Agreed with the parent. This is typcall of a lazy operator.
1. They want attract a lot of people with an "unlimited" plan 2. Of course they want to bar usage that would compete with their own value added services such as video streaming and ToIP 3. They did not setup the proper filtering technology because it is too expensive to operate and handle to much complaints
If they REALLY want to enforce terms of usage then here is what they SHOULD DO
- filter out everything but HTTP requests and e-mail stuff - explicitly enable selected protocols and port - block long term high usage exchanges - block UDP
State this clearly in your term of services and don't piss off subscribers with this kind of flawed logic.
The current situation is the result of greedy marketing associated with techical limitations.
because in French you vote for something, this is impliclty up as in English. The term parent might be kept as is even if non-geeks might be a bit disoriented (but who reads/. excepts (potentially francophone) geeks?
The original Internet architecture provided a method to transport packets, and has
changed little since it was first proposed. It provides a "dumb" connectionless packet-
forwarding packet-switched infrastructure, with high functionality at the edge (the so-called
"end-to-end principle"). The Internet provides a single, simple lowest-common
denominator best-effort packet-switched datagram delivery service (IP), with fixed-size
numerical addresses (one per physical network interface). If an application requires a
reliable stream service, it can optionally be provided on top of the underlying unreliable
service.
Adherence to the end-to-end principle has come with two main costs: loss of functionality
within the network, and a lack of innovation. Although the Internet has evolved, it has done
Finally, we will be able to have proper VoIP media handling at the core network
In our work, we plan to revisit many of the basic assumptions of network architecture. Here
are some topics we will explore:
1. Flows as first-class citizens. One innovation that we believe to be important is
the recognition of flows in the network. We believe flows should be treated as
(...)
Oh yes again...
5. Dynamic circuit switching. If the core of the network is to benefit from high
capacity all-optical switching, then should we deploy dynamic circuit switching? If
so, how?
Classes of service lads ! I want either
Give me a circuit for all my bandwidth (all my flows)
Give me a circuit for THIS service (all flows related to one service / media)
Give me an END TO END circuit for THIS flow (this session)
The trick is: it's not gonna happend soon. Good article nevertheless. Bookmark in my journal.
You might now that this kind of decision is taken internally to the French Parliament. They have their own independent budget (that they vote for themselves) and governement has no right whatsoever to interfere with this.
It's an implementation the the principle of separation of powers
(Voltaire or Montesquieu ?).
So you can't even give credit to govt for this decision.
No: the deal here is to make sure that patent applying to MP3 are expirering someday and that this widespread format can finally used without restriction.
I don't know the German situation in details. I don't know if T-Online has a serious competitor but I am pretty sure that they eventually have one. We had the same situation in France and France Telecom was very powerful. I took one Entrepreneur (Xavier Niels) to create competition. Other operators followed.
German are very smart and I these day I am a bit caution on EU intervention regarding infrastructure. Let's see what's happening.
If network neutrality means that every single IP packet ought to be processed equally then it is a big hindrance to innovation because basically, we will never see the emergence of differenciated QoS on the net. The later is deseperatly needed to support interactive video services such as the ones we are developping. This is basically Kahn's point.
Internet has been designed to be a dumb but very robust network (rememeber the Rise of the Stupid Network) as opposed to telephone network, more complicated and offering services at the network level rather than on terminals themselves. Kahn's view (and I share it) is that Internet may need to provide smarter services such as several class of transport and a real bandwidth management.
For instance the current media transport standard which is Real Time Protocol is the best we can get but comparted to an ATM virtual circuit, it is pretty depressing.
Some people would like to make a compromise and define network Neutrality as uniform handling of services across ISPs. But then this would require to define:
How are e-mail services handled
How are web services handled
How are real time services handled
This way too much regulation for ISPs and anglosaxons:).
Re:on the highway - fast line and slow line
on
HR 5252 Bill Dies
·
· Score: 1
As a matter of fact, on highway, you have cars, trucks and in some of our European highways, some of the lines are dedicated to slow vehicules.
Regarding the concept of net netrality, I am not at ease with it:
If this is about business fairness that ISP shoud not silently the content that they are hosting, I would agree
If this is about content provider not wanting to share the pie with ISP for the infrastructure, it will either have a negative effect on the future of Internet as ISP might not be able to finance the infrastructure needed to support new demanding interactive services or end up with vertical integration for some big service providers in order to finally implement class of service on the Internet
If this is about this Internet dogma that consists in saying that every IP packets are equal, I vote fully against this.
Having founded a company to offer interactive video service, I would love to be able to request a specific class of service for the video for IP communications that we use.
A class of service where my RTP packet would be garanteed to be delivered in order with a fixed latency,predefined frequency, dropped in case of congestion with bandwidth reservation. And this, end to end regardless of the ISP hosting my servers and regardless of the ISP used by my customers.
Of course, I would pay this and charge it back to my customers as part of my service fees.
This is currently not possible and will never be if the dogma on absolute equality of all IP packets is turned into law. I am coming from the telco world (yes, SS7, circuits and all the stuff) and I believe that some of the telco technical heritage has to make its way into the Internet for its own sake.
The only aternative would be to setup an IP VPN between me and my customer. I suspect that some other innovative service providers are thinking along the same lines. In effect, those VPN might eventually coalesce and we might see new IP network appear dedicated to media transport, parallel to Internet because of this stupid domga.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed with the parent. This is typcall of a lazy operator.
1. They want attract a lot of people with an "unlimited" plan
2. Of course they want to bar usage that would compete with their own value added services such as video streaming and ToIP
3. They did not setup the proper filtering technology because it is too expensive to operate and handle to much complaints
If they REALLY want to enforce terms of usage then here is what they SHOULD DO
- filter out everything but HTTP requests and e-mail stuff
- explicitly enable selected protocols and port
- block long term high usage exchanges
- block UDP
State this clearly in your term of services and don't piss off subscribers with this kind of flawed logic.
The current situation is the result of greedy marketing associated with techical limitations.
Because it is free, you will get SPAM not only in your e-mail but in your actual mailbox.
I would choose Votez pour le parent
because in French you vote for something, this is impliclty up as in English. The term parent might be kept as is even if non-geeks might be a bit disoriented (but who reads /. excepts (potentially francophone) geeks?
Finally !
Finally, we will be able to have proper VoIP media handling at the core network
Oh yes again ...
Classes of service lads ! I want either
The trick is: it's not gonna happend soon. Good article nevertheless. Bookmark in my journal.
I am computer geek remember?. French or not I am not supposed to know anything before Jan 1, 1970.
:)
You might now that this kind of decision is taken internally to the French Parliament. They have their own independent budget (that they vote for themselves) and governement has no right whatsoever to interfere with this.
It's an implementation the the principle of separation of powers
(Voltaire or Montesquieu ?).So you can't even give credit to govt for this decision.
No: the deal here is to make sure that patent applying to MP3 are expirering someday and that this widespread format can finally used without restriction.
No fiber optics?
Are you sure ?
I don't know the German situation in details. I don't know if T-Online has a serious competitor but I am pretty sure that they eventually have one. We had the same situation in France and France Telecom was very powerful. I took one Entrepreneur (Xavier Niels) to create competition. Other operators followed.
German are very smart and I these day I am a bit caution on EU intervention regarding infrastructure. Let's see what's happening.
Wow, this French startup got a healthy boost today from Slashdot AND Mossberg !!!
Investors, add some $$$ (sorry euros) on your previous checks.
All this Web 2.0 stuff is still very surprising and I am still a bit skeptical. But promised ! I will try it.
Hope that we get the same kind of boost here. (a bit jealous)
No. H.264 is only PART of MPEG 4
H.264 = MPEG 4 part 10 = MPEG 4 AVC
MPEG 4 is a how framework that comprises
The guys who wrote the standards (H.264) expected that one of the profile (baseline profile) would be patent free anyway
Anyway if this jugement could free up more profile, it would be great
Depends how network neutrality is defined.
If network neutrality means that every single IP packet ought to be processed equally then it is a big hindrance to innovation because basically, we will never see the emergence of differenciated QoS on the net. The later is deseperatly needed to support interactive video services such as the ones we are developping. This is basically Kahn's point.
Internet has been designed to be a dumb but very robust network (rememeber the Rise of the Stupid Network) as opposed to telephone network, more complicated and offering services at the network level rather than on terminals themselves. Kahn's view (and I share it) is that Internet may need to provide smarter services such as several class of transport and a real bandwidth management.
For instance the current media transport standard which is Real Time Protocol is the best we can get but comparted to an ATM virtual circuit, it is pretty depressing.
Some people would like to make a compromise and define network Neutrality as uniform handling of services across ISPs. But then this would require to define:
This way too much regulation for ISPs and anglosaxons :).
As a matter of fact, on highway, you have cars, trucks and in some of our European highways, some of the lines are dedicated to slow vehicules.
Regarding the concept of net netrality, I am not at ease with it:
Having founded a company to offer interactive video service, I would love to be able to request a specific class of service for the video for IP communications that we use.
A class of service where my RTP packet would be garanteed to be delivered in order with a fixed latency,predefined frequency, dropped in case of congestion with bandwidth reservation. And this, end to end regardless of the ISP hosting my servers and regardless of the ISP used by my customers.
Of course, I would pay this and charge it back to my customers as part of my service fees.
This is currently not possible and will never be if the dogma on absolute equality of all IP packets is turned into law. I am coming from the telco world (yes, SS7, circuits and all the stuff) and I believe that some of the telco technical heritage has to make its way into the Internet for its own sake.
The only aternative would be to setup an IP VPN between me and my customer. I suspect that some other innovative service providers are thinking along the same lines. In effect, those VPN might eventually coalesce and we might see new IP network appear dedicated to media transport, parallel to Internet because of this stupid domga.
http://www.ives.fr/