Archive | March 6, 2015

Web Bandwidth: Net Neutrality Is One Thing, BUT We Need To Address Wonton Bandwidth WASTE Because It Is ‘Free’.

Anura Guruge December 2014 thumbnail
.
.
.
.
.
.
by Anura Guruge


Related Posts:
>>
Net Neutrality still leaves inequality — Nov. 11, 2014.
>>
Net Neutrality should be Obama’s legacy — Jan. 17, 2014.
>> Net Neutrality is dead – Jan. 15, 2014.


payforuseinternet


While I appreciate that it is basically un-American I do favor Net Neutrality.

But something that has always bothered me about the whole ‘Free Utility’ model of the Internet is the wanton WASTE of bandwidth — with many not even realizing that they are wasting bandwidth and that there IS ALWAYS a cost to bandwidth THAT IS USED and that it takes REAL ENERGY (i.e., electricity) to send/receive bits.

Today somebody sent me a 9MB video file. It was a fun video. But it took me 10 seconds to find it on YouTube. So rather than sending me a 9MB file, 72 million bits, they could have just sent me the YouTube link which would have taken about 100 bytes (i.e., characters), 800 bits. Big difference between sending 800 bits, across the World, to 72 million bits.

When I told him off for wasting ENERGY, this guy, an engineer to boot, claimed that using bandwidth was not the same as wasting energy. Sacre bloody bleu! Why do people believe that bandwidth is FREE. Of course sending bits, whether over copper or fiber, requires energy. Chipsets use more energy when they are working than when they are idling. Plus sending/receiving data generates HEAT — which in the case of computer and networking equipment means spending more energy to cool the equipment!

I have no problem with people using bandwidth. I do, with gusto. But I am acutely aware of the bandwidth I use and try very hard not to use it. Yes, some of you will quite rightly point out that I am ‘wasting’ bandwidth with my LAVISH use of graphics. But a big part of this blog and I is the color. The graphics are very much a part of the tone of this blog. But I try not to waste bandwidth outside of the graphics. I rarely send files to people — especially if I am sending the same file (say a photograph) to multiple people. Instead I upload the file and send a link. Much less bandwidth. Considerably less. If I am dealing with video files I immediately upload it to YouTube. Now I have a link.

I have always argued that people will be much more responsible about bandwidth usage IF they had to pay for it — like we do for electricity or cell minutes. And now that people can talk for FREE over the Internet, VoIP, we get even more waste. It is like heated driveways. I have no problem with consumption. I am into conspicuous consumption. It is just the waste.

Small things. And this one I have been urging upon people for 20 years. E-mail. Something very simple. When REPLYING to an e-mail DELETE some if NOT ALL of the texts that was there to begin with. Keep the subject line and maybe if you have to … a few lines from the original. Don’t send back all the text you received. Think of the bit you are sending back. That is all wasted bandwidth.

Bandwidth usage causes congestion. Bandwidth usage consumes energy. Bandwidth usage generates heat. If that bandwidth usage is for naught you have caused congestion, used up energy and generated heat. That is it.

One last thing. You do KNOW that using your car radio decreases your milage, i.e., mpg, right? It is miniscule BUT a radio requires energy. That energy comes from the alternator. It is not much, but it is not free. You burn a tad more gas when the radio is on. You may never see it in terms of MPG but you can’t deny the physics. I once wrote a White Paper for IBM where I used this car radio example — in the context that everything you do on a CPU has a cost, even if that cost maybe as insignificant as the amount of gas required to power a car radio. But you always have to look at the big picture. If the radios (and other electronics) were turned off in ALL the cars, all over the world, we would see a drop in petrol usage. Physics doesn’t lie.


Alton Central (ACS) School Board: I Am Not Convinced That We Have YET Seen The Back Of YET LLC In Alton.

.Anura Guruge December 2014 thumbnail.
.
.
.
.
.
by Anura Guruge


Index to latest ACS Board & Lander/Leggett Posts:

See ‘ACS’ Page above in the MENU ‘bar’ ↑↑↑↑ up there to the right → →



** ** **
YET LLC withdrawal letter, INCORRECTLY signed,
is now posted …
click
** ** **



This is the official video from ACS as posted on YouTube.

The Lander statement that he has withdrawn the YET LLC
AGREEMENT with ACS starts at the 1:50 minute mark
(shown on the image below).

PLEASE watch it.

blander150markmarc22015

Click to watch YouTube video.


I have listened to Lander’s statement, starting at the 1:50 minute mark on the video, about him retracting the YET LLC AGREEMENT with ACS, at least a dozen times, if not more. The whole ‘agreement’ claim intrigues and puzzles me. I thought we were told at the February 17, 2015 Board meeting that a contract had not been signed. So if there was no contract what exactly was this ‘agreement’? Secret handshake? A knowing nod and a wink? Playing footsie? What was it? Was it binding? Lander makes out that it appeared to be binding? If so when did the Board make that binding agreement and was it, or was it not, a signed contract? Strange.

I am beyond AMAZED that nobody in the audience, when they were given a chance to speak, ask for clarification as to what this AGREEMENT was that Lander was withdrawing.

As I mentioned yesterday we have already requested, per ‘Right to Know‘, from SAU #72, the letter and e-mail Lander talks about. Have not had a response from the SAU as yet.

But I also noticed that Lander did NOT really say he, in the guise of the LLC or otherwise, will NOT be reapplying. So from what I can see he could very easily toss his hat into the ring again when the jobs are advertised — and we can be sure that there will be two Board members who will do their damndest to get Lander back. That is my worry. Lander, from what I can see, has NOT totally walked away. I think he has kept his options open. Look at his M.O. while at Alton. He resigned with an year to go on a contract that he renegotiated. Then he turned around and wanted to be hired, for a year, in the guise as an LLC. Didn’t anybody on the Board see this as STRANGE. He had a year left on his damn contract. He resigns and then wants to be hired back again — and three Board Members, in their infinite wisdom and acumen, thought that that was a great idea, the best thing since bagels with an hole in it?

I can’t see Lander leaving Alton without having another crack at getting employed.

Where else is he going to go right now given all the glowing coverage he has got with YET LLC. I will contend, and I have my means of gauging this stuff, NO OTHER SAU has done any diligence on YET LLC. When they do I will know.

So don’t get complacent. YET LLC is YET a potential future prospect for ACS.

Bear that in mind on Tuesday, March 10, 2015 when you are thinking about voting.


%d bloggers like this: