Posted by
ryuzaki0
on from the hey-buddy-gotta-file dept.
Kaseijin writes "'We believe that if peer-to-peer flourishes, the Internet flourishes.' Earthlink's Research and Development division has released SIPshare, a prototype file-sharing application based on SIP. The code is available under a BSD-style license."
Earthlink supports P2P!
by
sketerpot
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
The most important part is this bit here:
EarthLink believes an open Internet is a good Internet. An open Internet means users have full end-to-end connectivity to say to each other whatever it is they say, be that voice, video, or other data exchanges, without the help of mediating servers in the middle whenever possible. We believe that if peer-to-peer flourishes, the Internet flourishes. SIPshare helps spread the word that SIP is more than a powerful voice over IP enabler --- much more. SIP is a protocol that enables peer-to-peer in a standards-based way.
Re:Earthlink supports P2P!
by
DrEldarion
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
EarthLink believes an open Internet is a good Internet. An open Internet means users have full end-to-end connectivity to say to each other whatever it is they say, be that voice, video, or other data exchanges, without the help of mediating servers in the middle whenever possible.
Translation: Earthlink likes an open internet - an open internet allows for P2P file sharing and other things that require lots of bandwidth. Oh hey, did we mention that we sell broadband service? It's fast. You'll want that speed for downloading all this data. C'mon, just try it. The first one is free. Yeah, yeah, that's good. You like that, huh? Now, about this contract...
Re:Earthlink supports P2P!
by
squiggleslash
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Disclaimer: I'm not the original poster, I was the one clarifying his point.
There are issues with blocking outgoing port 25.
Issue one is one of configurability and roaming. Right now there's no standardized way of passing on SMTP server information to clients, which means a user roaming on two or more ISPs cannot easily switch without going into the preferences of every blasted mail app they use and change the settings. This might be described as an annoyance, and is probably achievable via some funky scripting and configuration of a local, forwarding, SMTP server, but that kind of defeats the purpose.
Issue two is one of privacy and network transparency. You may want to route email via a particular relay (for example, one that supports Alternic hosts, or a work relay that supports internal-only FQDNs.) Yes, you can ask for that relay run on a port that isn't 25, but that's still relatively unusual, so unusual in fact that many mail clients still do not support anything but port 25.
Issue three again goes back to network transparency: what if the service you're trying to contact is not an SMTP server?
"Now wait!", I pretend to hear you reply, "I don't give a crap because none of these apply to me, and they can all be fixed with complicated Perl scripts, or convoluted network configurations, and by upgrading to the latest versions of the latest email programs regardless of whether the one you use, that you like, that you've been using for years, supports what you want." Well, I know many who'd argue this.
Likewise, I suspect the same people would argue that it's ok to draw on someone's livingroom wall, because the wall's owner can always paint over the marks, or put down wallpaper if the pen has created grooves. And it'll not cost anything because everyone has spare paint just lying around.
In other words, someone somewhere is taking something that's previously been ok, causing a problem, and expecting everyone else to make the effort to get things to work the way they were.
"But, hold on" says the straw man I'm arguing with. "Nobody has to draw on a livingroom wall, whereas we have to deal with spam." I'd say dealing with spam is a "want to" rather than a "have to", but more importantly I question whether taking email out of the hands of the users has been particularly successful at eliminating spam. I would argue it hasn't. I'd argue that nothing has been more destructive to the integrity of the Internet and nothing has helped spammers more than this type of anti-spam system. And when I say "nothing", I pretty much include spam itself, unless you see anti-spam as caused by spam of course.
The bottom line really is that blocking ports breaks things. You can come up with an argument for saying that that breaking is simply necessary, that the circumstances simply require it, just as we're all (well most of us) against killing people but (most of us) see the need for the occasional war, or at any rate self defense killing. But people do end up dying in wars, and legitimate activities do get hampered when you arbitrarily block ports.
Why am I still with Earthlink? Because of all of the issues that can affect my broadband, this - the blocking of outgoing 25 - is minor. Most importantly to me is that they do not blocking any incoming ports, they do not ban me from running my own network (though they refuse to support it, but that's fine) or servers, and they let me use any OS I want.
-- You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
If I recall correctly, ISPs would not be held liable for content traded over P2P networks, recent legal case. But how does this change when the ISP develops a P2P client?
I'm sure their devils, I mean lawyers, have looked into this quite a bit. Besides, courts have already upheld in some cases that it is not the P2P software's liability if someone shares something illegal.
-- Yes, I am an agent of Satan, but my duties are largely ceremonial.
"Not anymore than crowbar makers can be liable for breaking and entering."
The crowbar analogy isn't so great because, on the other hand, lockpick tools are (generally) illegal.
The difference between the crowbar and the lockpick tool isn't that they have the potential for bad uses (obviously both do) -- it's about what they're generally used for.
The question about this Earthlink P2P will boil down to: is it mostly just another market for illegal filesharing, or will it mostly be used for legit sharing...
We take some of these spam viruses and modify them, to spam mp3 in attachments, whatever mp3 they find on an infected computer they spam.
It should read
by
Ignignot
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
"We believe that if people keep needing more bandwidth, Earthlink will flourish." Earthlink is an ISP, and this is entirely for their own benefit. If more people are using file sharing, then they need more bandwidth to do it. If everyone buys more bandwidth, then the value of the internet is much greater (because it is proportional to connectedness). Then Earthlink gets more money. so you might even say:
1 - Release new P2P program
2 - Everyone needs more bandwidth
3 - People buy more bandwidth
4 - Profit!!!
5 - Internet flourishes kind of or something.
-- I submitted this story last night, and it didn't get posted.
Re:It should read
by
GodHead
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
1 - Release new P2P program
That should read "release proof of concept that wont work for 90% of users". It's a tech demo. It's not like there's some shortage of p2p apps anyway.
I think the bit that's missing is why SIP-based p2p would be better than other p2p apps. Someone care to explain that?
-- Just wait till some crappy band steals your nic.
Re:It should read
by
Sheepdot
·
· Score: 3, Informative
The Underpants Gnomes had 3 steps. If you make it into more, or don't end in "PROFIT!!!" then you aren't doing it for the right reasons. The goal is profit. The goal is ALWAYS profit.
Re:It should read
by
KDan
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Not only that, but what makes SIP better than, say, JXTA?
Daniel
-- Carpe Diem
Re:It should read
by
halfelven
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Since it's good for VoIP, it's good to carry persistent streams of data, which is typical for P2P.
Also, it's more likely that SIP would be allowed by default through various corporate firewalls, while typical P2P protocols will be blocked. Think of it as a firewall circumventing feature. I was actually impressed, the idea is clever.
Only a proof of concept...
by
garcia
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Will EarthLink SIPshare work behind NAT?
No. All messaging, including the file transfer protocol, are based on UDP. If you want to extend EarthLink SIPshare by incorporating something like STUN for NAT traversal, by all means do so.
Obviously this wasn't originally intended for anything other than the proof of concept as a large group of users interested in P2P would be using some form of NAT. If anything it may be dangerous (if it became popular) because users would DMZ or disconnect from their router to put their machines straight to the net to use this application.
Re:Only a proof of concept...
by
ray-auch
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Nope (be lovely if it was that simple), because SIP uses incoming (on different, sometimes random, ports) as well as outgoing connections. At least for VOIP, SIP behind NAT usually requires using proxies and/or STUN servers. See eg. here.
The key for adoption of P2P is getting it into companies. Like IM, if P2P is compelling to average users, it will weasel its way into corporations. Don't miss the disclaimer: "Finally, EarthLink SIPshare is NOT a supported EarthLink product. It is more than anything else a manifestation of an idea. So if you call our Tech Support with SIPshare questions, they will have no idea what you are talking about. So please, if you use SIPshare, you're on your own." The problem is that this is for geeks, mostly. Until it is easy enough for "average" folks and grandmothers, it probably won't be adopted. So, might be good technology, but not so sure about adoption. We'll see. TWT.
Quoting the Wikipedia link sited for "SIP":
by
idontgno
·
· Score: 3, Funny
A goal for SIP was to provide a superset of the call processing functions and features present in the public switched telephone network (PSTN). As such, features that permit familiar telephone-like operations are present: dialing a number, causing a phone to ring, hearing ringback tones or a busy signal. Implementation and terminology are different.
Does SIP reproduce the "Doot-doot-doot-We're sorry, the file you are downloading has been disconncted."?
-- Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
Re:and to think...
by
alatesystems
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Don't be fooled. They'll turn over your name and address as soon as the RIAA comes with their subpoena.
At least RoadRunner is nice enough to tell you where they're scanning from so that you can block them. Thanks iptables:)
I hate libertarians as much as the next guy, but let me put on that hat for a minute and ask: so what? If Earthlink honestly provides a good or service that people want, and people use it, why should they not be financially rewarded for their efforts? Profit motive is not inherently bad, however much it may cause unscrupulous players to behave unfairly or unjustly. I don't think Earthlink has done anything to warrant criticism, here, nor are their motives worthy of scorn.
Let's see, you're liberal, but believe fundamentally in individual freedoms (including the second amendment), but scorn libertarians? So you're like a libertarian, only not a heartless Randian bastard?
The studios/labels should leave the MPAA/RIAA
by
ShatteredDream
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
What good are laws that are simultaneously unenforceable and make the people more contemptuous of the thought of paying for your products? If the labels had said publically, "we believe the No Electronic Theft Act more than adequately addresses online piracy, and the DMCA is bad for consumers" then they would have been the good guys. The people who pay attention to what they were doing at the time would have bought more CDs, and the RIAA would have been right, the NET Act was more than enough.
As I have pointed out on my blog before the solution to illegal file sharing is not in lawsuits, but in repealing the DMCA and replacing it with a "right of private action for prosecutions in IP." That's right, let copyright holders hire a lawyer and prosecute you. Think about it for a second. It makes them pay to prosecute you, which means your tax dollars don't get drained by endless hours of DOJ/US Attorney expansion and action. It also gives the copyright holders a real means to go after people that'd work in the USA. Lawsuits aren't too scary, private initivative on prosecution is to college students and other young file sharers. When 5,000 sit in prison, not getting hit up for a few grand, people will stand up and take notice.
Yes, it would cost the RIAA considerably more in the short term, but it'd put a deep chill on illegal file sharing use. I have lost my patience with people who steal from the labels and musicians and hide behind things like "oh I am just sampling." If I sample something off a newsgroup or something, I either delete it right away and buy the album or I delete it because it's pure shit not worth keeping on my hard drive or buying. A few of my friends work the same way, but most of my peers do not.
The only reason I still have some support for the "other side" is that if the RIAA and MPAA were left unchecked they'd make my computer into a VCR that can run Microsoft Office and licensed video games. But seriously, the copyright holders are not entirely wrong. There is a moral problem with those who say that no one gets hurt. We have already been forced to deal with the fact, thanks to people like Courtney Love, that the artists don't get a fair deal in most contracts. Are you going to compound that by making it even harder to get out of debt? I seriously doubt most of the whiners even buy merch or go see them live.
"Normal people" aren't nuanced, at least in America. They will end up just seeing a bunch of free loaders and will be too lazy to challenge the MPAA/RIAA's latest IT industry killing plan du jour. If you make moral arguments for your freedom to be left alone from the copyright holders, you have to be virtuous so that the people can see that you are a libertarian, not a libertine.
Re:The studios/labels should leave the MPAA/RIAA
by
squiggleslash
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Precisely how many juries do you think are going to send a 19-year-old college kid to prison because he downloaded some Usher tunes?
Probably the same number that'd send some 19-year-old college kid to prison just because he possessed some dope.
-- You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
We Are Visionaries!
by
underpar
·
· Score: 5, Funny
"Finally, EarthLink SIPshare is NOT a supported EarthLink product. It is more than anything else a manifestation of an idea."
Trouble us not with your lame questions! We are busy making the internet flourish!
Re:Looks like...
by
cs02rm0
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
It's written in Java. Write once, run anywhere!
Well. Didn't work when I just tried it in 2k. I only wanted to try it at work because I think they used a look and feel I've been trying out with some of my apps.
I'll "induce" a moral conflict: Earthlink is often accused of directly supporting the Church of Scientology. In fact, Sky Dayton, the man responsible for Earthlink, is a devout Scientologist.
Re:WRONG! It's my (ex-)ISP!
by
vchoy
·
· Score: 2, Funny
No no no no!!!
He should of said it like this:
He WAS using Windows 2000 to priate some other kind of free operating system using "some kind of file sharing application"
The intent is there & that sounds much better (esp. on/.)!
Why they did this.
by
Sheepdot
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
For those of you scratching your heads for a reason to implement this over SIP when established protocols exist out there, here's what you were looking for:
Companies and universities use packet-shaping to stop and block P2P from taking up too much bandwidth. They wouldn't dare touch the data over SIP though, their bosses would kill them if the conference calls ever died.
Hmm. I wonder what will happen if the "VoIP" protocols (SIP and H.323) are suddenly used for much more than only VoIP? If apps like this generate a lot of traffic how will it affect the CALEA and other IP wiretapping efforts? Suddenly the SIP data is just a bunch of garbled white noise. Is it encrypted or is it P2P traffic?
-- Are you...Are you some kind of genius?
No, ma'am, I'm just a regular Slashdot reader.
Re:Good Bye EarthLink
by
JediDan
·
· Score: 2, Informative
The customer service is what will doom Earthlink, not the R&D to fix network routing problems.
To quote what is on DSL Reports
"To dodge potential legal bullets, the company notes SIPShare is NOT a supported EarthLink product. 'It is more than anything else a manifestation of an idea,' says the company. 'So if you call our Tech Support with SIPshare questions, they will have no idea what you are talking about. So please, if you use SIPshare, you're on your own.'"
-- - Dan
Scientology out, Christian Right In
by
ToasterTester
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Sky Dayton is long gone from EarthLink and the Scientology crowd that was there. After MindSpring took over control of Earthlink the Atlanta Christian Right took over. If you weren' t part of their in-crowd your days as at Earthlink were limited. That is unless you're in India and work for two dollars a day. Then you're okay.
Re:Good Bye EarthLink
by
Tackhead
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
> 'So if you call our Tech Support with SIPshare questions, they will have no idea what you are talking about.
And this differentiates SIPshare from anything else offered by Earthlink... precisely how?
blocks socks smarts
by
evilmousse
·
· Score: 2, Funny
from the blocklist: Port 1080: SOCKS versions 4 & 5 - Same as Port 80 above.
that's a really smart inclusion, to proactively scan for vulnerable SOCKS hosts. i remember way back when on irc, just scan chatters' hosts for open socks ports and try plugging their hosts into mirc if it bounced back, voila, 3/5 times i had a new hostname as visible on irc. unbannable, especially if using an ops hostname ^^ in wonder if that's still the case...
ya gotta plug the kiddie holes first, imho (GOD could that be taken poorly out of context...)
Yeah there had to be the obligatory earthlink and scientology post. Okay could we like, move on? This is old and utterly irrelevant gossip that takes away from talking about what's more important, such as the future of the internet, the future killer applications of the internet and how earthlink just might be the last big player to keep the other big players and regulators in check.
on one hand you have the major telcos who are lobbying like mad motherfsckers to keep their stronghold on the pipes, while stifling competition and preventing prices from going down and bandwidth to go up. European countries and even Korea are zooming way ahead of us. Why? because regulations have allowed companies such as free.fr to share the lines at competitive costs. Imagine that. People in Korea are watching their fave soap operas, on-demand, over their TCP/IP broadband connectivity.
on the other hand you have all the cable operators, AOL, and timewarner, who are also lobbying like mad motherfsckers to limit the amount of competitive pipe sharing. Oh and they control content too.
Then you have companies such as earthlink, covad, speakeasy who would love nothing more than to offer faster connections and more competitive prices but are prevented from doing so by the FCC's shitty policies.
Finally someone like earthlink is speaking out FOR THE CONSUMER, and offering a really cool proof-of-concept, source code and all to the masses, as a basis for the internet killer-apps of the future.
And you wanna talk about scientology?
oh and for all the trolls whining about outsourcing of customer service, if you wanna blame someone, blame dumb users who can't use a computer, download every piece of crapware they can get their hands on to their computer, then call-up their ISPs tech support FOR FREE FOR HOURS to fscking bail them out of their own stupidity. Every single one of earthlink's competitor had already been outsourcing FOR YEARS. earthlink held up as long as a publicly-traded company could, but when your stock tops at $5, you've gotta make tough choices. I've heard stories of tech support reps spending an hour on the phone helping some clueless sap rebuild their entire OS. This type of task belongs to a computer consultant who will charge no less than $100/hour. That's the cold hard fact. And then you have 99.9% of all problems that can be resolved from reading a simple script. That's what outsourced service is best for. The remaining 0.1% of legitimate technical issues can get escalated back in the U.S., that's typically what ISPs and OEM vendors do. I guess they did something right because earthlink still managed to rank #1 in satisfaction from JD Powers i both narrow and broadband.
Re:Good Bye EarthLink
by
valmont
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Okay what part of "earthlink is not putting this out as a product" do people not get??? There are no legal issues to dodge here. This is not a product. This is not meant for average consumers. This is a research project. A science project. They're trying to show that "SIP is cool" and "can achieve cool things".
people are interpreting this as earthlink supporting p2p file sharing development when in fact, file sharing is a completely irrelevant use case for this technology. Even if you can share files with someone, that's not the cool thing of this particular application of P2P/SIP. it's the fact that you can communicate with a remote machine that sits behind some opaque NATed network.
On the other hand, the appeal of "controversial P2P applications" was the fact that each participant listed their presence and files available to share on a centralized network. The combination of 1) a P2P client application *AND* 2) a centralized network putting people in relation is what created a medium highly conducive to file swapping.
In this case, earthlink is merely pointing out the fact that SIP enables two computers to talk to one-another behind across opaque networks. The relevant applications of this revolve around VoIP, Video Conferencing, and yes, 1-to-1 data exchange based on a priorly established relationship.
Slashdot Mirror
EarthLink believes an open Internet is a good Internet. An open Internet means users have full end-to-end connectivity to say to each other whatever it is they say, be that voice, video, or other data exchanges, without the help of mediating servers in the middle whenever possible. We believe that if peer-to-peer flourishes, the Internet flourishes. SIPshare helps spread the word that SIP is more than a powerful voice over IP enabler --- much more. SIP is a protocol that enables peer-to-peer in a standards-based way.
If I recall correctly, ISPs would not be held liable for content traded over P2P networks, recent legal case. But how does this change when the ISP develops a P2P client?
"We believe that if people keep needing more bandwidth, Earthlink will flourish." Earthlink is an ISP, and this is entirely for their own benefit. If more people are using file sharing, then they need more bandwidth to do it. If everyone buys more bandwidth, then the value of the internet is much greater (because it is proportional to connectedness). Then Earthlink gets more money. so you might even say:
1 - Release new P2P program
2 - Everyone needs more bandwidth
3 - People buy more bandwidth
4 - Profit!!!
5 - Internet flourishes kind of or something.
I submitted this story last night, and it didn't get posted.
Will EarthLink SIPshare work behind NAT?
No. All messaging, including the file transfer protocol, are based on UDP. If you want to extend EarthLink SIPshare by incorporating something like STUN for NAT traversal, by all means do so.
Obviously this wasn't originally intended for anything other than the proof of concept as a large group of users interested in P2P would be using some form of NAT. If anything it may be dangerous (if it became popular) because users would DMZ or disconnect from their router to put their machines straight to the net to use this application.
The key for adoption of P2P is getting it into companies. Like IM, if P2P is compelling to average users, it will weasel its way into corporations. Don't miss the disclaimer: "Finally, EarthLink SIPshare is NOT a supported EarthLink product. It is more than anything else a manifestation of an idea. So if you call our Tech Support with SIPshare questions, they will have no idea what you are talking about. So please, if you use SIPshare, you're on your own." The problem is that this is for geeks, mostly. Until it is easy enough for "average" folks and grandmothers, it probably won't be adopted. So, might be good technology, but not so sure about adoption. We'll see. TWT.
How to Download YouTube Videos
Does SIP reproduce the "Doot-doot-doot-We're sorry, the file you are downloading has been disconncted."?
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
Don't be fooled. They'll turn over your name and address as soon as the RIAA comes with their subpoena.
:)
At least RoadRunner is nice enough to tell you where they're scanning from so that you can block them. Thanks iptables
Chris
I hate libertarians as much as the next guy, but let me put on that hat for a minute and ask: so what? If Earthlink honestly provides a good or service that people want, and people use it, why should they not be financially rewarded for their efforts? Profit motive is not inherently bad, however much it may cause unscrupulous players to behave unfairly or unjustly. I don't think Earthlink has done anything to warrant criticism, here, nor are their motives worthy of scorn.
What good are laws that are simultaneously unenforceable and make the people more contemptuous of the thought of paying for your products? If the labels had said publically, "we believe the No Electronic Theft Act more than adequately addresses online piracy, and the DMCA is bad for consumers" then they would have been the good guys. The people who pay attention to what they were doing at the time would have bought more CDs, and the RIAA would have been right, the NET Act was more than enough.
As I have pointed out on my blog before the solution to illegal file sharing is not in lawsuits, but in repealing the DMCA and replacing it with a "right of private action for prosecutions in IP." That's right, let copyright holders hire a lawyer and prosecute you. Think about it for a second. It makes them pay to prosecute you, which means your tax dollars don't get drained by endless hours of DOJ/US Attorney expansion and action. It also gives the copyright holders a real means to go after people that'd work in the USA. Lawsuits aren't too scary, private initivative on prosecution is to college students and other young file sharers. When 5,000 sit in prison, not getting hit up for a few grand, people will stand up and take notice.
Yes, it would cost the RIAA considerably more in the short term, but it'd put a deep chill on illegal file sharing use. I have lost my patience with people who steal from the labels and musicians and hide behind things like "oh I am just sampling." If I sample something off a newsgroup or something, I either delete it right away and buy the album or I delete it because it's pure shit not worth keeping on my hard drive or buying. A few of my friends work the same way, but most of my peers do not.
The only reason I still have some support for the "other side" is that if the RIAA and MPAA were left unchecked they'd make my computer into a VCR that can run Microsoft Office and licensed video games. But seriously, the copyright holders are not entirely wrong. There is a moral problem with those who say that no one gets hurt. We have already been forced to deal with the fact, thanks to people like Courtney Love, that the artists don't get a fair deal in most contracts. Are you going to compound that by making it even harder to get out of debt? I seriously doubt most of the whiners even buy merch or go see them live.
"Normal people" aren't nuanced, at least in America. They will end up just seeing a bunch of free loaders and will be too lazy to challenge the MPAA/RIAA's latest IT industry killing plan du jour. If you make moral arguments for your freedom to be left alone from the copyright holders, you have to be virtuous so that the people can see that you are a libertarian, not a libertine.
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
"Finally, EarthLink SIPshare is NOT a supported EarthLink product. It is more than anything else a manifestation of an idea."
Trouble us not with your lame questions! We are busy making the internet flourish!
It's written in Java. Write once, run anywhere!
Well. Didn't work when I just tried it in 2k. I only wanted to try it at work because I think they used a look and feel I've been trying out with some of my apps.
I'll "induce" a moral conflict: Earthlink is often accused of directly supporting the Church of Scientology. In fact, Sky Dayton, the man responsible for Earthlink, is a devout Scientologist.
Do you like German cars?
No no no no!!!
/.)!
He should of said it like this:
He WAS using Windows 2000 to priate some other kind of free operating system using "some kind of file sharing application"
The intent is there & that sounds much better (esp. on
For those of you scratching your heads for a reason to implement this over SIP when established protocols exist out there, here's what you were looking for:
Companies and universities use packet-shaping to stop and block P2P from taking up too much bandwidth. They wouldn't dare touch the data over SIP though, their bosses would kill them if the conference calls ever died.
Hmm. I wonder what will happen if the "VoIP" protocols (SIP and H.323) are suddenly used for much more than only VoIP? If apps like this generate a lot of traffic how will it affect the CALEA and other IP wiretapping efforts? Suddenly the SIP data is just a bunch of garbled white noise. Is it encrypted or is it P2P traffic?
Are you...Are you some kind of genius?
No, ma'am, I'm just a regular Slashdot reader.
The customer service is what will doom Earthlink, not the R&D to fix network routing problems.
To quote what is on DSL Reports "To dodge potential legal bullets, the company notes SIPShare is NOT a supported EarthLink product. 'It is more than anything else a manifestation of an idea,' says the company. 'So if you call our Tech Support with SIPshare questions, they will have no idea what you are talking about. So please, if you use SIPshare, you're on your own.'"
- Dan
Sky Dayton is long gone from EarthLink and the Scientology crowd that was there. After MindSpring took over control of Earthlink the Atlanta Christian Right took over. If you weren'
t part of their in-crowd your days as at Earthlink were limited. That is unless you're in India and work for two dollars a day. Then you're okay.
And this differentiates SIPshare from anything else offered by Earthlink... precisely how?
from the blocklist:
Port 1080: SOCKS versions 4 & 5 - Same as Port 80 above.
that's a really smart inclusion, to proactively scan for vulnerable SOCKS hosts.
i remember way back when on irc, just scan chatters' hosts for open socks ports and try plugging their hosts into mirc if it bounced back, voila, 3/5 times i had a new hostname as visible on irc. unbannable, especially if using an ops hostname ^^
in wonder if that's still the case...
ya gotta plug the kiddie holes first, imho
(GOD could that be taken poorly out of context...)
-evilme
Yeah there had to be the obligatory earthlink and scientology post. Okay could we like, move on? This is old and utterly irrelevant gossip that takes away from talking about what's more important, such as the future of the internet, the future killer applications of the internet and how earthlink just might be the last big player to keep the other big players and regulators in check.
on one hand you have the major telcos who are lobbying like mad motherfsckers to keep their stronghold on the pipes, while stifling competition and preventing prices from going down and bandwidth to go up. European countries and even Korea are zooming way ahead of us. Why? because regulations have allowed companies such as free.fr to share the lines at competitive costs. Imagine that. People in Korea are watching their fave soap operas, on-demand, over their TCP/IP broadband connectivity.
on the other hand you have all the cable operators, AOL, and timewarner, who are also lobbying like mad motherfsckers to limit the amount of competitive pipe sharing. Oh and they control content too.
Then you have companies such as earthlink, covad, speakeasy who would love nothing more than to offer faster connections and more competitive prices but are prevented from doing so by the FCC's shitty policies.
Finally someone like earthlink is speaking out FOR THE CONSUMER, and offering a really cool proof-of-concept, source code and all to the masses, as a basis for the internet killer-apps of the future.
And you wanna talk about scientology?
oh and for all the trolls whining about outsourcing of customer service, if you wanna blame someone, blame dumb users who can't use a computer, download every piece of crapware they can get their hands on to their computer, then call-up their ISPs tech support FOR FREE FOR HOURS to fscking bail them out of their own stupidity. Every single one of earthlink's competitor had already been outsourcing FOR YEARS. earthlink held up as long as a publicly-traded company could, but when your stock tops at $5, you've gotta make tough choices. I've heard stories of tech support reps spending an hour on the phone helping some clueless sap rebuild their entire OS. This type of task belongs to a computer consultant who will charge no less than $100/hour. That's the cold hard fact. And then you have 99.9% of all problems that can be resolved from reading a simple script. That's what outsourced service is best for. The remaining 0.1% of legitimate technical issues can get escalated back in the U.S., that's typically what ISPs and OEM vendors do. I guess they did something right because earthlink still managed to rank #1 in satisfaction from JD Powers i both narrow and broadband.
Extraordinary Vacations. Exceptional Prices
Okay what part of "earthlink is not putting this out as a product" do people not get??? There are no legal issues to dodge here. This is not a product. This is not meant for average consumers. This is a research project. A science project. They're trying to show that "SIP is cool" and "can achieve cool things".
people are interpreting this as earthlink supporting p2p file sharing development when in fact, file sharing is a completely irrelevant use case for this technology. Even if you can share files with someone, that's not the cool thing of this particular application of P2P/SIP. it's the fact that you can communicate with a remote machine that sits behind some opaque NATed network.
On the other hand, the appeal of "controversial P2P applications" was the fact that each participant listed their presence and files available to share on a centralized network. The combination of 1) a P2P client application *AND* 2) a centralized network putting people in relation is what created a medium highly conducive to file swapping.
In this case, earthlink is merely pointing out the fact that SIP enables two computers to talk to one-another behind across opaque networks. The relevant applications of this revolve around VoIP, Video Conferencing, and yes, 1-to-1 data exchange based on a priorly established relationship.
Extraordinary Vacations. Exceptional Prices