Slashdot Mirror

junge_m writes "Donald Knuth has released another of his by now famous pre-fascicles to Volume 4 of his epic: Pre-fascicle 2c is all about 'Generating all Combinations' supplementing his pre-fascicles 2a and 2b. Furthermore he challenges us all to do more of his daunting exercises and report our success. He thinks we are way too lazy in this respect! So come on slashdot crowd: Do your homework and get the credit from the grandmaster himself!"

kabir writes "OpenGL.org has a link to a fun article over at the Stanford Aerospace Robotics Laboratory. It seems an OpenGL-based GUI has been developed to enable the operation of multiple complex field robots by a single operator. The interaction mechanism was inspired by interface techniques refined in the Real-Time Strategy (RTS) genre of video games. Fifty years from now I expect all wars to be fought by giant robots controlled by teenagers."

kabir writes "OpenGL.org has a link to a fun article over at the Stanford Aerospace Robotics Laboratory. It seems an OpenGL-based GUI has been developed to enable the operation of multiple complex field robots by a single operator. The interaction mechanism was inspired by interface techniques refined in the Real-Time Strategy (RTS) genre of video games. Fifty years from now I expect all wars to be fought by giant robots controlled by teenagers."

Trevor Lovett writes "I ran across a collection of famous software bugs that have caused large scale disasters including the explosion of the Ariane 5 rocket due to integer overflow and the misfiring of a US Patriot missile that caused 28 deaths because of accumulated floating point error. "

Bert690 writes "Apropos of yesterday's Slashdot story on BitTorrent: Some folks at Stanford have released a paper on P2P "bucket brigade"-like streaming that contains *an actual analysis* and a downloadable implementation." Could this be considered actual research on the subject of p2p networks and scalability?

Bert690 writes "Apropos of yesterday's Slashdot story on BitTorrent: Some folks at Stanford have released a paper on P2P "bucket brigade"-like streaming that contains *an actual analysis* and a downloadable implementation." Could this be considered actual research on the subject of p2p networks and scalability?

Bert690 writes "Apropos of yesterday's Slashdot story on BitTorrent: Some folks at Stanford have released a paper on P2P "bucket brigade"-like streaming that contains *an actual analysis* and a downloadable implementation." Could this be considered actual research on the subject of p2p networks and scalability?

Slashback this evening with another round of clarifications and additional links regarding recent Slashdot stories. Steve Job's Grammy acceptance speech, details on the proposed higher levy on CD-Rs in Canada, more on the claimed clash between satellite radio and 802.11 devices, and more.

After the bowling ball, the mouse. jonny writes: "Most people here know the story of the Mac and the growth of the GUI. Most of you probably don't know the whole story though, namely you probably don't know the story of the mouse, important as it is... Interesting too."

Additional reading material for the math-inclined. Bruce Schneier dropped a note with some good reading material for anyone interested in the recent Slashdot posts on factoring and SNMP. "I've written essays on the Bernstein factoring paper and SNMP SNMP vulnerability."

Americans shouldn't be too smug about this stuff. An Anonymous Coward writes, in response to the proposed increase in levies on various recordable media in Canada: "An excellent FAQ including information on how manufacturers, importers, and consumers can avoid the levies on CDRs and CDRWs"

It's not all sweetness and light. Lord Omlette writes: "Ok, I know ya'll ran the story on Apple winning a grammy. But! The acceptance speech got cut for time reasons & stuff, so Dr. Dobb's Journal put a transcript of the speech online for posterity & stuff. I didn't see it in the previous Slashdot story or the Apple press release, so I thought you might be interested."

Uncle, uncle, make him give me his toy! Sabalon writes "NetStumbler is running an article about Intersil and Motorola's response to Sirius and XM's appeal to the FCC to restrict the 2.4Ghz band. Intersil points out some interesting points, such as why the frequencies directly surrounding those that Sirius uses is not an issue, and Motorola believes the source of the interference is not 2.4Ghz, but probably engine and ignition noise."

How to save some very expensive seconds. In case a 23-second kernel compile is too long to bear, perhaps you just need to upgrade a bit. An Anonymous Coward writes: "Linux Weekly News reports that a kernel was compiled in 7.5 seconds on a Power4 with 6 GB of RAM."

Finally, it has come to this. Another reader points out: "Be, Inc., the company that developed and marketed the loved Be operating system, has announced sale of the be.com domain.

This would be a great time for someone to sweep it up. ;) *cough*OpenBeOS*cough*"

throwthag writes "There is finally a Mac OS X client for Stanford University's protein folding distributed processing project and I have created a team for all Mac OS X users out there called, appropriately enough, Team MacOS X."

throwthag writes "There is finally a Mac OS X client for Stanford University's protein folding distributed processing project and I have created a team for all Mac OS X users out there called, appropriately enough, Team MacOS X."

Reader amoon writes: "With the rise of XML-based RPC (e.g. SOAP, XML-RPC, APEX), the distributed computing world is starting to really unsettle from the CORBA-RMI-DCOM oligopoly of the 1980s and 1990s. Yet, XML-based RPC is not a panacea (though it is quite cool), especially for those of us involved in the legacy and client-server worlds. Now, what is fascinating: the publishing world is revving up the engines on not only the XML-based RPC stuff, but also the RMI and CORBA stuff -- while rarely applied to the tech industry, the old adage, "what was old is new again," seems to fit well here. This review describes this über-cool trend from the RMI perspective, with a focus on Java RMI (O'Reilly) by William Grosso." Read on for the rest of the review. Java RMI author William Grosso pages 545 publisher O'Reilly rating 8 reviewer amoon ISBN 1-56592-452-5 summary Solid practical insight into the nitty-gritty details of RMI.

The Scoop

Remote Method Invocation (RMI) is the object-oriented remote procedure call (ORPC) facility for distributed programming in Java, since the 1.1 days. RMI also served as motivation and a proof-of-concept for jini, javaspaces, and numerous other solid distributed networking technologies. Of course, anyone from the academic distributed programming world knows Wollrath, Waldo, and Riggs.

Yet, despite a myriad of books over the past five years on network programming, RMI always seemed to be the stepchild: relegated to a single chapter (buried on page 496, of course) that always said that RMI was "better" than sockets and "worse" than CORBA. Now, granted that RMI is operationally rather trivial compared with CORBA and was (prior to RMI/IIOP) a unilanguage distributed ORPC technology -- but still. For those of us who have to interoperate with RMI (whether welcome from the Java world or not), the lack of in-depth technical analysis (beyond the spec) has been a hindrance.

Fortunately, this trend is finally starting to buckle with the release of several in-depth RMI books including: Java RMI, Java.rmi, and Mastering RMI: Developing Enterprise Applications in Java and EJB. As evidence of this problem, Grosso states the same in his introduction – and actually pulls it off without sounding self-serving.

I chose Grosso's text because of the cute squirrel (aka the O'Reilly brand), Grosso's recent series of articles on the hashbelt algorithm, and his unadulterated academic knowledge management and mathematics bent. Fortunately, I was rewarded: this animal returns to O'Reilly's pre-bubble quality. Koodoos to both Grosso and his editors (Knudsen, Loukides, and Eckstein) for getting the train back on the track.

What's to Like

Bottom line is that Grosso simply covers the topics and does so with solid conceptual and code coherence – even by O'Reilly standards (over 40 animals grace my shelves). His prose and explanatory patterns make it clear that he has actually gotten into the real-world of RMI, and doesn't hesitate to highlight both good and bad parts. You cannot be dozing off when you read this (at least not if you expect to understand it) -- this is written by someone with solid analytic thinking skills and it shows. After too many years of "there are no caveats" journalism and publishing, this is a nice reversion. Further, I can only imagine that his current employment is a testament to his real-world knowledge of RMI.

Grosso hits on a vein which is not well-appreciated: when not smoothed over by marketing people, RMI is actually a mostly-capable ORPC technology. Certainly activation and RMI/IIOP really began to make things interesting, from Java2 and EJB respectively. Discussion of reference-counted distributed garbage collection, a feature missing from CORBA and other popular ORPC standards, also contributes a nice bonus (although Grosso's ardent attempt to debunk the "RMI doesn't scale" argument is rather weak, even going so far as to rehash the definition of Threads and threadpools – this complexity mismatch is an ugly giveaway that a well-intentioned editor went astray).

What sets this text apart is the tight focus on nitty-gritty implementation details of RMI itself. After all, these RMI texts are way too late to the game to reteach how to write "baby RMI" code: 5 years after the original spec, you either know how to write RMI or you don't. Grosso simply gives you a solid in-depth analysis of all the obscurities of the RMI runtime, custom sockets, dynamic classloading, activation, MarshalledObjects, and HTTP tunneling. In other words, all the interesting real-world topics whose official documentation is poor and which the various RMI tutorials (written many years ago) ignored.

While canonical, the single banking example followed through the text was well-executed, although authors continue to underestimate the prevalence of readers who consume textbooks non-linearly.

What's Not to Like

RMI/IIOP is shaping up to be a fascinating contributor to the "cleanup the EJB mess" discussion. Dedicating a measly 13 pages (beginning on page 503, no less) to this critical topic seems a bit of an oversight – but maybe that is just my CORBA sentiments speaking. Either way, the mechanics of CORBA are sufficiently intricate in real-world deployments that saying "if you can build an RMI system, you can build a CORBA system" (p. 511) is a bit brazen (or naïve) for my tastebuds. I can only chalk up this oversight to deadline pressure, which is probably a Good Thing, since the book was supposedly in production over almost 2 years.

A minor point: the top-level organization of the book (Part I, II, III) is arbitrary, ignore it -- use the chapter organization instead.

The Summary

Quality: solid practical insight into the nitty-gritty operational implementation details of RMI in the real-world. You simply are not going to find solid O'Reilly-quality coverage of the topics elsewhere.

Relevance: If you are responsible for making RMI actually work in production systems, this might well be the next animal on your shelf – either now or later. If you want a breezy afternoon saunter around RMI, skip this. Instead, google one (of the many) free tutorials online."

You can purchase Java RMI from Fatbrain. Want to see your own review here? Just read the book review guidelines, then use Slashdot's handy submission form.

serutan writes "Stanford University has a retro-cool series of video clips of a 1968 presentation that foreshadowed the Internet and marked the public debut of the mouse. It is a surreal, weirdly captivating piece of computer history." Part of the site includes a solicitation for those who have memories and stories about the old days of computing, when programs were measured in inches and people felt they were lucky, lucky I tell you, to have ones and zeros.

serutan writes "Stanford University has a retro-cool series of video clips of a 1968 presentation that foreshadowed the Internet and marked the public debut of the mouse. It is a surreal, weirdly captivating piece of computer history." Part of the site includes a solicitation for those who have memories and stories about the old days of computing, when programs were measured in inches and people felt they were lucky, lucky I tell you, to have ones and zeros.

cmuncey writes: "Lawrence Lessig's newest effort is profiled this morning in a SFGate.com article this morning. Creative Commons will offer customizable flexible intellectual property licenses that can be used by artists, writers, and others in moving their works from copyright to public domain in a controlled manner. The aricle also cites plans to create a 'conservancy' for what looks like orphanware. This is a joint work of Lessig and people from MIT, Duke, Harvard and Villanova."

Grendel Drago writes: "Donald E. Knuth has released "Pre-Fascicle 2b: Generating all permutations" from TAOCP Volume 4. It will be section 7.2.1.2 of the final work. Oh, and Volume 4 may now fill *four* subvolumes. Send in bugs, get checks for $2.56, tell the grandkids."

Lawrence Lessig of Stanford Law School, and before that of various other places, is one of the best-known voices in the world of electronic freedoms. Lessig's new book, The Future of Ideas, is the latest work of many in his efforts to illuminate and create a freer world online. Lessig has agreed to answer your questions; please be courteous by limiting your questions to one per post.

Lawrence Lessig's new book, The Future of Ideas: the fate of the commons in a connected world , is strongly related to his previous book, Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace . In Code, Lessig pursued his thesis that the computer code behind all online activities functioned as a set of laws, and the impact that that has on regulation of the online world. In Ideas, Lessig explores a related concept that was hammered on heavily during the Microsoft anti-trust cases -- that holders of intellectual property (copyrights and patents) will squelch freedom and innovation online. The Future of Ideas author Lawrence Lessig pages 352 publisher Random House rating 9/10 reviewer Michael Sims ISBN 0-375-50578-4 summary Suppressive efforts by entrenched industries threaten innovation in cyberspace

Ideas has been reviewed in Salon and in the Washington Monthly; the book has a promotional website as well.

Lessig starts off by looking at the idea of a "commons," a community resource of some sort. The traditional commons is a public park or piece of land, but Lessig is more interested in looking at less-traditional commons on the 'Net and other communications systems. He moves on to examining some of the innovations that have been spurred by the recent growth of the Net -- typically startup companies that have taken advantage of the commons represented by TCP/IP and HTTP to provide a new service or product. If you follow Slashdot religiously, you probably read about most of these companies at least twice -- once when they started offering their innovative new whizbang, and again when they were sued by Megacorp, Inc., and shut down. The final part of Ideas covers the lawsuits, or more precisely the efforts by entrenched players to keep anyone else from playing. The distinction is important, because lawsuits are not the only way to keep upstarts from being able to participate: control of the code is also an important tool. For every control through lawsuits story that Slashdot runs, there's an equivalent story about control through code.

Just as in Code, Lessig is not optimistic about the future. Why should he be? So far, despite every warning, every attempt to sound the alarm, the forces trying to shut down innovation are winning in an utterly convincing fashion. A blurb compares the book to Silent Spring, the famous book about the environmental effects of DDT. Silent Spring was more or less successful -- DDT is now banned for most uses in the U.S., and the book had great effect in raising environmental awareness, but overall, environmental quality has continued to suffer. Lessig's book is not likely to be as successful. Attacking DDT was relatively easy compared to attacking the unlimited expansion of intellectual property, which has many multi-billion dollar companies willing to fight to defend their continued erosion of the public commons.

This should suffice to summarize Lessig's book. The ideas in it should not be unfamiliar -- Lessig is hardly the only one espousing this point of view today, though he is one of the most articulate. The final chapters have Lessig's suggestions for ways to reverse this trend of quashing innovation -- different ways of managing the electromagnetic spectrum to produce a better wireless commons (it's worth noting that the unlicensed 2.4 Ghz band has been the source of most recent wireless innovation), ways to create an Internet commons on the wired network (some municipalities are already doing this, laying municipal fiber to the home and following an open access policy), changing copyright law and patent law to put more code in the public domain, changing contract law so that end-users can't be forced to sign away their rights. All are good suggestions. Despite the hopeful notes in parentheses just above, most of these suggestions stand little chance of being adopted any time soon. But perhaps Rachel Carson was looking at much the same uphill battle against DDT.

Ideas is most comparable to The Control Revolution by Andrew Shapiro, an earlier effort to explore the changing dynamics of control on the net. Shapiro was much more optimistic, and writing without much of the recent evidence that Lessig uses to make his point that innovation is being squashed thoroughly. If you will, there is an optimism scale -- John Perry Barlow defines one end of the scale, Shapiro is in the middle, and Lessig occupies the pessimistic side. Smart money is on Lessig.

All in all, it's a fine book. I think I prefer Code though, for a variety of reasons -- I find the central premise of Code to be less obvious, more ground-breaking. Or perhaps I've just read so much about "innovation" during the Microsoft trials that I can never again read the word without wincing. As with Code, Lessig has extensive footnotes, making this a scholarly work (for the scholars) but a perfectly readable book even for non-scholars. In any case, it's strongly recommended.

You can purchase this book at Fatbrain. Want to see your own review here? Read the book review guidelines, then submit using Slashdot's web-submission page :)

apsmith writes: "Bruce Sterling's latest Viridian piece is a written version of a talk on why we're in such a mess with crypto, why the computer industry is going nowhere for the next few years, and what Lawrence Lessig, the NSA, Echelon, Oliver North and Abdullah Catli have in common. Thought-provoking stuff, even if you might not agree with quite everything ("Why don't you geeks just sit down with your cheap, crappy plastic boxes, and shut up? Here in the TV biz, our boxes look nicer anyway!")." This is a lunch-time talk, and it's meant to be entertaining, and it is. :)

bwoodard writes "Over the weekend Duke University Law school held a conference on the public domain which included many well known Free Software advocates such as Lawrence Lessig and Eben Moglen. The papers (in PDF) are presented were quite thought provoking and well worth a read." Timothy brought this conference to our attention on scary halloween.

sonic writes "'One security measure that [Homeland Defense Chief] Clarke didn't put much store in, however, was a proposal by some industry leaders, including Oracle CEO Larry Ellison, to create a national ID card. Clarke said he could not name one official who supports the idea as proposed, though he said the administration does not yet have a formal position on the concept. "Everyone I've talked to doesn't think it's a good idea," Clarke said. "

Judebert writes: "The Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO, the one that looks at the Sun) has used a Doppler-like device to look underneath the surface of a sunspot. It turns out to be much shallower than expected, but the data does help explain why sunspots last so much longer than theory dictates. NASA's story is more informative, but the pictures and movies at Stanford are spectacular. I've got a new background!"

madlinguist writes: "Researchers connected with Stanford's Applied Crypto Group have developed a new method of identity-based encryption from spending too much time with ellipses. Named after two of the researchers, the Boneh-Franklin project was presented at Crypto 2001, where these researchers encouraged the crypto community to crack their open-source system. Best of all, the project's homepage allows you to try it on your own email address."

madlinguist writes: "Researchers connected with Stanford's Applied Crypto Group have developed a new method of identity-based encryption from spending too much time with ellipses. Named after two of the researchers, the Boneh-Franklin project was presented at Crypto 2001, where these researchers encouraged the crypto community to crack their open-source system. Best of all, the project's homepage allows you to try it on your own email address."

madlinguist writes: "Researchers connected with Stanford's Applied Crypto Group have developed a new method of identity-based encryption from spending too much time with ellipses. Named after two of the researchers, the Boneh-Franklin project was presented at Crypto 2001, where these researchers encouraged the crypto community to crack their open-source system. Best of all, the project's homepage allows you to try it on your own email address."

doom writes: "Marc Merlin has written a pretty good convention report for the LinuxWorld Convention & Expo Summer 2001." A nice long, juicy wrap-up for the convention.

tnorbye writes: "On Sun's Intel site today there's a link to a new XFree86 porting kit. Essentially, you can download binary XFree86 drivers which run with the Solaris X server! So any graphics card you can use with Linux you can now use with Solaris. Sure makes Solaris x86 more widely available!"

An unnamed reader writes: " Bioinformatics.org has a story outlining recent activity in open source software development within the discipline of bioinformatics. The report covers a recent meeting in Copenhagen, Denmark called the Bioinformatics Open Source Conference, and describes a large number of projects and groups important to bioinformatics open source development. Most interesting was the appendix describing important online biological data sources. A student at Stanford University wrote the full report."

kryzx writes: "Here's one to tickle your imagination: using genetic programming to come up with new, patentable solutions to problems. Could be happening very soon. Here's an article at MIT Technology Review. This work, being done at Stanford and Genetic Programming Inc. by John Koza and company has already succeeded at reproducing quite a few ideas for existing patents, ranging from old to very recent. It's apparently much easier to compare against existing patents than sift through hundreds of surviving algorithms to determine if they are useful, original, and patentable.) Also, this company is a good target for your tech envy, with their 1,000-node Beowulf-style cluster of Pentium II 350's and 70-node cluster of 533 MHz DEC Alpha's. (There are pix, too. PII cluster on the main page, Alphas here.) Wanna play with the toys? They have job openings for programmers. :-)"

ahto writes: "The first section of volume 4 of Knuth's The Art of Computer Programming is available for peer review (and the $2.56 finder's fee for every typo is still there :)." Knuth's series-in-progress made a lot of people's lists when it came to assembling the perfect collection of library books for computer science; now you have a chance to make the next one better. If you can find any mistakes, that is.

Slashback tonight with updates on the long-absent Carnivore (which has so far failed to eat itself), David McOwen, Dmitry, and an alternative to the recently discussed Reptile.

Please let the shock penetrate the numbness. sethbc writes: "Well, it looks like the House has passed the DOJ Appropriations bill, giving the DOJ authority to use Carnivore for surveillance. The Tech Law Journal outlines the provisions for using Carnivore. I'm just glad I still have public key encryption."

Doesn't "DCS 1000" have sort of a nice homey ring to it? Maybe it reminds you of your Brother. Remember, encrypt your public key encryption software, and keep a copy with the other munitions.

That bandwidth rate is a little ... unusual. David's McOwen's case has raised quote a stir. If you missed word of this the first time, McOwen is being sued, and threatened with jail time, for installing the distributed.net client.

polymorf points to this article at Van's Hardware Journal, which features links to an online petition at petitiononline containing the comments of over 1800 people, and to relevant sites at tacube and freemcowen.

Cleverly disguise your hidden attraction to the DMCA. fenix down writes: "Lawrence Lessig has written an excellent op-ed piece in the NY Times (yeah, yeah, gotta register) on Dmitri Sklyarov and the DMCA. It nicely summarizes the problems with the DMCA as well as the Sklyarov and Felten cases. The dead-tree version gives me hope that this will be read. Big, eye-catching cartoon, center page, right under an article by Ehud Barak."

And since (despite? because of) all the attention he's gotten, Dmitry's wife's husband is still in jail, zlern writes: "Pictures from the protest to Free Dmitry in San Francisco today are available at sf.freesklyarov.org. Looks like about 150 people. Have you sent letters to your congresscritters yet?"

Stubborn contributor Chris DiBona contributes a link to an interesting DMCA resource, his DMCA Declaration, noting that it already has nearly 10,000 signatures, and that if people haven't signed up yet, they should as it becomes more useful the more people sign on.

Burning, Green -- fyuze or reptile? In response to the recent discussion of the Reptile content syndication system, ikarus-fallen writes:

"I was particularly intrigued by the post on the Reptile project today, because I run and develop a similar project, fyuze. The idea behind fyuze is similar to the idea behind Reptile: automate the process of retrieving, organizing and sifting through data. This eliminates the need to hop from site to site to collect information, and provides a certain level of convenience. Add in features that make it possible to have the system automatically scan for content that matches a particular criteria, along with the ability to search arbitrarily, and you've got a great way to collect all the news you want, and quickly find all the latest reviews for, say, 'Planet of the Apes.'

fyuze differs from Reptile significantly in that it is a web-based system, not a client P2P application, meaning there is no software to install, simply log on, create an account, and then re-logon from anywhere else. This means that (in the future) it will be possible to use fyuze via a cell phone, or PDA, or any other web enabled device, like the flat-screen mounted to your fridge.

To simply list a couple of features, fyuze allows users to add content/feeds to the system, it supports RDF/RSS as well as plain old HTML, it has a skinnable interface via CSS, it allows for real-time content collection and related intelligent caching mechanisms, and has an advanced (content can span multiple rows and columns) layout system.

The real-time collection mechanism allows for fyuze to retrieve user specific information from a site. This means that a weblog could provide a user with not only the latest posts, but also information on recent replies to that user's comments, status of pending posts, karma, etc.

fyuze is only about a month old, so you may find it's selection of content a little small, but many popular sites are available. Besides, users can add content, so if you run a site, add it!

For more info, it might be helpful to read the following k5 article: Quest for the Ultimate Homepage"

The Renderman writes "Check out this ubercool new rendering technique for skin from the guys who invented photon mapping. They also have several animations to demonstrate the technique - all rendered using Linux :) It makes those faces in Final Fantasy look like plastic. This technology should make the actors in Hollywood more nervous than what they saw in FF." The examples prove that human skin needs more blemishes. Without zits, pimples, moles, or scars, the skin still looks fake, it is definitely a cool step forward.

The Renderman writes "Check out this ubercool new rendering technique for skin from the guys who invented photon mapping. They also have several animations to demonstrate the technique - all rendered using Linux :) It makes those faces in Final Fantasy look like plastic. This technology should make the actors in Hollywood more nervous than what they saw in FF." The examples prove that human skin needs more blemishes. Without zits, pimples, moles, or scars, the skin still looks fake, it is definitely a cool step forward.

The Renderman writes "Check out this ubercool new rendering technique for skin from the guys who invented photon mapping. They also have several animations to demonstrate the technique - all rendered using Linux :) It makes those faces in Final Fantasy look like plastic. This technology should make the actors in Hollywood more nervous than what they saw in FF." The examples prove that human skin needs more blemishes. Without zits, pimples, moles, or scars, the skin still looks fake, it is definitely a cool step forward.

Paintthemoon writes: "The Stanford Linear Accelerator Center released a paper Friday that may explain why matter won the battle with antimatter following the big bang. In studies of B mesons, they determined that there is a significant differential in decay rates between B mesons and anti-B mesons. Similar studies in the 60s of K mesons led to a Nobel Prize."

chrisd writes: "Just noticed this article over on Yahoo news. It described a research project that Intel and Stanford university developed that concentrated on next-gen displays. The result? A 22 inch display that displays 9.2 million pixels (they use the odious 'megapixel' descriptor in the article), needs 16 processors and 2 GB of ram to run it and costs $200,000US. So it's a little spendy. This is a big step up from my first 12" amber screen though, that's for sure." Ah, the march of progress ... I'm happy with anything that will help drive down the cost of 17" and 18.1" LCD displays, no matter how indirectly.

eeex writes: "The SmarTruck, built by the US army, is the ultimate Bond car, able to spill oil and tacks behind itself, equipped with bulletproof glass, a built-in grenade launcher and laser gun, electrified door handles, night vision devices, and more." And on a more civilian note, Irish writes: "alphaWorks is making some sort of car, a 2002 Ford Explorer called the TechMobile, that incorporates a funky combinations of technologies including communication middleware, voice recognitions car controls, and Bluetooth PAN." (Read more below.)

"The Bluetooth PAN will be created using BlueDrekar and Bluetooth Ethernet Emulator. You will be able to inter-connect PDA, cellphones, and a laptops to play games, exchange data, and control things like the doors, lights of the car, and stereo. TSpaces will be the backbone communication middleware for accessing and controlling the electrical functions of the car. They are going to use Blue Eyes, a user interface that detects a person's eyeballs and responds to blinking commands to turn on/off the lights and doors of the car. ViaVoice will perform voice recognition email management, voice-activated control of air conditioning in the car, as well as voice-enabled access to MP3 files through the car stereo system. The car will debut at a conference in San Francisco."

mtDNA writes: "There's an article in the New York Times about the strategies SETI is using to avoid fraudulent reports. One trick they're using is multiple analyses of the same data. Another strategy is the use of "ringer" data, where they send you fake data for which they know the results." One of the researchers has several postscript papers on his home page - Incentives for Sharing in Peer-to-Peer Networks, Uncheatable Distributed Computations, Distributed Computing with Payout. In related news, ProcessTree apparently sent out an email to participants indicating it is closing up shop, so although SETI seems to be chugging along, the idea of distributed computing as a business model is perhaps a bit premature.

mtDNA writes: "There's an article in the New York Times about the strategies SETI is using to avoid fraudulent reports. One trick they're using is multiple analyses of the same data. Another strategy is the use of "ringer" data, where they send you fake data for which they know the results." One of the researchers has several postscript papers on his home page - Incentives for Sharing in Peer-to-Peer Networks, Uncheatable Distributed Computations, Distributed Computing with Payout. In related news, ProcessTree apparently sent out an email to participants indicating it is closing up shop, so although SETI seems to be chugging along, the idea of distributed computing as a business model is perhaps a bit premature.

mtDNA writes: "There's an article in the New York Times about the strategies SETI is using to avoid fraudulent reports. One trick they're using is multiple analyses of the same data. Another strategy is the use of "ringer" data, where they send you fake data for which they know the results." One of the researchers has several postscript papers on his home page - Incentives for Sharing in Peer-to-Peer Networks, Uncheatable Distributed Computations, Distributed Computing with Payout. In related news, ProcessTree apparently sent out an email to participants indicating it is closing up shop, so although SETI seems to be chugging along, the idea of distributed computing as a business model is perhaps a bit premature.

Ryu2 writes: "According to this CNet story, Microsoft is thinking of from its current "perpetual" license scheme to a three-year contract for its enterprise customers, and most of its software. After the three years are up, customers have to pay up again or stop using the software. While the issue of subscriptions has come up before, this seems to imply that Microsoft is abandoning the traditional time-unlimited license altogether. With them setting the precendent, for good or for ill, for many things in the software industry, if this takes hold, how long will it be until every other business software firm jumps on this bandwagon?"

GeHa writes "ABCnews has a story about the possible recovery of a hidden Japanese gold cache. Remember Neal Stephenson's Cryptonomicon?" A search on google brings up several interesting stories on this Thai gold hunt, including one to a 1996 article which includes a photo allegedly showing the entrance to the cave holding this cache. Now I have to re-read Cryptonomicon;)

QuantumG writes: "I've written a summary of the lecture at Stanford by Jeffery B. Lotspiech / IBM. John Gilmore (EFF) was there and other than hounding Lotspiech with ethical questions, gave me a free T-shirt." We can't argue with that. Stanford has the video online, in a format so proprietary and restricted that the current version of the player has no concept of "saving" a video download to your computer. There's some sort of lesson there, I think. But the video is good, well worth watching.

An AC sends us this interesting piece - "I recently came across this not-so-new interview with Ted Hoff, the inventor of the first CPU in the world - Intel4004. It's fascinating reading: the birth of the chip, the dispute over credibility, patent filing and his later life with Atari."

This is Slashback for the evening. Please be advised, through the following items, about ... how to turn that extra Pentium into a firewall running iptables; the state of the Symantec patent on software updates (uughh!); more on can satellites, and more.

a filtration system for your 2.4 goldfish Jay Beale points to this followup to his "Why iptables rocks" article of a few weeks ago: "It fulfills my promise to show how to actually build a home/SOHO firewall with Linux 2.4's iptables aka Netfilter. It contains the full code, explained piece by piece, to build a working firewall with 2.4, including all kinds of cool packet mangling for load balancing, redirecting stuff to transparent proxies, or avoiding nmap stealth scans ..."

Out of embarrassment, perhaps? An unnamed correspondent points out this bit of news regarding Symantec's patent on software updates. The upshot is, without pointing out that updating software incrementally is not a patent likely to win them a lot of favor from the industry they have simply decided not to enforce it. Smart move.

Not yet in the can, or the cube either Casey Ho of San Jose's Leland High wrote with some interesting information for those interested in tiny amateur satellites; Leland is one of the handful of schools whose students are designing experimental payloads for inclusion on an upcoming launch.

[We] are focusing on making a CubeSat. Leland High school officially has one satellite to launch, and there are four teams now competing to make a design that will be approved by CalPoly technicians. My own group will attempt to broadcast a powerful long term signal using only a small satellite. The project is not easy since there are a lot of scientific guidelines we must meet. We are discussing how to create a reliable circuit and transmitter that will function in extreme temperatures, vacuum, radiation, and most importantly, after an extra powerful rocket launch. The requirements are available here.

For some of you posters out there, sorry, no living organisms or explosives are allowed on the satellites. ;)"

Machinima makes the grade ILL Robinson writes: "Wanted you guys to know that our Quake II-based machinima film, Hardly Workin', received top honors at Showtime Networks' Alternative Media Festival - alt.sho.com. In an awards ceremony on February 8th at MTV Studios, Showtime awarded The ILL Clan with awards in both Best Experimental Short as well as Best of SHO for the festival. Using Machinima (films created with a PC game that can be modified with users' assets), The ILL Clan's film gained notice from the festival's judges - citing Hardly Workin' as a short with a high degree of innovation, design & creativity. We're pretty excited to receive the recognition, all the way from fans of ours who had been following us from the beginning and now, from a top-tier cable TV network. Cruise on over to our site for the official announcement, or to Machinima.com for more machinima works. And thanks also to the Slashdot readers, as they helped spread the word of what Machinima is all about."

Congatulations!

Snot Locker writes "As a followup to a SlashDot article posted last February, one of the picosats launched by students last year is still alive and well. Here is the article. What is even cooler is the link therein to the story on Coke-can satellites launched with amateur rockets!! My favorite CanSat story is at the end of the article where the prof caught the can before it landed." And we have the sad duty of reporting that NEAR won't be flying again after all. There's a great quote from one of the scientists about NEAR's current fuel level.

Snot Locker writes "As a followup to a SlashDot article posted last February, one of the picosats launched by students last year is still alive and well. Here is the article. What is even cooler is the link therein to the story on Coke-can satellites launched with amateur rockets!! My favorite CanSat story is at the end of the article where the prof caught the can before it landed." And we have the sad duty of reporting that NEAR won't be flying again after all. There's a great quote from one of the scientists about NEAR's current fuel level.

ClarkEvans writes: "Jeffrey D. Ullman, professor at Stanford University and famous contributor to the excellent Dragon Book, writes about software patents in his paper, Ordinary Skill in the Art. He has some very serious analysis here; I hope Congress reads up." It's intended for computer scientists rather than Congress, and it looks like he has some good ideas.

ClarkEvans writes: "Jeffrey D. Ullman, professor at Stanford University and famous contributor to the excellent Dragon Book, writes about software patents in his paper, Ordinary Skill in the Art. He has some very serious analysis here; I hope Congress reads up." It's intended for computer scientists rather than Congress, and it looks like he has some good ideas.

Stanford University held a workshop last Friday - The Policy Implications of End-to-End - covering some of the policy questions cropping up which threaten the end-to-end paradigm that serves today's Internet so well. It was attended by representatives from the FCC, along with technologists, economists, lawyers and others. Here are my notes from the workshop. I'm going to try to skip describing each individual's background and resume, instead substituting a link to a biography page whenever I can. (Part two of two - part one ran yesterday.)

The final segment of the morning covered caching. The main issue centered around transparent caching, where users ask for certain content but their request is silently fulfilled by a caching proxy server instead, generally without the user having any way to detect this. The standard concept of caching has the user being presented with the same content she would otherwise have gotten from the requested site, but that need not be true - Singapore, China and Australia have all used transparent caches to censor their citizens. This can also be a security violation (are you really talking to the secure server on stupidpettoys.com, or a proxy in between? Most users won't notice the difference.). Ann Brick noted a subsidiary issue - big commercial players have the ability to pay for their sites to be cached, while individuals do not. Similar to the QoS issue, this might be used to discriminate between paying, fast, commercial sites, and sites owned by individuals or even competitors.

David Clark made the insightful observation that dollars spent on caching don't go to general network improvements -- one small piece of the network is improved by caches, but the same money spent improving the whole network could improve it for everyone. Timothy Denton concluded this segment with the characterization of transparent caching as the difference between "form follows function" and "function follows form": the mere presence of caching and the ability to interfere with content delivery in the middle of the network destroys end-to-end and creates opportunities for mischief.

In the afternoon, there were two larger sessions covering broadband and wireless Internet access. In both areas, the companies controlling these access methods have strong motivations to violate end-to-end principles.

Jerry Duvall led the broadband discussion. He presented a rather fascinating economists' view of the situation -- an economists' world being solely concerned with customers, producers and markets. Laws are necessary to enable markets -- contract law, commercial law, fraud law, and so on are needed in order for markets to function. He summoned up the ghost of Adam Smith with a brief review of capitalism: producers always conspire against the public to get more profits from them, only competition keeps them in check. Marketing, lock-in, monopolization, and predatory pricing are always used by producers. He denied that end-to-end represented any sort of a perfect competitive market, however, suggesting that customer wants cause problems -- in some cases, customers actually want bundles from a single provider, and may actually prefer non-end-to-end Internet access. From an economist's point of view, end-to-end is only a means to an end. The end in this case is creating value for the customer. If that involves end-to-end Internet access, fine. If it doesn't, still fine. The value to the customer is paramount, engineering elegance is secondary.

Duvall also suggested that many observers have a naive view of regulation. With regard to the debate over open access to cable systems, he stated that there was no easy way for regulators to "come in and fix it." Regulation implies overcoming the resistance of entrenched players, and in the case of open access to cable systems, AT&T and other cable giants have proven adept at fighting lawsuits in support of their ability to keep their systems closed.

As we've seen previously, there was discussion of the reasons why end-to-end can be violated: sometimes customers want it, but (probably more often) the wants of companies are the driving force. Duvall suggested the external value of end-to-end in fostering competition and democratic values isn't adequately valued in most considerations of the economics of broadband. That is, the cost of violating end-to-end is spread out among many users of the network, but the benefits from that action accrue mainly to individual companies -- in economic parlance, this is called externalizing costs.

Another panelist emphasized the democratic value of open systems, a recurring topic in Lessig's writings. There was a bit more discussion of bundling-as-an-aid-for-novice-users vs. bundling-as-a-way-to-lock-in-customers. Jerome Saltzer reiterated the time-tested solution for monopoly problems: separate the content from the content-carriers. Deborah Lathen, acting perhaps as devil's advocate, asked why the builder of the pipe shouldn't be allowed to monopolize it. Duvall noted that no matter what the FCC might do to regulate cable carriers, that economic theory doesn't hold much chance for relief -- any time there's a monopoly (over the cable pipe), the monopolist is going to be able to extract monopoly rents, one way or another. If regulation affects a certain aspects of the business, the monopolist will find some other way to leverage the monopoly for greater profits. The only sure remedy is eliminating the monopoly.

Further audience discussion raised the idea that the concept of "an ISP" is a odd sort of legacy brought about by the necessity to have an intermediary between the telephone network and the TCP/IP network. In the future, the concept of an ISP may change radically. A question was asked: what benefit does the public get by allowing the cable companies to monopolize access? There were no good answers.

Mark Laubach gave a good overview of the architecture of cable Internet access, referring to the DOCSIS standard, which wasn't designed with open access in mind. Laubach stated that "basic IP dialtone" -- that is, a simple TCP/IP Internet connection without frills or bundled services -- should be a consumer right, which should apply to every broadband service regardless of delivery method: cable, DSL, wireless or satellite services.

Peter Huber summarized the open-access debate as it affected phone companies. The phone companies had a 1Mhz twisted pair of copper strands that they swore up and down couldn't be shared. They were ordered to share it, and now are doing so: local and long-distance competition, shared data/voice over that tiny line, co-location at central offices, etc. Now the cable companies have a 750mhz copper wire that they claim is "impossible" to share. Huber emphasized that whatever the regulations, cable and phone companies should be treated equally. Currently there are disjointed regulations, which (depending on your viewpoint) either unduly hamper phone companies or leave cable companies unfairly unrestricted.

Further discussion brought out the case of Stockholm, Sweden. Stockholm and certain other cities have taken on the job of laying fiber-optic cable as a municipal service, similar to sewer service or water or roads. Since the municipality built the pipe to the home, there is no issue of a company attempting to monopolize the pipe, and any company which wants to offer Internet service over the pipe may do so. As a result, Stockholm residents are getting extremely fast access speeds at prices less than U.S. residents pay for cable Internet access, and customers don't have to worry about the cable monopoly steadily reducing their upstream speeds, or banning servers, or whatever other crackdown U.S. cable providers have thought of most recently. The panel then debated whether (and how) it would make sense to move the U.S. to that sort of municipal model. A panelist threw out the figure that true open access to cable pipes might require a choice of 400 ISPs. An audience member suggested that as things are currently going in the U.S., there might be a choice of five ISPs at most, hand-picked by the cable provider.

David Clark added that whatever solution is proposed, it must be an ongoing process -- since cable Internet access is certainly not going to be the final stage of bandwidth development. Finally the broadband session closed with a pithy statement that, despite claims to the contrary, content is not king -- there is, and always has been, more money in individuals talking to each other than in one-way content distribution. The question that remains is how to convince broadband providers that there is more money to be made in selling large quantities of low-profit services rather than small quantities of more profitable ones.

The day concluded with a session about wireless Internet access. Unsurprisingly, WAP was the first topic to come up: a closed, end-to-end-unfriendly, expensive protocol that is all but deceased in the market, yet still actively promoted by companies that hope to benefit from controlling wireless Internet access.

Karl Auerbach had an insightful comment about why to use plain vanilla TCP/IP instead of a bespoke wireless protocol. Similar to the argument raised by Bruce Schneier and others that using a proven crypto algorithm makes sense because there are a lot of bad protocol writers in the world, Auerbach posited that freely available TCP/IP stacks have had the bugs beaten out of them, but the average proprietary protocol hasn't. The topic shifted to the location information that is now required to be built in to mobile phones. The panel discussed the control issues inherent in different network architectures: location information could be built into the phone, and controlled by the user, or it could be built into the cell towers, and controlled by the phone company (or law enforcement, or advertisers). It looks like the second architecture will be the one that is deployed.

Yochai Benkler brought up the issue of spread spectrum changing the rules for FCC frequency allocation -- more communications may shift to frequencies where the FCC does not require licenses to broadcast. Dewayne Hendricks gave a lengthy and interesting description of how amateur radio is currently being used in a manner similar to the venerable Fidonet to pass packet data over the short-wave frequencies via a store-and-forward system. The interesting part is that Amateur Packet Radio has been around for 15 years or so. Hendricks' concept was that the first truly free network would be one composed of independent wireless spread-spectrum devices creating an ad hoc network which could not be censored or controlled by any entity whatsoever. One audience member quipped that disruptive technologies always appear to incumbents as toys.

Hendricks noted some other wireless WANs, such as one in the San Francisco Bay area using Breezecom wireless cards and antennae. (Coincidentally, Salon did a story on wireless WANs just a few days ago.) Dale Hatfield noted that Hendricks' network could be created today using licensed spectrum, and noted that the greatest danger is incumbent spectrum-holders pushing regulations which protect their investments by making it difficult for the FCC to open up or use sections of the spectrum for these innovative uses.

Towards the end, one member of the audience (and I do apologize for not catching who it was), pulled everything together by noting the convergence between end-to-end as a technological issue, open access as an economic issue, and democracy and public debate as a political issue. The idea of eliminating "gatekeepers" on the internet is important for a great many reasons, whether you look at it as a technological issue of promoting progress and innovation, or as an economic issue of fostering competition and preventing monopolies from abusing their power, or as an issue of promoting free and unrestrained speech on the communications media of the 21st century. This is certainly one of the most important issues facing the country today, but relatively few people know anything -- even a smidgeon -- about it, or at most they've read a few news reports about the AOL/Time Warner merger. I'm glad to see such a diverse and intelligent group working on the issues, and if they don't yet have all the answers, it's only because they want to get it right.

Stanford University held a workshop last Friday - The Policy Implications of End-to-End - covering some of the policy questions cropping up which threaten the end-to-end paradigm that serves today's Internet so well. It was attended by representatives from the FCC, along with technologists, economists, lawyers and others. Here are my notes from the workshop. I'm going to try to skip describing each individual's background and resume, instead substituting a link to a biography page whenever I can. (Part one of two.)

The summary provided by the conference organizers has a brief description of end-to-end:

"The "end-to-end argument" was proposed by network architects Jerome Saltzer, David Reed and David Clark in 1981 as a principle for allocating intelligence within a large scale computer network. It has since become a central principle of the Internet's design. End-to-end [e2e] counsels that "intelligence" in a network should be placed at its ends -- in applications -- while the network itself should remain as simple as is feasible, given the broad range of applications that the network might support."

Another way to view end-to-end might be as a sort of network non-interference policy: all bits are created equal. The problem is that there are substantial economic incentives to treat bits differently, and these incentives are changing the architecture of the Internet in ways which may be detrimental to public values.

The workshop covered a number of areas:

• Voice over IP
• Network Security
• Quality of Service
• Content Caching
• Broadband
• Wireless

Jerome Saltzer started off with a technical overview of the end-to-end argument. In summary: digital technology builds systems of stunning complexity, and the way to manage this complexity is to modularize. For networking, this resulted in the layer model that many slashdot readers are familiar with. He suggested that designers should be wary of putting specific functions in lower layers, since all layers above must deal with that design decision. For a longer explanation, one can always read the original paper. If you've never heard of end-to-end before, I do suggest reading this paper before continuing. It's short.

First, Scott Bradner described two competing architectures for voice-over-IP protocols: one which employs central servers to direct and manage calls (the Media Gateway Control model, or Megaco), and one which puts most of the intelligence in the end-points, with the phones/computers originating the calls (the Session Initiation Protocol, or SIP). One important difference: SIP phones can use a central server to direct calls, but Megaco phones have no capability to act independently. Building a great deal of intelligence into the central servers is less end-to-end-compliant than building it into phones at the edges of the network.

One member of the audience pointed out that Federal law requires companies to build wiretapping capabilities into phone switches and wireless network equipment, and wondered how that would be implemented if the phones initiated the connections themselves (SIP). Traditional wiretapping is predicated upon the idea that there is a central server which all communications pass through. The panel candidly replied that when no central server is used and encryption is employed, wiretapping is difficult. One audience member pointed out that wiretapping at centralized switches is not the most effective way to do it, anyway -- since switches can be routed around and communications can be encrypted, the only truly effective way to wiretap would be to build tapping capabilities all the way at the edge of the network -- the phone itself. While some of the audience laughed, I think most of the participants also realized the dark undertones of this suggestion.

Next the discussion turned to innovation. In one model, the central servers would be controlled by companies with a vested interest in managing them conservatively, suppressing competition, etc. In the other, individuals would be able to create/control their own phones on the perimeter of the network, and the only barrier to innovation would be finding someone else to adopt your improvement as well so that the two of you could communicate. In the first model, innovations which benefited the company would be the only ones permitted. In the second one, any innovation which benefited the end-user would be possible.

Finally the discussion moved to a rarely thought about side effect of voice over IP. Universal service -- phone service to (nearly) every resident of the United States -- is funded through access charges on your phone bill. In effect, people in cheap-to-service areas are subsidizing those in expensive-to-service areas, ranging from the badlands of Nevada to wilderness areas of Alaska. From a societal point of view, ubiquitous access to telephones has been a great boon, but providing it requires a societal commitment -- otherwise people living outside of major population centers might never have phone service. Suppose now that traditional telephony is replaced by voice over IP, and no central servers are involved -- there would be no easy way to collect the access charges which subsidize outlying areas. While lowering such taxes may have widespread appeal, completely abandoning the commitment to universal service would be a great loss to society.

The next focus was network security. Firewalls are probably the most obvious breaks in the end-to-end paradigm -- after all, these devices' sole purpose is to stand in the way of network connections, and decide which are permitted and which are not. Participants brought up (but thankfully, quickly moved past) the true-but-useless point that if all operating systems were secured properly, there would be no need for firewalls.

Hans Kruse pointed out that if security must be implemented at the end anyway -- as it must if any incoming traffic is permitted through the firewall -- then there's no reason to do it at the center as well. David Clark put forth the useful distinction between mandatory and discretionary access controls -- mandatory controls being ones put into place by someone else, discretionary ones put into place by you. Discretionary controls do not violate end-to-end, but mandatory ones generally do. Michael Kleeman noted that the reasons firewalls are put into place include the desire to control the actions of users inside the firewall as often as the desire to control access from outside.

Doug Van Houweling spoke regarding Network Address Translation (NAT). NAT allows two networks to be joined together, and is typically used to join a network of machines with non-routable IP addresses to the global internet. NAT is an outgrowth of the limited availability of IPv4 addresses, but is also employed in some cases as a poor man's security measure. Generally, Houweling described NAT as an affront to end-to-end, because any application which requires transparency of addresses breaks, making end-to-end encryption impossible. Added to which, applications sometimes transmit data in the TCP/IP headers which NAT alters. The group noted that NAT can be eliminated simply by putting more addresses into circulation. Later in the workshop, Andrew McLaughlin talked about the address allocation process for IPv6 and said that it is shaping up to be much better than that for IPv4.

The workshop moved on next to Quality of Service. QoS in this case covers a wide range of proposals (and a few working implementations) for selectively speeding up or slowing down network traffic -- a sort of nice for network data flows. The "benign" use of QoS is to ensure that traffic which is strongly time-sensitive like videoconferencing or telephony gets priority over the download of NT Service Pack 16. There are less-benign uses: Cisco's 1999 White Paper which encouraged cable Internet operators to use Cisco's QoS features to speed up access to proprietary (read: profitable) content while slowing down content from competitors was the red flag in the QoS realm, raising concerns about the role of ISPs in traffic delivery and abuses by telecom carriers which are also content providers.

This segment started with an overview of QoS. There are several ways to implement QoS on a network. The simplest is to build a network with a capacity great enough to never be maxed out; if the network has sufficient bandwidth, there's no need to worry about QoS in the first place. There are costs, though, to maintain sufficient excess capacity on the network. This is called "adequate provisioning" if it is your preferred method of managing traffic, or "over-provisioning" if you prefer one of the other QoS approaches. The other ways under consideration are an integrated service architecture and a differentiated service architecture. The former would monitor and track each individual data flow -- the call you place to your mother in Singapore could be treated differently from the call you place to your grandmother in Kracow. The latter would only allow differentiation between classes of services -- all videoconferencing would be treated similarly, for example. Of the three, adequate provisioning is fully end-to-end while DiffServ is less so, and IntServ is highly non-compliant.

Jerome Saltzer (from the audience) made the point that no QoS technique provides real guarantees of service, and any technique except having plenty of excess bandwidth available violates the principles of end-to-end. He emphasized that people should be aware of the trade-offs.

Jamie Love mentioned not only the Cisco white paper but pointed out that this situation lent itself to behavior like that which has landed Microsoft in hot water -- using one's control of a particular system to speed up one's own content and impede competitors' from flowing. A member of the audience countered QoS would allow companies to create different levels of service -- pay more for fast access, less for slow access -- and that this was a good thing.

There were two distinct classes of problems identified. The first is similar to the distinction among methods for carrying voice over IP: the companies that control the QoS-enabled servers get to control who gets to innovate in QoS-related areas. The second, related problem is that of carriers using QoS features to promote their own content. The second problem has traditionally been solved by requiring a separation of carriage and content -- keeping the owner of the lines and the provider of content over those lines separate. The current FCC and FTC are not enforcing that traditional check against monopolization of content in telecommunications; thus it's likely that unless governmental policies change, AOL/Time Warner will be a position to promote its own content through control of the cable Internet services it owns.

Doug Van Houweling then spoke and noted that the Internet2 project is taking a very strong stance promoting QoS, because that stance is seen as necessary to promote investment in Internet2 architecture.

An audience member spoke up and suggested that the best regulatory course would be regulation with a light touch -- regulation could provide the minimum necessary controls to provide really necessary QoS while disallowing abusive uses. At this point Deborah Lathen asked the $64,000 question: how would the FCC make this fine regulatory distinction? No one had a good answer to that question.

In Part two tomorrow: transparent caching, broadband and wireless access, and capitalism.