http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/05/23/110523fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=all
From Article:
'When President Barack Obama took office, in 2009, he championed the cause of government transparency, and spoke admiringly of whistle-blowers, whom he described as “often the best source of information about waste, fraud, and abuse in government.” But the Obama Administration has pursued leak prosecutions with a surprising relentlessness. Including the Drake case, it has been using the Espionage Act to press criminal charges in five alleged instances of national-security leaks—more such prosecutions than have occurred in all previous Administrations combined. The Drake case is one of two that Obama’s Justice Department has carried over from the Bush years.

Gabriel Schoenfeld, a conservative political scientist at the Hudson Institute, who, in his book “Necessary Secrets” (2010), argues for more stringent protection of classified information, says, “Ironically, Obama has presided over the most draconian crackdown on leaks in our history—even more so than Nixon.”
...
Mark Klein, the former A.T. & T. employee who exposed the telecom-company wiretaps, is also dismayed by the Drake case. “I think it’s outrageous,” he says. “The Bush people have been let off. The telecom companies got immunity. The only people Obama has prosecuted are the whistle-blowers.” '

True, 10 years ago saw a job posting of a well known Swedish telecom that wanted people under 25 with a masters in computer engineering and at least five to ten years of experience in the industry.
To this date i still wonder if they ever managed to find one with those qualifications.
>> ^marinara:

what there is, is a lot of business owners who want 30 years of experience for the low low price of $6.50 per hour. And they want it with mandantory overtime and unpaid overtime.

Thanks for the quality! And you're spot on.

In reply to this comment by radx:
Hah, I was just about to submit this as well. *quality Obama, right here.

Pfc Manning has not been tried nor convicted, yet the CINC, who taught constitutional law, publicly declares him guilty. That's delicious.

To claim that you "don’t let individuals make their own decisions about how the laws operate" after he decided not to prosecute Bush for all the shit, CIA officials for destroying their torture tapes, the telecoms for illegal wiretapping, etc ... that's delicious as well.

And no, the Ellsberg papers were not classified the same way as the ones Pfc Manning allegedly leaked: they were top secret, Manning's were "just" classified.

Hah, I was just about to submit this as well. *quality Obama, right here.

Pfc Manning has not been tried nor convicted, yet the CINC, who taught constitutional law, publicly declares him guilty. That's delicious.

To claim that you "don’t let individuals make their own decisions about how the laws operate" after he decided not to prosecute Bush for all the shit, CIA officials for destroying their torture tapes, the telecoms for illegal wiretapping, etc ... that's delicious as well.

And no, the Ellsberg papers were not classified the same way as the ones Pfc Manning allegedly leaked: they were top secret, Manning's were "just" classified.

I've reached the point where the very fact that he says he rejects this plan, makes me very nervous. Virtually everything he's ever promised, he's done a 180 on. Amnesty for telecoms and warrentless wiretaps...Guantanamo Bay...the public option...standing up with unions...state secrets...DOMA. The list goes on and on. In every case, his actions utterly refuted his promises.

The only positive thing I can say for him is, he's still better than McCain. But not by much.

> 2gb a day is two hours of hd on demand streaming video. What's at risk here?

Your infinite plan is at risk here. If everyone thinks they can consume 2 GB a day and not decimate the ISP, they're high.

No, I have no horse in this race. I know lots of telecom analysts though.

>> ^Xax:

>> You can say, "Well take your business elsewhere then," but that's just it - there's nowhere else to take it to! If there were, Bell/Rogers would be fucked.
Canadian taxpayers pay/have paid for a large part of our telecom infrastructure, but Bell/Rogers get to make the rules and set the prices. It's a corrupt system.


I've placed my order - next week I'm switching to Youmano. Unlimited DSL! I look forward to seeing how it plays out.

$28.95, no contract. Yay?

>> ^deathcow:

Reality... most bandwidth is consumed by very few people, and they're fucking it up for the rest of you.

No they're not. Bell/Rogers/CRTC would like everyone to think so, but they're not. Quit drinking the Koolaid.

I've never experienced speed problems when downloading a file, so I don't buy that a select few are causing congestion issues. It costs the carriers a few cents per GB, but they want to charge up to $4/GB for overages. You can say, "Well take your business elsewhere then," but that's just it - there's nowhere else to take it to! If there were, Bell/Rogers would be fucked.

Canadian taxpayers pay/have paid for a large part of our telecom infrastructure, but Bell/Rogers get to make the rules and set the prices. It's a corrupt system.

I feel bad that things I write are assumed to be facetious...I guess it's nobody's fault but my own

In reply to this comment by Skeeve:
I'm not sure if your comment was facetious or not, but you were pretty close to the mark. It's not the television networks (per se), but the television providers. The television providers are also the major ISPs and they know that if they can throttle the internet enough, or make it prohibitively expensive to use services like Netflix, then people will buy television service instead.

As I have said before, this is a pure money grab by the telecoms who have supported it. Luckily there are those few, like Telus, who have refused to change to UBB and have decried it as the money grab it is.
>> ^rottenseed:

>> ^marinara:
40 gigabit for 5$ that's shit.
that's like 8 movies on netflix. or 63 cents a movie.
lucky i'm in america don't see these costs.

That would change the dynamic of services like Netflix online. I wonder if the television networks have anything to do with this decision.

I'm not sure if your comment was facetious or not, but you were pretty close to the mark. It's not the television networks (per se), but the television providers. The television providers are also the major ISPs and they know that if they can throttle the internet enough, or make it prohibitively expensive to use services like Netflix, then people will buy television service instead.

As I have said before, this is a pure money grab by the telecoms who have supported it. Luckily there are those few, like Telus, who have refused to change to UBB and have decried it as the money grab it is.
>> ^rottenseed:

>> ^marinara:
40 gigabit for 5$ that's shit.
that's like 8 movies on netflix. or 63 cents a movie.
lucky i'm in america don't see these costs.

That would change the dynamic of services like Netflix online. I wonder if the television networks have anything to do with this decision.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

It's weird, Australia seems to be going the other way. For years we've had metered bandwidth- Up until 5 months ago, my quota was 20 gigs on my home cable broadband and it cost $89. Then suddenly all of the ISP plans were increased by a factor of 10. I now have a 200 GB limit for the same price.

The reason for the increase in bandwidth is (I believe) because the government is rolling out a public fiber to the premises (FTTP) broadband program which will be in direct competition with the main wholesale and retail ISP - the national telecom provider for Australia, Telstra.

video confuses the issue.
the problem is telecom/oil/banking/medical/real estate corporations buying a candidate. Public funding of elections has a technical cost to taxpayers, technical cost to people who enjoy classic campaigning, but REally this is just bullshit video.

this message brought to you by
http://fixcongressfirst.com

>> ^charliem:


These net-neutrality pundits seem to be making out that the big companies want to abuse the way that QOS is assigned....ie. identifying streams from providers that pay a premium and giving them a higher priority, irrespective of the traffic class.
Is this whats actually happening?

No, but that's because the internet has always had Net Neutrality regulation up to this point, through FCC fiat.

Net Neutrality advocates want new legislation that enshrines the de facto FCC policy in law, so that it's not subject to the whims of whoever is FCC chair (or put another way, so that Internet regulation isn't dependent on the honesty of the occupant of the White House).

As for whether the companies would do the things the Net Neutrality activists say they would, the telecom companies are openly saying they need to do things like bandwidth metering, and selling prioritized traffic rights because otherwise they simply won't be able to afford expanding their networks to meet demand.

>> ^charliem:


If thats the case, then the only regulation that needs to be passed is one that enforces the correct application of QOS categorization...ensuring that Voice gets Voice level QOS tagging, video gets video tagging, generic content gets no real priority, and network management protocols get highest (routing / switching protocols).
I dont see how they could make that political at all....present it to congress in that way, and enforce correct prioritization as law. No problem.


Thinking as a technical guy, I agree, that would be ideal. The problem is, who decides what "correct" application of QoS is? The FCC? A standards board dominated by representatives of the telecommunications committees? The network providers themselves?

There's also a problem with enforcement. That doesn't go away under pure neutrality, but at least then you're just testing to see if the service providers are doing any traffic shaping, rather than having to get into the nitty gritty of the specific shaping logic, and then trying to discern whether the intent of each rule was noble (traffic optimization) or criminal (anti-competitive business practice, or an attempt to limit free speech).

Smart companies could and would easily muddy the waters in the second system. (e.g. We're not limiting bandwidth to Netflix because we have a business agreement with Hulu, it's because Netflix is a huge resource hog that's causing slowdowns for our other customers...).

That's fucking retarded. If it's ok to allow telecom companies to direct internet traffic on wireless networks, then why isn't it ok for them to control wired networks? What's the difference?

Neither is ok, we're just supposed to fucking take this and say thank you.

Fucking goddamn bullshit this is fucking unbelievable. How the fucking shit is this in the peoples best fucking interest? Who the fuck is running things over there? China?

Well, in honesty, I covered the cable lay (PPC-1) for a final year project in my telecoms eng. course, so it wasn't a recent research effort

Theres a few videos of them pulling the fibre through the manholes on land, and at the manhole underwater too. A few shots of the side-scanners, and the plough, and the amplifiers, and the divers placing it on the seabed in shallow waters...just a massive ammount of content. It also covers the deployment of the datacentres that feed the fibre.

Very cool and transparent project. I was going to buy shares when they opened, but didnt have the capital at the time
They opened at something like 20c, and the company sold to an aussie ISP here for something like $3 ea. Insane stock growth over 18 months.