Re: new thread: QoS, latency, bandwidth and the FCC/net neutrality debate
First since I do not believe in central planning I do not know what competitors will once they have the freedom to offer services. This what is awesome about the Free Market, if there is market that was moved closed off now open they will find creative ways to provide services. Sent from my iPhone > On Nov 27, 2017, at 10:43 PM, Steve Litt wrote: > > On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 20:11:02 -0700 > Eric Oyen wrote: > >> The days of >> dialup internet are also long gone. who would spend $19 a month for >> 56k when you can get that price point on 1 Mbit service? > > Many people way out in the country have no wired connection except > phone lines, 56k, and if that's all they've got, they'll pay their > $50/month for it (no alternative, remember?). > > But more to the point, today's average website takes 5 minutes to load > on dialup. I'm proud that most pages on Troubleshooters.Com still > load reasonably well on dialup. Perhaps that doesn't improve my bottom > line, but I think it makes me a good citizen. > > SteveT > > Steve Litt > November 2017 featured book: Troubleshooting: Just the Facts > http://www.troubleshooters.com/tjust > --- > PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org > To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: > http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss --- PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
Re: new thread: QoS, latency, bandwidth and the FCC/net neutrality debate
On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 20:11:02 -0700 Eric Oyen wrote: > The days of > dialup internet are also long gone. who would spend $19 a month for > 56k when you can get that price point on 1 Mbit service? Many people way out in the country have no wired connection except phone lines, 56k, and if that's all they've got, they'll pay their $50/month for it (no alternative, remember?). But more to the point, today's average website takes 5 minutes to load on dialup. I'm proud that most pages on Troubleshooters.Com still load reasonably well on dialup. Perhaps that doesn't improve my bottom line, but I think it makes me a good citizen. SteveT Steve Litt November 2017 featured book: Troubleshooting: Just the Facts http://www.troubleshooters.com/tjust --- PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
Re: new thread: QoS, latency, bandwidth and the FCC/net neutrality debate
On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 20:26:44 -0700 "Herminio Hernandez Jr. " wrote: > I agree the limited of choices is an issue but that was a result of > government meddling in telecom space allowing ISPs to have monopoly > power. You gonna give an infinite number of competitors the right to trench peoples' yards? If not, the government must step in. SteveT Steve Litt November 2017 featured book: Troubleshooting: Just the Facts http://www.troubleshooters.com/tjust --- PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
Re: new thread: QoS, latency, bandwidth and the FCC/net neutrality debate
I agree the limited of choices is an issue but that was a result of government meddling in telecom space allowing ISPs to have monopoly power. The answer to that is to lobby for that power to be removed not import more government intervention that will have more adverse effects. Taken all that aside the internet is no where near the same thing as the telephone service and try and treat them the same is unrealistic. Sent from my iPhone > On Nov 27, 2017, at 8:11 PM, Eric Oyen wrote: > > in this case, I believe that steve might be the more correct on this issue. > > try finding a paper application these days. about the only places I see this > are government offices. > > try finding broadband other than cox, century link, dish. The days of dialup > internet are also long gone. who would spend $19 a month for 56k when you can > get that price point on 1 Mbit service? > > also, there is no municipal internet anymore (except in very small areas of > tempe) the ISP's (such cox, comcast, etc) have petitioned or lobbied to have > that struck down add to this the barrier to entry that both the cable and DSL > providers have in place, and you have a recipe for monopolistic control of > access to the internet. > > now, there has already been a recent case where a big provider (in this case: > comcast) deliberately throttled traffic from a video vendor for over 2 months > that same broadband operator has also been caught inserting redirects, > throttling other services and in one case, even denying service to specific > content through their broadband connection (ostensibly because it was a > competing vendor) > > so, back when the telco lines were utility regulated, there were many ISP's > and a lot of available entrances onto the net. since 2010, that has been > whittled down to a half dozen providers, all of which control 95% of all the > access to the internet in urban areas and city centers. also, if you live in > a rural location, you stand a far higher chance of not having service (last > mile expenses being the justified reason). > > so, with only 2,3 or even 4 choices, all of which offer similar packaging at > nearly the same price points, is not much of a choice at all. > > -eric > from the central offices of the Technomage Guild, you can't get here from > there Dept. > >> On Nov 27, 2017, at 6:08 PM, Herminio Hernandez Jr. wrote: >> >> Steve we just fundamentally disagree. The idea that rolling back NN will >> result in weekly outcries and basically the end of the internet borders on >> hysteria. I am all for a Free and Open Internet, however I strongly disagree >> that Net Neutrality is the answer. It asks for that which is technically not >> feasible. The idea that you can treat the internet like POTS lines is >> laughable to anyone who understands networking. I would never trust anyone >> who called themselves a network engineer who said ‘yeah you can treat voice, >> video, and data traffic the same way’. >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On Nov 27, 2017, at 5:47 PM, Steve Litt wrote: >>> >>> On Sat, 25 Nov 2017 22:30:25 -0700 >>> "Herminio Hernandez, Jr." wrote: >>> Here is a good presentation by Bryan Lunduke on NN https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csK3KspB-6A >>> >>> I got to time marker 7:20 on that video, which is already more than I >>> had time for, and just based on 0-7:20, I call bullshit. The guy first >>> says, "yeah, there was throttling by the big ISPs, but through public >>> outcry and lawsuits they were stopped." >>> >>> Maybe we don't want to resume lawsuits and public outcry every few >>> weeks when one deep pocket ISP or another throttles or sabotages a >>> competitor or web presence they don't like. Maybe some of us don't like >>> paying lawyers. >>> >>> Then, around the seven minute mark, he says something to the effect >>> that when ISPs throttled, customers switched ISPs. Out of touch much? >>> Where I live, you have a choice of Spectrum, or the Centurylink phone >>> company who can give me about 2MBit down, without satellite latency, >>> because I'm more than 10K feet from their nearest plant. Much more of >>> the populace is like me (or in a worse situation) than like wherever >>> Lunduke lives. >>> >>> When I want a tool, I can go to Home Depot, Lowes, True Value, Ace, >>> Harbor Freight, and if I want a cheap junk tool, Walmart. When I want >>> broadband with 21st century uplink and downlink speed that doesn't go >>> down in rainstorms, I've got Spectrum, Spectrum and Spectrum. Six tool >>> vendors I can get to compete for my business, but one broadband vendor. >>> >>> So Lunduke says they throttle if they can get away with it, and he >>> implies a falsehood when he speaks of switching vendors. This is >>> exactly my point. If every American had six possible ISPs, and if the >>> US enforced their antitrust laws and prosecuted collusion, there would >>> be no need for net neutrality. I hope to someday see such a s
Re: new thread: QoS, latency, bandwidth and the FCC/net neutrality debate
in this case, I believe that steve might be the more correct on this issue. try finding a paper application these days. about the only places I see this are government offices. try finding broadband other than cox, century link, dish. The days of dialup internet are also long gone. who would spend $19 a month for 56k when you can get that price point on 1 Mbit service? also, there is no municipal internet anymore (except in very small areas of tempe) the ISP's (such cox, comcast, etc) have petitioned or lobbied to have that struck down add to this the barrier to entry that both the cable and DSL providers have in place, and you have a recipe for monopolistic control of access to the internet. now, there has already been a recent case where a big provider (in this case: comcast) deliberately throttled traffic from a video vendor for over 2 months that same broadband operator has also been caught inserting redirects, throttling other services and in one case, even denying service to specific content through their broadband connection (ostensibly because it was a competing vendor) so, back when the telco lines were utility regulated, there were many ISP's and a lot of available entrances onto the net. since 2010, that has been whittled down to a half dozen providers, all of which control 95% of all the access to the internet in urban areas and city centers. also, if you live in a rural location, you stand a far higher chance of not having service (last mile expenses being the justified reason). so, with only 2,3 or even 4 choices, all of which offer similar packaging at nearly the same price points, is not much of a choice at all. -eric from the central offices of the Technomage Guild, you can't get here from there Dept. On Nov 27, 2017, at 6:08 PM, Herminio Hernandez Jr. wrote: > Steve we just fundamentally disagree. The idea that rolling back NN will > result in weekly outcries and basically the end of the internet borders on > hysteria. I am all for a Free and Open Internet, however I strongly disagree > that Net Neutrality is the answer. It asks for that which is technically not > feasible. The idea that you can treat the internet like POTS lines is > laughable to anyone who understands networking. I would never trust anyone > who called themselves a network engineer who said ‘yeah you can treat voice, > video, and data traffic the same way’. > > Sent from my iPhone > >> On Nov 27, 2017, at 5:47 PM, Steve Litt wrote: >> >> On Sat, 25 Nov 2017 22:30:25 -0700 >> "Herminio Hernandez, Jr." wrote: >> >>> Here is a good presentation by Bryan Lunduke on NN >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csK3KspB-6A >> >> I got to time marker 7:20 on that video, which is already more than I >> had time for, and just based on 0-7:20, I call bullshit. The guy first >> says, "yeah, there was throttling by the big ISPs, but through public >> outcry and lawsuits they were stopped." >> >> Maybe we don't want to resume lawsuits and public outcry every few >> weeks when one deep pocket ISP or another throttles or sabotages a >> competitor or web presence they don't like. Maybe some of us don't like >> paying lawyers. >> >> Then, around the seven minute mark, he says something to the effect >> that when ISPs throttled, customers switched ISPs. Out of touch much? >> Where I live, you have a choice of Spectrum, or the Centurylink phone >> company who can give me about 2MBit down, without satellite latency, >> because I'm more than 10K feet from their nearest plant. Much more of >> the populace is like me (or in a worse situation) than like wherever >> Lunduke lives. >> >> When I want a tool, I can go to Home Depot, Lowes, True Value, Ace, >> Harbor Freight, and if I want a cheap junk tool, Walmart. When I want >> broadband with 21st century uplink and downlink speed that doesn't go >> down in rainstorms, I've got Spectrum, Spectrum and Spectrum. Six tool >> vendors I can get to compete for my business, but one broadband vendor. >> >> So Lunduke says they throttle if they can get away with it, and he >> implies a falsehood when he speaks of switching vendors. This is >> exactly my point. If every American had six possible ISPs, and if the >> US enforced their antitrust laws and prosecuted collusion, there would >> be no need for net neutrality. I hope to someday see such a situation, >> but til then, ISPs need to be regulated like utilities. >> >> One more thing. Lunduke keeps referring to the golden age before 2015. >> Well, in 2014, there were still paper alternatives if you couldn't use >> the Internet. You could still fill out paper job applications. You >> could still buy goods in a vibrant brick and mortar marketplace. Those >> days are gone: The Internet is now a necessity, and in most locations >> Internet providers are a monopoly. They need to be regulated as >> utilities: Same as electricity. >> >> If you want to take a stand, why not write to congress telling them to >> pass
Re: new thread: QoS, latency, bandwidth and the FCC/net neutrality debate
Steve we just fundamentally disagree. The idea that rolling back NN will result in weekly outcries and basically the end of the internet borders on hysteria. I am all for a Free and Open Internet, however I strongly disagree that Net Neutrality is the answer. It asks for that which is technically not feasible. The idea that you can treat the internet like POTS lines is laughable to anyone who understands networking. I would never trust anyone who called themselves a network engineer who said ‘yeah you can treat voice, video, and data traffic the same way’. Sent from my iPhone > On Nov 27, 2017, at 5:47 PM, Steve Litt wrote: > > On Sat, 25 Nov 2017 22:30:25 -0700 > "Herminio Hernandez, Jr." wrote: > >> Here is a good presentation by Bryan Lunduke on NN >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csK3KspB-6A > > I got to time marker 7:20 on that video, which is already more than I > had time for, and just based on 0-7:20, I call bullshit. The guy first > says, "yeah, there was throttling by the big ISPs, but through public > outcry and lawsuits they were stopped." > > Maybe we don't want to resume lawsuits and public outcry every few > weeks when one deep pocket ISP or another throttles or sabotages a > competitor or web presence they don't like. Maybe some of us don't like > paying lawyers. > > Then, around the seven minute mark, he says something to the effect > that when ISPs throttled, customers switched ISPs. Out of touch much? > Where I live, you have a choice of Spectrum, or the Centurylink phone > company who can give me about 2MBit down, without satellite latency, > because I'm more than 10K feet from their nearest plant. Much more of > the populace is like me (or in a worse situation) than like wherever > Lunduke lives. > > When I want a tool, I can go to Home Depot, Lowes, True Value, Ace, > Harbor Freight, and if I want a cheap junk tool, Walmart. When I want > broadband with 21st century uplink and downlink speed that doesn't go > down in rainstorms, I've got Spectrum, Spectrum and Spectrum. Six tool > vendors I can get to compete for my business, but one broadband vendor. > > So Lunduke says they throttle if they can get away with it, and he > implies a falsehood when he speaks of switching vendors. This is > exactly my point. If every American had six possible ISPs, and if the > US enforced their antitrust laws and prosecuted collusion, there would > be no need for net neutrality. I hope to someday see such a situation, > but til then, ISPs need to be regulated like utilities. > > One more thing. Lunduke keeps referring to the golden age before 2015. > Well, in 2014, there were still paper alternatives if you couldn't use > the Internet. You could still fill out paper job applications. You > could still buy goods in a vibrant brick and mortar marketplace. Those > days are gone: The Internet is now a necessity, and in most locations > Internet providers are a monopoly. They need to be regulated as > utilities: Same as electricity. > > If you want to take a stand, why not write to congress telling them to > pass a law invalidating all the state laws preventing municipalities > from providing Internet to their citizens. Take a stand for competition. > > SteveT > > Steve Litt > November 2017 featured book: Troubleshooting: Just the Facts > http://www.troubleshooters.com/tjust > --- > PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org > To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: > http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss --- PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
Re: new thread: QoS, latency, bandwidth and the FCC/net neutrality debate
On Sat, 25 Nov 2017 22:30:25 -0700 "Herminio Hernandez, Jr." wrote: > Here is a good presentation by Bryan Lunduke on NN > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csK3KspB-6A I got to time marker 7:20 on that video, which is already more than I had time for, and just based on 0-7:20, I call bullshit. The guy first says, "yeah, there was throttling by the big ISPs, but through public outcry and lawsuits they were stopped." Maybe we don't want to resume lawsuits and public outcry every few weeks when one deep pocket ISP or another throttles or sabotages a competitor or web presence they don't like. Maybe some of us don't like paying lawyers. Then, around the seven minute mark, he says something to the effect that when ISPs throttled, customers switched ISPs. Out of touch much? Where I live, you have a choice of Spectrum, or the Centurylink phone company who can give me about 2MBit down, without satellite latency, because I'm more than 10K feet from their nearest plant. Much more of the populace is like me (or in a worse situation) than like wherever Lunduke lives. When I want a tool, I can go to Home Depot, Lowes, True Value, Ace, Harbor Freight, and if I want a cheap junk tool, Walmart. When I want broadband with 21st century uplink and downlink speed that doesn't go down in rainstorms, I've got Spectrum, Spectrum and Spectrum. Six tool vendors I can get to compete for my business, but one broadband vendor. So Lunduke says they throttle if they can get away with it, and he implies a falsehood when he speaks of switching vendors. This is exactly my point. If every American had six possible ISPs, and if the US enforced their antitrust laws and prosecuted collusion, there would be no need for net neutrality. I hope to someday see such a situation, but til then, ISPs need to be regulated like utilities. One more thing. Lunduke keeps referring to the golden age before 2015. Well, in 2014, there were still paper alternatives if you couldn't use the Internet. You could still fill out paper job applications. You could still buy goods in a vibrant brick and mortar marketplace. Those days are gone: The Internet is now a necessity, and in most locations Internet providers are a monopoly. They need to be regulated as utilities: Same as electricity. If you want to take a stand, why not write to congress telling them to pass a law invalidating all the state laws preventing municipalities from providing Internet to their citizens. Take a stand for competition. SteveT Steve Litt November 2017 featured book: Troubleshooting: Just the Facts http://www.troubleshooters.com/tjust --- PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
Re: Killing fsck safely?
Appreciate it, I'm glad that a Control-C will allow a graceful exit. Cheers, -Matt Sent from ProtonMail, Swiss-based encrypted email. > Original Message >Subject: Re: Killing fsck safely? >Local Time: November 26, 2017 9:49 PM >UTC Time: November 27, 2017 4:49 AM >From: eric.o...@icloud.com >To: Matthew Crews , Main PLUG discussion list > > >yes, it will finish up what it is doing that second and quit per Control-C. >also, a kill -HUP fsck. should also safely cause it to quit >gracefully. > >-eric >from the central office of the Technomage Guild, Technical Services Dept. > >On Nov 26, 2017, at 5:48 PM, Matthew Crews wrote: > >> >>A few days ago I started a fsck run on a large hard drive using the command >> >>$ sudo fsck -vcck /dev/whatever >> >>I wanted to check the disk for errors. Right now it is several days from >>finishing. >> >>Unfortunately, SRP is planning on a power outage in the next few weeks, and I >>WILL lose electrical power to the device when it happens. >> >>Is it safe to Ctrl+C fsck, or am I screwed regardless? >> >>See the Arch Wiki for details on the command: >>https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/badblocks >> >>-Matt >> >> >>Sent from ProtonMail, Swiss-based encrypted email. >> >> >> >> >>--- >>PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org >>To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: >>http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss >> --- PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.phxlinux.org To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings: http://lists.phxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
