I have to agree. After doing my research, I bought this router to replace my Linksys WRT150N running dd-wrt. I am very impressed with the Asus unit - very powerful processor, plenty of RAM, USB ports and great range on the wireless. Can't be beat for the price!!
While I agree that the excepted definition of open source implies a lot more than simple access to the source (such as certain usage rights and ethical disclosures, according to wikipedia), I maintain that this is incorrect. The term "open source" should not imply anything beyond having viewing rights to the source. Nowhere does that definition imply at face value anything else. If you want open source to mean a collection of rights based on the ability to view code, then a new definition is needed. Depending on the situation, access to a given piece of source may or may not help a developer, regardless of their right to modify and redistribute that modification.
You are very right. Today's AT&T is a name bought and used by SBC for strategic/nostalgic purposes, not to represent the proud innovations of yesterday. No more is Bell Labs, or later Lucent, only an empty name used to sell long distance service and lease trunk/IP access. The AT&T name has limited value in my eyes, especially after what happened to it during the last two decades (or so). The Bell name has more value in my eyes, and AT&T (I assume this still holds true for the new incarnation) is specifically barred from using it. In fact, aside from AT&T territories that still operate under old naming, Verizon is the only company allowed to use Bell branding (that I know of). Of course they don't officially use it, but if you wondered what the signature Bell logo was doing on your local Verizon vehicles, it is displayed to protect the name ownership that Verizon holds. Stop using it, it will eventually be up for grabs.
The AT&T breakup is a bit of a mystery at this point, given that it is now a conglomerate of breakaway regional "Bells" that gradually reconsolidated. And why in the world do they feel the need to rebrand Cingular with the AT&T Wireless name? Talk about a waste of money, the Cingular brand held great market value. Much more than the AT&T name that almost became a relic of the past.
I for one will not use AT&T, especially after this news. I currently use Insight Communications in Springfield, IL. Recently their Illinois assets were aquired by Comcast. The ownership switch has yet to occur, but I am not looking forward to it. Insight is absolutely the best service provider I have ever dealt with, and I have never heard good things about Comcast. It comes down to one fact: the industry needs more competition. The breakdown of competition due to consolidation and anti-competitive broadband rules has hurt everyone in the U.S. That is businesses and individuals alike.
The FCC shouldn't have shut out broadband competition. Locking up DSL, and having access to cable already blocked, has destroyed the competitive environment in the Internet access sector. Isn't this the exact opposite of what the "free-market"eers said would happen? I though by protecting the infrustructure owners from wholesaling lines/connections to small ISPs we were ensuring that they have incentive to upgrade their networks...guess not.
I am interested to hear from people in the EU. How competitive is access over there? Who owns the lines, and who gets to use them? What drives companies to offer better and better broadband? It probably depends on what country, but I am still curious. I have no idea how it works there compared to here in the States.
So why did the gov't break up AT&T? Wasn't the monopoly and thus the breakup a result of the gov't putting its nose in the telecom business? Regulated monopoly or so-called "deregulated" market still equals the same thing: government-backed industry regulation. I lean libertarian (I am not a Libertarian Party advocate by any means), but in the case of telecom, the gov't simply can't stand aside. We would be back to a bunch of competing AOL's that crappily connect to each other instead of an open Internet if the telco business was to go unregulated in the States.
I used to be an admin at two local ISPs, both of which closed because of industry consolidation and laws that did not allow them to compete effectivly (or at all) in the broadband era. Net neutrality was more of a given necessity back then, but we are dealing with a highly different situation today. We can no longer rely on pure market diversity to maintain the integrity and freedom of the Internet, given that we actually have very little market diversity. It has to be up to the government to take action protecting the "free-market" foundation of the Internet. Not doing so will actually hurt competition.
I am not a pure-blood libertarian for obvious reasons stated above. It is nice to dream about an economy with very little regulation, it sounds good on paper. Let the market work it out and competition will thrive, thus driving further innovation. However, in practice we see the opposite happen. Business without regulation follows simple human nature; it becomes greedy and monopolistic. When a given sector does not have a healthy amount of competition, you cannot possibly "vote with your wallet". Thus, government should play a role in regulating business to some extent.
I love to point to the so-called father of this "free-market" B.S., Adam Smith. "The Wealth of Nations" was not an all out advocate of the abolishion of government regulation and trade barriers. Quite the opposite, it was a critique on the proper balance of such, along with much more! If you want to see what the U.S. would look like unregulated, look to China. And yes, our democratic system would go in the trash if we acted like they do!
Govn't regulation isn't inherintly "bad". Yes when they stick their nose in, they do stick their nose in. But what that actually means depends greatly on what they are doing!!!
Slashdot Mirror
I have to agree. After doing my research, I bought this router to replace my Linksys WRT150N running dd-wrt. I am very impressed with the Asus unit - very powerful processor, plenty of RAM, USB ports and great range on the wireless. Can't be beat for the price!!
While I agree that the excepted definition of open source implies a lot more than simple access to the source (such as certain usage rights and ethical disclosures, according to wikipedia), I maintain that this is incorrect. The term "open source" should not imply anything beyond having viewing rights to the source. Nowhere does that definition imply at face value anything else. If you want open source to mean a collection of rights based on the ability to view code, then a new definition is needed. Depending on the situation, access to a given piece of source may or may not help a developer, regardless of their right to modify and redistribute that modification.
You are very right. Today's AT&T is a name bought and used by SBC for strategic/nostalgic purposes, not to represent the proud innovations of yesterday. No more is Bell Labs, or later Lucent, only an empty name used to sell long distance service and lease trunk/IP access. The AT&T name has limited value in my eyes, especially after what happened to it during the last two decades (or so). The Bell name has more value in my eyes, and AT&T (I assume this still holds true for the new incarnation) is specifically barred from using it. In fact, aside from AT&T territories that still operate under old naming, Verizon is the only company allowed to use Bell branding (that I know of). Of course they don't officially use it, but if you wondered what the signature Bell logo was doing on your local Verizon vehicles, it is displayed to protect the name ownership that Verizon holds. Stop using it, it will eventually be up for grabs.
The AT&T breakup is a bit of a mystery at this point, given that it is now a conglomerate of breakaway regional "Bells" that gradually reconsolidated. And why in the world do they feel the need to rebrand Cingular with the AT&T Wireless name? Talk about a waste of money, the Cingular brand held great market value. Much more than the AT&T name that almost became a relic of the past.
I for one will not use AT&T, especially after this news. I currently use Insight Communications in Springfield, IL. Recently their Illinois assets were aquired by Comcast. The ownership switch has yet to occur, but I am not looking forward to it. Insight is absolutely the best service provider I have ever dealt with, and I have never heard good things about Comcast. It comes down to one fact: the industry needs more competition. The breakdown of competition due to consolidation and anti-competitive broadband rules has hurt everyone in the U.S. That is businesses and individuals alike.
The FCC shouldn't have shut out broadband competition. Locking up DSL, and having access to cable already blocked, has destroyed the competitive environment in the Internet access sector. Isn't this the exact opposite of what the "free-market"eers said would happen? I though by protecting the infrustructure owners from wholesaling lines/connections to small ISPs we were ensuring that they have incentive to upgrade their networks...guess not.
I am interested to hear from people in the EU. How competitive is access over there? Who owns the lines, and who gets to use them? What drives companies to offer better and better broadband? It probably depends on what country, but I am still curious. I have no idea how it works there compared to here in the States.
So why did the gov't break up AT&T? Wasn't the monopoly and thus the breakup a result of the gov't putting its nose in the telecom business? Regulated monopoly or so-called "deregulated" market still equals the same thing: government-backed industry regulation. I lean libertarian (I am not a Libertarian Party advocate by any means), but in the case of telecom, the gov't simply can't stand aside. We would be back to a bunch of competing AOL's that crappily connect to each other instead of an open Internet if the telco business was to go unregulated in the States.
I used to be an admin at two local ISPs, both of which closed because of industry consolidation and laws that did not allow them to compete effectivly (or at all) in the broadband era. Net neutrality was more of a given necessity back then, but we are dealing with a highly different situation today. We can no longer rely on pure market diversity to maintain the integrity and freedom of the Internet, given that we actually have very little market diversity. It has to be up to the government to take action protecting the "free-market" foundation of the Internet. Not doing so will actually hurt competition.
I am not a pure-blood libertarian for obvious reasons stated above. It is nice to dream about an economy with very little regulation, it sounds good on paper. Let the market work it out and competition will thrive, thus driving further innovation. However, in practice we see the opposite happen. Business without regulation follows simple human nature; it becomes greedy and monopolistic. When a given sector does not have a healthy amount of competition, you cannot possibly "vote with your wallet". Thus, government should play a role in regulating business to some extent.
I love to point to the so-called father of this "free-market" B.S., Adam Smith. "The Wealth of Nations" was not an all out advocate of the abolishion of government regulation and trade barriers. Quite the opposite, it was a critique on the proper balance of such, along with much more! If you want to see what the U.S. would look like unregulated, look to China. And yes, our democratic system would go in the trash if we acted like they do!
Govn't regulation isn't inherintly "bad". Yes when they stick their nose in, they do stick their nose in. But what that actually means depends greatly on what they are doing!!!