Slashdot Mirror

They have already tried, I think.

Because TCP/IP has become the generic name for the IETF managed suite of protocols. BGP is only one of the routing protocols used to route IP packets. If you're going to be a pedant, then at least be accurate: from a traffic perspective it's IP, everything else rides on top of it (except ARP and RARP).

SO, Smart arse: Here's the real deal: MPLS creates effective PVCs that map BGP propagated routes to telco circuits in a deterministic manner, which undermines the fundamental dynamic nature of all Internet routing protocols, of which BGP is only one (and the most brain dead/static). The reason we have such a cluster-bollocks is because Cisco made underpowered, fundamentally single-threaded, routers, and so were wedded to Bellman-Ford/distance vector routing protocols. This is because their routers couldn't handle the demand of link-state algorithms, especially OSPF, which would not have required any of this mucking around with alternate routing protocols, Autonomous System numbers and route reflectors, since it included the concept of stub, not so stubby, and aggregated areas. Instead they had to devise a suite of ever increasingly unreliable/suboptimal routing protocols named IGRP (It Greatly Reduces Performance), EIGRP (Egads! It Greatly Retards Packets), and BGP (Broken Gateway Protocol).

Believe it or not, there were, and may still be, networks that run OSI routing protocols to route IP, like IS-IS, which works pretty well. The problem is, all these require people with clue and background, which the ILECs, in their race to the bottom, have jettisoned wholesale, to be replaced with those who hold vendor certs, and therefore only know one vendor's approach, and nothing of the history or underlying protocols. Before spouting off, go read your Perlman, Stevens, Moy, and anything written by Li.

As part of the agreement, Cisco also received a license to Wi-LAN's patent portfolio. Other terms and conditions of the agreement are confidential.

Wi-LAN sued Cisco 3 years ago (as has been mentioned), and settled 2 years ago (which hasn't been mentioned). http://www.unstrung.com/document.asp?doc_id=85149 some (very few) details about the settlement.

They _do_ have to pretend to care that you want to go with a carrier other than who they have a contract with (AT&T).

Wow, you drank the Kool-Aid. It seems AT&T pays Apple for each subscriber on a monthly basis, how much and what for are in dispute. In your twisted representation, Apple would love nothing more to allow you to go elsewhere but for some other reason, AT&T would cry. Based on my reading, I see that Apple wants the single vendor relationship for its own benefit. The reality is Apple would lose the monthly fee for every subscriber not using AT&T. With at least 1 million phones and a few bucks a month ads up to a decent monthly income for Apple. If you do not think that is the reason, you need to take off the Apple glasses and look again.

Here are some links
http://www.unstrung.com/document.asp?doc_id=133945
http://www.macnn.com/articles/07/07/19/piper.iphone.income.share/
http://www.news.com/8301-10784_3-9747031-7.html
http://macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/14997/

You can search for Apple revenue sharing AT&T and read more. To think that Apple would not pursue similar kick back deals in other countries would be naive as well.

Here in Vermont there are a number of startups using wireless for remote localtions. Here's a random sample. Here's another. There are more. It's the sort of thing that self-styled entrepreneurs can do for not much investment, and that often gets good support from local governments that see it as key to economic development. So find some kids with a little bit of money to play with, who'd like to run their own business and build their resume for bigger things later, and encourage them to get entrepreneurial on you. If you can find a few dozen neighbors who also like the idea of buying the service, so much the better.

Read the Techworld article. It does give the voting figures. It also says the vote "failed to provide an outright winner". What it also reports is that an Airgo statement gives a strong reason to hope for a merger of the proposals - something in contrast with the UWB deadlock.

In my original Slashdot submission, I believe I wrote "end-game" rather than "end-point", which seems fair. It either got changed or I mis-typed (in which case I apologise) - I can't check which here.

Either way, your accusation is out of line. If you want to beat on someone, beat on Unstrung or PC Magazine.

I've seen reports lately of batteries blowing up.
Nokia: Other Batteries Explode
Google

While you make a good point that battery technology has failed to make the leaps that other technologies (like disk drive technology, for example) have, the issue remains, increasing energy density may cause explosions (batteries blow - literally), other technologies in comparison don't have similar failure modes (few, if any, disk drives cause serious injuries).

Don't know if this is in duplicate, but here's the full text of the GSMA's reply.

Nice read, I might add, especially the bit about an American company installing a GSM network in (US-bombed) Afghanistan.

Issa believes the construction of a GSM network could benefit companies from France and Germany, the two European nations that have most strongly opposed U.S. policy on Iraq. Issa is incensed that vendors such as Alcatel SA and Siemens AG currently stand to benefit from purchase orders for what he calls "the outdated French standard".

CANNES, France -- 3GSM Congress -- There's a big problem with connecting public wireless LAN access points to GSM/GPRS cellular networks, according to SIM card vendor SchulmbergerSema. 802.11b hotspots provide hackers with an easy way to grab user information from the wide-area network itself, the company tells Unstrung.

The heart of the problem is that when the GSM standard was being defined back in the late 80s, no one imagined that a hacker could set up his own wireless network to gain access to an operator's network and the user data therein. Therefore, GSM networks only authenticate the details held on the SIM card in a user's device before starting a session on the network. The user's device doesn't check the credentials of the network it is attempting to access.

This was fine before the advent of wireless LAN. But now for a minimal outlay anyone can own a wireless network.

At the same time, vendors and operators are starting to use SIM card-based authentication front-end systems for public wireless LAN networks, which allow them to link the user back to the home location register (HLR) database on the GSM network and thus manage and bill a subscriber on the WLAN network in the same way as they would on the wide-area network.

This all adds up to networks that could be vulnerable to hacker attacks, according to Schlumberger.

Hackers can set up "rogue" hotspots that users will access in the belief they are on the genuine public wireless LAN network. Once users are on the fake network, it is easy for the hacker to access data held on the device via the 802.11 connection (see WLAN: The Four S's and this paper for more on the insecurity of wireless LAN). Hackers can then break into the SIM software on the user's device and get the codes held there. They can then use that information to fool the GSM authentication system and thus gain access to the network.

Schlumberger say that this won't be a problem once UMTS networks are available, because the 3G standard ensures what's known as "mutual authentication" -- the network authenticates a user device, and the device confirms that it is actually on a valid network before the session can proceed.

However, for public wireless LAN implementations that will connect to backend systems on GSM and GPRS networks, Schlumberger has developed a SIM card-based system (surprise!) that enables mutual authentication between the device and networks that are accessed via the gateway of public wireless LAN hotspots. The mutual authentication takes place via algorithms on the card itself rather than in SIM card software on the device.

Schlumberger is showing a system at the 3GSM congress that uses a separate smartcard and reader plugged into a WLAN-enabled laptop. However, the firm says that the smartcard and radio could be integrated into one PCMCIA card, much in the way that Nokia Corp. (NYSE: NOK - message board) has done.

Orange France is currently testing Schlumberger's security system. Schlumberger expects that operators will start to roll it out before the end of this year.

-- Dan Jones, Senior Editor, Unstrung
http://www.unstrung.com

CANNES, France -- 3GSM Congress -- There's a big problem with connecting public wireless LAN access points to GSM/GPRS cellular networks, according to SIM card vendor SchulmbergerSema. 802.11b hotspots provide hackers with an easy way to grab user information from the wide-area network itself, the company tells Unstrung.

The heart of the problem is that when the GSM standard was being defined back in the late 80s, no one imagined that a hacker could set up his own wireless network to gain access to an operator's network and the user data therein. Therefore, GSM networks only authenticate the details held on the SIM card in a user's device before starting a session on the network. The user's device doesn't check the credentials of the network it is attempting to access.

This was fine before the advent of wireless LAN. But now for a minimal outlay anyone can own a wireless network.

At the same time, vendors and operators are starting to use SIM card-based authentication front-end systems for public wireless LAN networks, which allow them to link the user back to the home location register (HLR) database on the GSM network and thus manage and bill a subscriber on the WLAN network in the same way as they would on the wide-area network.

This all adds up to networks that could be vulnerable to hacker attacks, according to Schlumberger.

Hackers can set up "rogue" hotspots that users will access in the belief they are on the genuine public wireless LAN network. Once users are on the fake network, it is easy for the hacker to access data held on the device via the 802.11 connection (see WLAN: The Four S's and this paper for more on the insecurity of wireless LAN). Hackers can then break into the SIM software on the user's device and get the codes held there. They can then use that information to fool the GSM authentication system and thus gain access to the network.

Schlumberger say that this won't be a problem once UMTS networks are available, because the 3G standard ensures what's known as "mutual authentication" -- the network authenticates a user device, and the device confirms that it is actually on a valid network before the session can proceed.

However, for public wireless LAN implementations that will connect to backend systems on GSM and GPRS networks, Schlumberger has developed a SIM card-based system (surprise!) that enables mutual authentication between the device and networks that are accessed via the gateway of public wireless LAN hotspots. The mutual authentication takes place via algorithms on the card itself rather than in SIM card software on the device.

Schlumberger is showing a system at the 3GSM congress that uses a separate smartcard and reader plugged into a WLAN-enabled laptop. However, the firm says that the smartcard and radio could be integrated into one PCMCIA card, much in the way that Nokia Corp. (NYSE: NOK - message board) has done.

Orange France is currently testing Schlumberger's security system. Schlumberger expects that operators will start to roll it out before the end of this year.

-- Dan Jones, Senior Editor, Unstrung
http://www.unstrung.com

If ya don't read the article, check out WLAN: The Four S's, and a WEP FAQ.

I think the first thing to ditch is the attitude of one device does all things - too many trade offs ruin the whole package.
In the article by Mr. Hayes the question is what does it take to get corporate types to ditch the laptop and cell phone?

-So let's set our endpoints and monetary limits. Laptop $2000 and cell phone $150 (remember corporate i85 or nokia 7200 types). The user needs voice communication, text communication, web access, intra/internet file access.
-Why does one device need to do this and do it as best in breed? It doesn't. What the user needs are these:
1. Wireless headset - all voice comm routes thru it. This is what bluetooth was made for - use it. A simple slip over the ear or full headphone + mic or even a phone style hand set to chat with - use bluetooth and make any of the three types interchangable.
2. A small data display slate - SMALL so it fits anywhere and is always with you. Now for network connectivity, this is key. Then the memory and storage capacity needs change dramatically. Remember, this is not the device I want to watch Star Wars or Gladiator on. It's basically a glorified 3x5 card. It needs bluetooth to interface with my head gear and to sync with some server somewhere that keeps my calender, contacts and tasks. Also, text messaging (SMS) is needed. So a cellular WAN aka GPRS or *DMA connection too. When i want to contact someone I do it from my contact list or an onscreen keypad. That's it. Make it the best-in-breed to do only that. Keeps the cost down and I can probably afford two of them. Now some would say why not Wi-Fi (802.11b) connection. The reason against is that Wi-Fi coverage is limited at this time. If it grows then by all means. That replaces the PDA and cellphone.
3. Tablet PC/WebPad/Pen Driven slate. This is the laptop replacement. It needs bluetooth because the other two bluetooth accessories, besides the headset, anyone needs is a keyboard and mouse. All this internet access through bluetooth is just stupid. It not made for that so don't push it that way. When you think bluetooth think wireless USB. So my slate (or two) can sit on an easel on my desk and i can type on it and mouse and surf with it. For net access, this is where Wi-Fi is needed. Actually, 802.11a is the better net protocol - 54 Mbps, not conflicting with bluetooth at 5Ghz. When i need to go i pick up the slate and leave. All my work goes with me because i have the storage in the slate for offline work.
I think these three devices replace the cell phone, PDA, laptop and desktop and they can do it for under the price of all four combined.