in GregF land, are actually all-powerful beings, which somehow instead of merely doing connectivity, are also capable of not only accepting requests, but sending them, and processing responses back...all by magic. Switches know where everybody in the world's devices are, because switches are as old as they are wise. (For the rest of you, a DNS server determines where to send things, and routers give things addresses, for things to be sent...which is where you get your IP ADDRESS from. Ever heard of it? No such thing in GregF land.)

What is silly is you have not the first clue how networking works yet you persist in making a fool of yourself.

 

Giant, All-powerful, Turtle Switch. I'm a fool? Where do the IP addresses, for the modems you work on every single day, come from? Switches?

Again, your ignorant. A modem is not a tool to look at network traffic.

 

Right, because a modem doesn't have a config file, that has settings, which look at traffic...because...um, you may want to check your own post above, just saying. I can't use software, that uses my modem, to measure my network traffic. When I call the cable company, they don't monitor my modem, to see...my network traffic.

 

Let us know when you have a fundamental understanding of how networks work.

 

Yeah. Um, did somebody put you up to this? Sorry, but it sounds a lot like somebody put you up to this. Protip: don't listen next time you get a PM. You'll only end up looking like the fool you look like right now.

 

Anyway, thanks for the laughs. I'm gonna go draw a giant turtle called Switch, and make him have little buffer bags, with lots of happy squares called packets now. You should go back over the link I provided, and going forward: remember who the F you are talking to.

Edited January 31, 2017 by OCinBuffalo

[Benjamin Franklin]

You have been, and are being, trolled.

[boyst]

That's the upshot.

 

My question is why.sy 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?

why did Verizon block 4chan's site? I'll start simple.

 

They claimed it was a mistake but the massive browsing of that site at the time was chewing up bandwidth. At the time they also blocked data mining/ bit mining as best they could.

 

Starting simply. Go research verizons blocking of websites. They picked 4chan because it was a soft target so dont tell me they are concerned about bandwidth. Right now as companies grow larger and larger they consume more and more and the consumer is a moron who let's Facebook see every photo, number and location on their phone. They let Instagram do the same. Snap chat, etc. These same people B word about the gov knowing too mjxb, too. But, as these products garner more and more growth they'll seek more and more data and more and more data at the expense of _____ is worth it? You fill in the blank because I'm going a different route than GG who is on point.

[GG]

You have been, and are being, trolled.

Ordinarily I'd agree with you, but not in this case.

[boyst]

Ordinarily I'd agree with you, but not in this case.

i am years behind most everyone here when it comes to understanding many things on this forum. I still have fun here and stir the pot, but its amazing that someone like OC who has knowledge of the topic can be so shortsighted and obtuse. While free markets and capitalism are great things but neutrality is an entirely different beast that is lost on everyone.

 

Of all the things I am amazed Obama did, it is what he didn't do that amazed me the most. And with his TARP and highway programs and all the money he wanted to invest in the country - he did nothing to the tech realm. Yes, people can see highways and buildings and parks. They won't see better networks or technology. If he would have invested a fraction as much in to the infrastructure of the Internet's as he did his own bull **** agenda we would be better off. After the digital switch on TV's I was thrilled at what was supposed to happen next.Opened bbandwidths for higher end networking would have been amazing. But Obama never stepped a foot near this! Imagine, a network powerful enough to broadcast on a scale of a TV signal of even 50 yrs ago!

[Azalin]

i am years behind most everyone here when it comes to understanding many things on this forum. I still have fun here and stir the pot, but its amazing that someone like OC who has knowledge of the topic can be so shortsighted and obtuse. While free markets and capitalism are great things but neutrality is an entirely different beast that is lost on everyone.

 

 

I've said this before - there are some people who post here that know a great deal more about a given subject than I do, and I defer to them when navigating subjects which happen to be their areas of expertise. That doesn't necessarily mean that they're always correct, just that I can learn a lot by listening to them.

 

IT will continue to grow exponentially for the foreseeable future as more and more becomes available to consumers. Home entertainment, online banking, web browsing, public school systems, medical centers, business parks, etc, etc, etc will continue the need for ever-increasing speed and capacity.

 

None of this was available when telecommunications was run by a single, monolithic corporation operating under government regulation as if it was a utility. The best thing that could have happened was the divestiture of 1982, because it broke up the federally regulated monopoly and induced competition into the industry. The resulting development of telecommunication technology is literally what has brought us to the point where we are today - Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, Comcast, and all the rest all vie for our business, and to win it they need to offer more, and charge less for it. You can't get a better model from the consumer's point of view.

 

Net Neutrality is among other things, a way for the federal government to gain access to the industry itself. Federal regulation imposed under the auspices of fairness gives them the ability to both levy additional costs via taxation, and content control via regulation. It was the fact that they were not broadcast but sent via closed circuit cable that adult channels were first able to appear on cable TV back in the late 70's & early 80's. That never would have happened if that content could only have been sent over the airwaves. Federal regulation will always eventually equate with taxation and content control, and federally imposed "fairness" standards will always impede the growth of the technology.

[boyst]

 

I've said this before - there are some people who post here that know a great deal more about a given subject than I do, and I defer to them when navigating subjects which happen to be their areas of expertise. That doesn't necessarily mean that they're always correct, just that I can learn a lot by listening to them.

 

IT will continue to grow exponentially for the foreseeable future as more and more becomes available to consumers. Home entertainment, online banking, web browsing, public school systems, medical centers, business parks, etc, etc, etc will continue the need for ever-increasing speed and capacity.

 

None of this was available when telecommunications was run by a single, monolithic corporation operating under government regulation as if it was a utility. The best thing that could have happened was the divestiture of 1982, because it broke up the federally regulated monopoly and induced competition into the industry. The resulting development of telecommunication technology is literally what has brought us to the point where we are today - Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, Comcast, and all the rest all vie for our business, and to win it they need to offer more, and charge less for it. You can't get a better model from the consumer's point of view.

 

Net Neutrality is among other things, a way for the federal government to gain access to the industry itself. Federal regulation imposed under the auspices of fairness gives them the ability to both levy additional costs via taxation, and content control via regulation. It was the fact that they were not broadcast but sent via closed circuit cable that adult channels were first able to appear on cable TV back in the late 70's & early 80's. That never would have happened if that content could only have been sent over the airwaves. Federal regulation will always eventually equate with taxation and content control, and federally imposed "fairness" standards will always impede the growth of the technology.

I remain jaded in my starry eyes that simply postponing the net neutrality issue a few more years can assure it will be done right if at all. If not then we must have net neutrality.

 

But you made me remember turning to 22b late at night and hoping to catch about 20-30 seconds of porn

[GG]

i am years behind most everyone here when it comes to understanding many things on this forum. I still have fun here and stir the pot, but its amazing that someone like OC who has knowledge of the topic can be so shortsighted and obtuse. While free markets and capitalism are great things but neutrality is an entirely different beast that is lost on everyone.

 

Of all the things I am amazed Obama did, it is what he didn't do that amazed me the most. And with his TARP and highway programs and all the money he wanted to invest in the country - he did nothing to the tech realm. Yes, people can see highways and buildings and parks. They won't see better networks or technology. If he would have invested a fraction as much in to the infrastructure of the Internet's as he did his own bull **** agenda we would be better off. After the digital switch on TV's I was thrilled at what was supposed to happen next.Opened bbandwidths for higher end networking would have been amazing. But Obama never stepped a foot near this! Imagine, a network powerful enough to broadcast on a scale of a TV signal of even 50 yrs ago!

 

I have to give credit to Obama for recasting the net neutrality debate as somehow a positive for broadband expansion. Please tell me the last time industries invested more capital when the return incentives were taken away?

 

Of course in typical Obama fashion, his policy actions achieved the exact opposite of what the policy goals were supposed to meet.

[Azalin]

I remain jaded in my starry eyes that simply postponing the net neutrality issue a few more years can assure it will be done right if at all. If not then we must have net neutrality.

 

But you made me remember turning to 22b late at night and hoping to catch about 20-30 seconds of porn

 

My point is that private industry striving to meet the demands of the public has been the driving force in building the internet into what is has become. There is nothing about Net Neutrality that will enhance that. No mater how the idea is presented, there is absolutely no benefit to consumers or the public at large in getting the feds involved in regulating internet traffic. The best thing for everyone - tech companies, ISPs, content providors, and end users - is to keep the feds out of it altogether.

 

In my previous example I marked the occasion where telecommunications began to deregulate. In 1982 payphones were ubiquitous, many home phones were still rotary, and long-distance calls were often quite expensive. The deregulation of the industry and subsequent entry of competitive carriers (specifically MCI and Sprint) had an immediate effect on network capability and reduced costs. That same deregulation is what's led to the massive advancement in telecommunications that we enjoy today. In turn, that advancement in the network has led to a drastic increase in the technological capability of the devices we use. The smart phone in your pocket has computing power that dwarfs anything your pentium computer from the early 90's had.

 

There is nothing the feds can do to improve anything about the internet that won't be accomplished more cost-effectively and with better performance than what the telecoms are doing. The best thing they can possibly do is keep away from it, and let it continue to develop that way it has been doing.

[GG]

 

There is nothing the feds can do to improve anything about the internet that won't be accomplished more cost-effectively and with better performance than what the telecoms are doing. The best thing they can possibly do is keep away from it, and let it continue to develop that way it has been doing.

 

Yuuup.

 

There's only one area that I feel Feds should be involved in the broadband conversation is helping out deliver unserved areas, such as rural regions where it's fully uneconomical to provide high capacity service. They started it by revamping Universal Service into Connect America, but they're not being diligent about enforcing the builds.

[Andrew Son]

Little known alternate fact- Donald Trump invented the internet

[DC Tom]

Little known alternate fact- Donald Trump invented the internet

[This is an automated response.]

 

You're an idiot.

 

Created by DC Tom-bot, beta version 0.61.

[Tiberius]

[This is an automated response.]

 

You're an idiot.

 

Created by DC Tom-bot, beta version 0.61.

What a waste you are

[DC Tom]

What a waste you are

[This is an automated response.]

 

 

Created by DC Tom-bot, beta version 0.61.

[Azalin]

 

Yuuup.

 

There's only one area that I feel Feds should be involved in the broadband conversation is helping out deliver unserved areas, such as rural regions where it's fully uneconomical to provide high capacity service. They started it by revamping Universal Service into Connect America, but they're not being diligent about enforcing the builds.

 

I agree, but I also believe you'll see a lot of that taken care of by LTE & the soon to appear 5G. I know for a fact that telecoms are salivating at the prospect of wireless delivery. No first/last mile copper or fiber - just towers.

[Greg F]

What? Google: DNS Server. I once built an old 286 into a DNS Server/TCP IP Router for networking Macs, and you are gonna talk to me...about learning networking?

So you don't know the difference between DNS and routing. Not that I am surprised. Let me educate you. Routing is based on IP addresses. DNS translates domain names to IP addresses.

 

Every single request in the world travels through a series of DNS servers.

Nope. DNS servers translate domain names to IP addresses. When you type www.google.com into your web browser a request is sent to a DNS server. What happens is eventually you get a response back with the IP address. At that point your use of the DNS server is done. Your web browser uses the IP address to send your request to google. In fact, if you know the IP address you don't need DNS. Simply type the IP address in the address bar of your browser and you will get there just the same, actually faster as you avoid the lookup. Computer (and DNS servers) maintain a cache of recently visited web sites and their associated IP addresses so you might not even do a DNS lookup. Here is a little video on what and how DNS works.

 

 

 

The company you work for has 100s of them, if not 1000s. And, yes, packets move from one DNS to the next.

No. The company I work for has exactly 3 which are not public facing.

 

No sever. How absurd. I hope the rest of your post is better than this. I hope I'm not going to spend the rest of it teaching the cable guy how the internet actually works, but this tells me I am. Perhaps you are trolling? Whatever. I can't let this stupidity stand either way.

I have just shown unequivocally that you don't understand either how DNS or routing works.

 

 

What? Packets travel at whatever speed they can, depending on how many of them there are, and how thick the "pipe". Christ, read this. Notice the equations and variables here? Yeah, packets don't EVER move at the same speed.

Lot of hand waving going on by you.

 

How many tests have you run? Do they all come back with the same answer? No, they don't. And those are tests, using the exact same data and process every single time.Then how can packets move at the same speed? Volume of packets alone should tell you...never mind. I'm done with this idiocy.

On any given link the speed is set. It doesn't matter how many packets you send. Perhaps you should have read the Wiki article you linked to. The bit time is determined by the link speed. Every bit on a given link takes up exactly the same amount of time.

[Greg F]

Continued due to 'Quote' limits:

 

The person with the higher speed can't send packets at all if a DNS Server won't take them, or can only process their request slowly via allocation, until it has more room, regardless of time period. Period.

IOW, if it's broken it doesn't work. Good observation sparky.

 

 

Thanks, but I'm pretty sure, given the above, that we've already established who needs to do some reading on networking. Yeah, there are these magical things called buffers, that do everything, because "there is no server". These buffers exist in on the back of a giant turtle, otherwise known as a switch, and all these packets get stored there, until they get sent down the wire to the next giant turtle's buffers.

They are called packet buffers. Of course we all know you know more than Cisco.

 

 

These giant turtle switches (actually don't really do anything except allow cables to connect to them, and temporarily store network packets to move them from one connected cable to another.) in GregF land, are actually all-powerful beings, which somehow instead of merely doing connectivity, are also capable of not only accepting requests, but sending them, and processing responses back...all by magic.

Sure, that is why a Cisco Catalyst 3750X-48P-S 48-Port Gigabit Ethernet Switch will set you back a bit more than $10,000. Cus we all know it's just a bigger version of that crappy little $50 router/firewall you have.

 

 

Switches know where everybody in the world's devices are, because switches are as old as they are wise.

In reality they don't nor do they have to. For example, TW has a number of IP address blocks assigned to them. All the switches that are operating in Layer 3 will have routing tables that know where to send any packets destined for a address in their network. If the address doesn't match any of the IP blocks assigned to them the last entry in the routing table will send the packet to a external connecting network (usually tier 1). The tier 1 network doesn't need to know the exact destination either. All the tier 1 network needs to know is what provider has the block of numbers that contains that address.

 

So when I sent a request for Google TW looked at the address and determined it wasn't on their network. They then passed it off to XO Communications (a tier 1 network). XO Communications knew by the address that the number was in a block assigned to Google so they send it to Googles network. Google then routes it through their network to the correct location.

 

(For the rest of you, a DNS server determines where to send things, and routers give things addresses, for things to be sent...which is where you get your IP ADDRESS from. Ever heard of it? No such thing in GregF land.)

Wrong again. Routers don't assign addresses. Addresses are either assigned static or by DHCP. You are confused because you home 'router' is actually a combination of a switch, router, DHCP server, and NAT firewall (and perhaps includes a WAP) and you apparently don't understand the different functions. In the commercial world these functions are not usually combined in one box. Once again, DNS simply resolves the IP address with the domain name and sends it back to you.

 

 

Giant, All-powerful, Turtle Switch. I'm a fool? Where do the IP addresses, for the modems you work on every single day, come from? Switches?

I don't work with modems every single day as I don't work for the cable company. When you have nothing better you resort to insults. Good to know.

 

The addresses for the modems are assigned pretty much the same way everything else gets an address. Either statically assigned or by a DHCP server.

 

Right, because a modem doesn't have a config file, that has settings, which look at traffic...because...um, you may want to check your own post above, just saying. I can't use software, that uses my modem, to measure my network traffic. When I call the cable company, they don't monitor my modem, to see...my network traffic.

WTF are you talking about. Are you once again confused with the difference between a modem and a router? It appears so. A modem is a Modulator/Demodulator for converting your Ethernet signal to one compatible with their coax. The cable company has a Modulator/Demodulator at the head end that converts the signal back to Ethernet. FYI, here is an example of how to create a configuration file for a modem. They don't monitor your modem because it isn't a function of the modem and they don't give a crap. You could measure your network traffic but it won't be done using the modem. If your modem is one of the combination router, firewall, DHCP server, and switch too bad for you.

 

The go to tool for capturing network traffic is an open source project called Wireshark. Commercial firewalls only have limited packet capture capabilities and usually don't supply the detail or tools Wireshark provides.

 

Yeah. Um, did somebody put you up to this? Sorry, but it sounds a lot like somebody put you up to this. Protip: don't listen next time you get a PM. You'll only end up looking like the fool you look like right now.

Your insults are only exceeded by your ignorance.

[GG]

 

I agree, but I also believe you'll see a lot of that taken care of by LTE & the soon to appear 5G. I know for a fact that telecoms are salivating at the prospect of wireless delivery. No first/last mile copper or fiber - just towers.

That's their saving grace. AT&T and VZ have done a decent job in lighting lte across the country, but that's not enough for a true high bandwidth experience, because of idiots like OC who can't distinguish between speed and capacity.

[DC Tom]

What? Google: DNS Server. I once built an old 286 into a DNS Server/TCP IP Router for networking Macs, and you are gonna talk to me...about learning networking?

 

Hey, I did that too.

 

Then I learned it was easier to just by a router.

[Dr.Sack]

Comcast gives me 1024GB a month or 1TB of data. I'm not sure what happens when I exceed this I assume I'll be throttled. Didn't realize they had a cap. Looks like I'll be getting some competitor quotes.