Too much reliance on technology or too much interest in profit only?
Oops

Both.
And don't upgrade a system that is supposed to work 24/7 the day before a holiday!
Who's project manager to BA's IT system?

Outsourced to India, we believe. So it'll a contractual negotiation between bodies corporate, rather than direct line management ("stay at your desk until it's fixed, and then you're fired.")

More fees for lawyers.

Too much reliance on technology or too much interest in profit only?
Oops

Both.
And don't upgrade a system that is supposed to work 24/7 the day before a holiday!
Who's project manager to BA's IT system?

Outsourced to India, we believe. So it'll a contractual negotiation between bodies corporate, rather than direct line management ("stay at your desk until it's fixed, and then you're fired.")

I think it's two project managers.
One Brit and one Indian.
Have they heard about Murphy's Law?
Any developer or systems manager, from Britain or India or whatever, know that law.

Almost 600 key experts and decision makers of the global cyber defence community have gathered in Tallinn, Estonia, for the international conference on cyber conflict, CyCon 2017.
http://estonianworld.com/security/nearly-600-cyber-defence-experts-meet-tallinn-cycon-2017/
I wonder if Artur Rehi will be there.
I know he's going back from LA to Estonia this week.
Report will follow on Friday.

The current game and state of business play from Intel:


A brief summary of Intel's new lineup as announced at Computex:

Youtube: Is it time to switch to AMD? Has Intel lost its mind?

A very good comment in there is about going ahead with "eyes wide open"...


And someone far better than myself for presenting has beaten me to some very apt comment for the latest offering from Intel:

Youtube: I have some things to say - Core i9 & X299

Intel's X299 launch and new Core i9 processors inspired me to create this video...



For my personal view: I'm still aghast. Crazy indeed.

Would you buy into that?

Is this where "duopolies" should be regulated and brought back from gouging excesses as is (supposedly) the case for monopolies?

Is IT an important enough piece of infrastructure to be protected in the same way as for other essential services such as water and electricity?...


IT is what we allow it to be,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Data Mining, It is what you make it.
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-40331215

Personal details of nearly 200 million US citizens exposed

---

For or against?

Better question: who should pay for backbone and "last mile" upgrades?

"Net neutrality" shields the content providers from responsibility for bandwidth upgrades and forces the ISPs to charge *all* their customers higher prices whether or not they subscribe to the content providers clogging up the pathways--and *everybody* experiences the spinning hour glass as the ISPs try to keep up.

The pipes are owned by the ISPs and therefore it is their responsibility to pay for maintenance costs and upgrades. Content providers are merely providing content to people that want it. The way it works is that customers pay an ISP to access a Content Provider's content. If ISPs charge Content Providers too, ISPs are getting away with charging both Content Providers and Customers for the same content twice.

For or against?

Better question: who should pay for backbone and "last mile" upgrades?

"Net neutrality" shields the content providers from responsibility for bandwidth upgrades and forces the ISPs to charge *all* their customers higher prices whether or not they subscribe to the content providers clogging up the pathways--and *everybody* experiences the spinning hour glass as the ISPs try to keep up.

The pipes are owned by the ISPs and therefore it is their responsibility to pay for maintenance costs and upgrades. Content providers are merely providing content to people that want it. The way it works is that customers pay an ISP to access a Content Provider's content. If ISPs charge Content Providers too, ISPs are getting away with charging both Content Providers and Customers for the same content twice.

...ISPs... it is their responsibility...

only in a socialist/marxist/communist society.

...Content providers are merely providing content to people that want it. ...

No, they are charging for their content.

"Net neutrality" forces ISPs to provide a free service to the content providers which support the content providers' profit.

In what universe is that fair?

...unless we are succumbing to a socialist/marxist/communist form of government which dictates what businesses can do and how much they can charge. ...thus leading to rationed service. Everybody gets the same crappy internet service... [sarcasm]ya, that's fair.[/sarcasm]

Two ISPs are in business. Let's call them ISP A and ISP B.

A Content Provider wants to offer content to people they think will fill a niche. Let's call them CuteCatVideos.com. They buy internet service from ISP A and pay for access.

Mark Sattler is a customer that likes cats. He buys internet access from ISP B so he can watch the content provided by CuteCatVideos.com, and he likes them so much he pays CuteCatVidoes.com a subscription fee. Mark is now paying ISP B and CuteCatVideos.com.

ISP A and ISP B must peer their data equally so that all customers can receive CuteCatVideos.com content equally. If Mark's ISP B goes back to charge CuteCatVideos.com because their content is incredibly popular, that's not a fair business practice because CuteCatVideos.com already pay ISP A from the income they charge their customers or receive from sponsors. ISP A and ISP B are already receiving payments for service. If a lot of ISP B's customers want to watch CuteCatVideos.com, they must upgrade their infrastructure to provide what the customers want. It is not fair to go back to CuteCatVideos.com and make them pay more.

But you say that CuteCatVideos.com is so popular that it is senseless content that no one outside of their customer base should have to pay for just so ISP B has to upgrade their infrastructure. Well, if CuteCatVideos.com weren't popular in the first place, the customers wouldn't demand to watch it or subscribe and it wouldn't be clogging up ISP B's infrastructure. It was the customers that demanded it, and it is the customers already paying for access.

This is supply and demand economics at it's finest. It is only greed that ISP B sees CuteCatVideos making so much money off subscriptions that they want a piece of that pie because they own the pipes to get there, despite already being paid by their customers.

It has nothing to do with socialism/marxism/communism. It's about ensuring any content provider or upstart isn't overburdened with having to pay everyone simply because their content is popular.

What it really boils down to is that ISPs don't want to become dumb pipes. They want to charge content providers more so that content providers must pass those charges onto their customers. In the meantime, ISPs will provide their own content and not have to charge themselves more, and they will offer that content without the extra cost. They want to become a walled garden, so they convince the populace that Net Neutrality is a government takeover of the internet and every anti-big-government personality will immeditely cling to that tag line without really thinking about the subject at all.

Hence where we've been at for the past several years.

Guy doesn't get it, all he sees are regulations and the loss of freedom for corporations to extort.

---

This may come as a shock, Ozz, but I completely agree with you. In other messages about Photobucket, Vic, alluded to this....perhaps PB are just testing the water, or was the timing, coincidental?

---

Don't take life too seriously, as you'll never come out of it alive!

perhaps PB are just testing the water, or was the timing, coincidental?

No coincidence. It is the first of many to come. Massive price increases for the internet. Expect to be paying $10K a year soon for dial-up speed. The loss of net neutrality is wonderful, especially as the cable/airwves it comes to you over is a regulated monopoly.

---

That's not what was said at all. You asserted that net neutrality was about giving content providers a free ride on the internet while making ISPs pay for everything. I gave you an example of how content providers already pay for their access and so do customers. Profits are already being made by each company charging their respective customers a fee for access. Net neutrality is about making sure that ISPs who own the last mile can't use their position to extort others to pay more.

That's not what was said at all. You asserted that net neutrality was about giving content providers a free ride on the internet while making ISPs pay for everything. I gave you an example of how content providers already pay for their access and so do customers. Profits are already being made by each company charging their respective customers a fee for access. Net neutrality is about making sure that ISPs who own the last mile can't use their position to extort others to pay more.

Or the first mile either.

---

That's not what was said at all. You asserted that net neutrality was about giving content providers a free ride on the internet while making ISPs pay for everything. I gave you an example of how content providers already pay for their access and so do customers. Profits are already being made by each company charging their respective customers a fee for access. Net neutrality is about making sure that ISPs who own the last mile can't use their position to extort others to pay more.

And I agree that is how it should be.

I don't think that ISPs should be able to charge 'extra' to a content provider simply because whatever they are providing is very popular.
If they incur extra costs to service that provider, they should be forced to raise their rates to all subscribers to cover it.
The same goes for my end of the pipe. I pay for a certain speed and amount of bandwidth, and it should not matter where or how I utilize it. If they need more income, they should be forced to raise the rates for everybody to cover it.

If those caveats are enforced to all ISPs, it forces them to compete with each other to hold down costs.. If they are allowed to 'short circuit' their need to compete with other ISPs by cherry picking hotspots and charging them extra, the whole free market thingy kinda goes out the window.

---

"Time is simply the mechanism that keeps everything from happening all at once."

the whole free market thingy kinda goes out the window.

Mark as point of order it's not a free market, a free market has many providers. For most it's a choice of a few providers, that by definition is an oligopoly or one provider that's a monopoly.

---

the whole free market thingy kinda goes out the window.

Mark as point of order it's not a free market, a free market has many providers. For most it's a choice of a few providers, that by definition is an oligopoly or one provider that's a monopoly.

Well, even more than 1 provider provides some degree of competition.
For example, I have 2 available. ATT and Spectrum. And they are in competition, and I have used the rates from Spectrum to negotiate my rate with ATT.
Not everybody has a choice, but I believe that nationwide, the number of subscribers with a choice outnumber those without by a huge margin.

---

"Time is simply the mechanism that keeps everything from happening all at once."

the whole free market thingy kinda goes out the window.

Mark as point of order it's not a free market, a free market has many providers. For most it's a choice of a few providers, that by definition is an oligopoly or one provider that's a monopoly.

Well, even more than 1 provider provides some degree of competition.
For example, I have 2 available. ATT and Spectrum. And they are in competition, and I have used the rates from Spectrum to negotiate my rate with ATT.
Not everybody has a choice, but I believe that nationwide, the number of subscribers with a choice outnumber those without by a huge margin.

Mark, at my employment inside Los Angeles City limits we have the choice of one provider. Take it or leave it. While much of the city has more than one choice, industrial / agricultural areas don't have cable TV wires or fibers, only POTS wires. Yes, they can get any number of places to bill them, but the service is still over the phone company wires. Which also brings up that the poles to bring you the wire is owned by a monopoly and not everyone is allowed to string wires on them, worse if you have underground service, rip up the street?!

---