As I posted in an earlier thread, when they made the announcement of the purchase of Star Division (I watched some of it on their web site), they *explicitly* referred to the SCSL as "Open Source" with references to Linux and other popular (true) Open Source projects.
>The SCSL is not a free or open license and it was never ment to be and it isn't Suns problem that people get it confused with various internet software movements.
You are incorrect, sir. You apparently did not see any of the announcement broadcast of Sun's purchase of Star Division, where they *explicitely* called the SCSL an Open Source license, with references to the Open Source movement, and other "institutions" that are part of the "true" Open Source movement as we know it.
I have just sent off a letter to Sun investor-relations (investor-relations@sun.com) complaining about the terms of the SCSL and Sun's apparent intentions with respect to the license. The nice thing about that is that I get to complain as both as customer *and* a stockholder!:) (though if they continue in this vein, I'm not sure how much longer I will continue to be either)
>On the flip side of the coin, Chess players can be extremely autistic and/or not so socially responsible,
Interesting...this somewhat harkens back to the previous/. threads talking about some programmers being at least somewhat autistic. Very interesting parallel there IMHO.
>Fiber lines, on the other hand, pose no such problem unless you're standing in water when you hit one (there's a lot of power going through to feed all the repeaters on a long-haul circuit).
Power? Going through a fiber optic line? That's a neat trick.;)
As you somewhat note at the end...there's a big difference between "supporting" (as in being able to answer technical support questions), and having a setup that supports (as in, it can work) an operating system. Qwest seems to have made a conscious choice to only support (as in, it can work) Win95/98. That's dumb, IMHO. Its just not that terribly hard to set up an ISP so that a wide variety of operating systems work.
Oh good grief...you really have no clue what you're talking about.
I don't think anyone has ever said that there is absolutely no competition in broadband service completely, but instead that enhancement of competition within the cable modem access media specifically would improve cable modem service. I don't see how anyone that has worked within this field at all could even halfway argue that point.
>And do you really believe that the cable companies are going to simpl ignore the already millions of internet users on ISP's not their own (AOL = 19 million). They will open up their lines to these ISP's...
And this statement clenches it...you really are *totally* out of your field of knowledge...either that or you work in a marketing department for a cableco. I have not heard any significant cableco ever express any intentions of opening up their access to any other ISPs, ever.
So, what you're saying is that a monopoly position is going to encourage these cable companies to roll out there services in other areas more quickly? How do you say that with a straight face? I've been practicing that and can't suppress the giggles every time I say it.
Look at it this way. The cablecos are going to more quickly deploy it in other areas (if they're not idiots, which certainly remains to be seen) because they don't have to build out their proprietary Internet access to these locations. They can set up the cable plant for cable-modem service, hook up whatever local ISPs are already in the area and immediately start gaining revenue from the service. Cable modem access was long ago available to be up and running in our area...what was the delay? Waiting for @Home to build their (still pathetically performing) network out to our location enough to actually be able to sell their service on the cable network. All that time, Intermedia was sitting there with the possibility to sell cable modem access, but refused to let anyone hook on because they were waiting for Intermedia to come in and provide the only (already overloaded and its only been running here for couple of months) service on the network.
Here's a clue...if cablecos are depending on competition with DSL to keep the regulators off their backs...they're in bad shape, 'cause right now, every local and national ISP that's not affiliated with a cableco is badmouthing (and rightly so) the cable-modem access for the suckiness that it is. Any time that DSL is a viable alternative, the cablecos are gonna lose and lose big time! @Home can't even provide service to a tiny fraction of the population where I am...DSL already has more customers around here and its only been available for a month, and even its not opened up to alternatives ISPs very well. When BellSouth gets a clue on their pricing and other ISPs can viably offer DSL service via their DSL network, Intermedia/@Home is dead.
Long term, customer choice is almost always gonna be better than monopoly positions both for consumers, and even for the monopoly company! By the cablecos not fostering competition, and by governments not fostering competition within the cable access networks, both entities are ultimately shooting themselves in their respective feet.
A monopoly position is going to encourage development? That would be a first.
Listen...there's basically two seperate services being offered here. First, there's a cable modem network service, which is what I've been calling "cable access." There's not much hope in getting competition in here as cable companies are unlikely to want to come in and build their own infrastructure when one already exists, and that's assuming the franchises even allow that! The second in Internet Services that happen to be served over cable modem networks as well as other access media. There's significant competition in this arena on most media, cable-modems being the only exception.
Basically, the cable companies are leveraging thier monopoly in cable access providing (the actual wires) to force there way into another market (Internet access). That's arguably anti-competitive and illegal!
Making the arguement that cable companies won't upgrade their cable plant if they don't have a monopoly on Internet access via the cable plant is specious at best.
Let's continue the analogy to telcos since it really is a pretty good one....back in the day when you could only rent your telephone from AT&T, upgrades and improvements to the telephone system were virtually non-existant. Allowing other people to build their own equipment to connect to the telephone company network pushed AT&T (and the baby bells) to make improvements rather more quickly. Introduction of local telco competition in 1996 is pushing telco's to make upgrades even more rapidly.
So, to apply this to cablecos. Sure...the best way to encourage cable companies to upgrade and make improvements would be to have competing cablecos in the same franchise area...the franchise where I live allows for this, but doesn't require it...so far, no other cablecos have decided to come in and set up a competing shop. So, barring that happening, the best we can do is allow multiple people to connect to the cable network to encourage the upgrades and improvements. Allowing cablecos to monopolize Internet access via cable networks is going to encourage them *not* to make upgrades and improvements (despite their marketing crap they spew) as a person is considerably less likely to switch from a cable modem to DSL, than they are to switch from provider 1 (say @Home) to provider 2 (pick any other) on cable modems.
No, your arguements are bogus at best. Encourage competition wherever possible...this is almost always in the best interest of the end consumer. Encouraging monopoly providers almost always results in a lowering of service quality.
That should say, "I've not seen *anyone* even hint at the idea that 'Open Access' requirements would come with*out* compensation to the cable companies".
I'm sorry, but there are some statements here that I have to take issue with.
>What some companies tend to overlook is that the upfront costs is the sunk infrastructure but the long-term value is in the services on top. Unfortunately it does lead to a chicken and egg situation as nobody wants to seriously risk all that capital without having some guarenteed of payback down the track (can we say cable companies here?)
I've not seen *anyone* even hint at the idea that "Open Access" requirements would come with compensation to the cable companies. This concept that the cable companies have to have monopoly ISP access on the cable networks is so bogus. Its predicated on the thought, I guess, that the cable companies aren't charging enough for the access level, and instead are making up for the loss by charging more for the Internet Access over top of the cable modem access. More practically speaking...they aren't overcharging for what they are promising...but they certainly aren't (for the most part) delivering on what they promised.
Every Open Access proposal I've seen would open up cable modem access to multiple ISP, but the cable company would still get paid for each and every cable modem installed...ie, for the access via the cable network. This would be *direcly* analogous to dial-up access. There are multiple ISPs available, but you still pay the telco for your phone line.:)
If the cable companies aren't charging enough for the basic cable modem access, then that's their fault. They shouldn't punish consumers because they're too dumb to figure out what their cost structure is.
Shoot...with the use of cable modems and PPPoE and the like, you can even have consumers switch ISPs on the fly, which makes it almost a dial'ed type of situation, which makes the analogy with telco's even more accurate.
My personal thought is that the cable companies are using the "cost recovery" as an excuse to maintain a monopoly hold on the even more lucrative ISP business in the cable network area. "Cost recovery," is not an issue in a well-done open access setup.
Seriously though...my question is...does MCI WorldCom use the same service level agreements on their frame cloud that uu.net does on their internet access? If so...this could be a *SIGNIFICANT* hit to MCI WorldCom's pocketbook.
For those of you who don't know...UU.Net's SLA's basically say that for every hour of downtime, you get a *day* of credit on your circuit. So...for 8 days of downtime...that's over 6 months of service for free!
The folks at Maxis (creators of the SimCity family of "games") could very likely be of some help here. From the reading that I've done, their simulations of traffic flows and city modeling behavior is actually pretty sophisticated, though, obviously on a much smaller scale than these people are talking about. Regardless...their experiences with the SimCity "games" might be useful.
To add just a bit to this point...you can do the same thing with just about any product...its not just Cisco...and since we have a significant Linux leaning here, you can even do the same in Linux. The latest incarnation is called Class Based Queuing I believe. You also might see some of the same features listed as Traffic Shaping (Packeteer has been doing this for a *long* time), and there's probably some other names that I'm forgetting.
I do think (from what I've seen..haven't seen the actual press release) that Cisco's Marketing department hosed this one up, but the technology is just a tool, and just like a hammer is a tool, it can be used for good (building a house for the homeless) or evil (bashing in someone's skull).
This very same tool that Cisco is talking about and everyone is up in arms about is also being used by many ISPs to prevent ICMP ping floods or SYN attacks and the like from killing connections. This very same tool that can be used for anti-competitive purposes can also be used to prevent abuses.
>The analogy with phone numbers is wrong. Like it or not, the phone company does own your number, although there are some gray-area issues there too.
Actually...in the 1996 telecommunications reform act (the act that opened up local telephone service to competition...or was supposed to) it was decided that you *do* own your telephone number. If you switch from one telephone company to another, you take your telephone number with you. The telephone companies are required by law to work with you and each other to make sure that you can still use the same telephone number.
Bingo! This is *exactly* the reason that I don't like unions. If I could go to work at a shop with a Union and be given the choice to join or not. I would be all for them (might not join, but I'd support their right to exist).
I'd even take it a step farther...Unions seem to use the rhetoric of competition being a good thing. So let's see them put their money where their mouth is. Why not have two unions competing for the membership of workers at any one place? If the Union can convince the workers that they will benefit from joining the Union, then they will get membership...but if the Union can't show that they have any relevance to the situation, they'll loose membership. Seems like a pretty nice set of checks and balances on Union vs. Management power.
So, for example, if mgmt is treating workers like crap, they're more likely to join the union, and with more workers in the union, the union will have more clout with mgmt. If mgmt is being cool towards the workers, then there is less incentive for them to join the union, and with fewer members, the union looses clout with mgmt, and thus looses the ability to abuse their clout.
Bah...you shouldn't be moderated down because you're incorrect...but you are incorrect.:)
At least here where I live...the cableco (Intermedia in my case) *is* definitely monopolistic...they are the only cableco available to get service from where I live. While the franchise is not an exclusive franchise...meaning that other cableco's could come in and compete...that certainly hasn't happened and general consensus is that it won't happen...
So...cableco's in most places (I think most have similar franchise agreements) are monopolistic.
Further...I find most of the cableco arguments (AT&T and the like) to be flakey at best...perhaps I'll expound on my thoughts in a later post...don't have time at the moment.
You kind of hit on a good point here...lemme elaborate on it a bit more...you also kind of missed a point.:)
You say a web server serving external clients won't bog the system...that's not exactly true...but it bogs the system for a different reason.
The benchmarks were run with directly connected networks, no routing, no wan links, etc. What does this mean to how the typical web hit is processed? The typical web hit on a benchmark is (I would guess...don't have real numbers here...educated guesses) about 1 to 2 seconds long...the connection is made...the data is passed very rapidly because you're dealing with 100Mbps pipes all the way through, no routing, etc., and the connection is shut down.
In a typical Internet web serving situation, each hit will be much longer lived. How long does it take, start to finish, to load a typical web page on a typical v.90 modem connection? 30 seconds? a minute? I may be high on these numbers, but the idea stands...its not going to be (for the most part) a 1 or 2 second connection duration.
With the longer duration connections, you're going to have more apache processes running (remember, you have one apache process per hit...and apache processes aren't typically small), you're going to have kernel structures allocated, etc.
The meaning of all this being...that 1 processor 256 MB RAM box, is likely *not* going to even get close to serving 6 t1's worth of data to typical Internet clients before it falls over.
To generalize that further...while this benchmark has exposed some limitations of Linux in serving large amounts of data...and this guy's article does give some good perspective on it...don't take his conclusions on how much a linux box will serve without a grain of salt...yes, he does acknowledge that dynamic content has a huge affect on the serving...but that's not all that affects it.
Yet another posting to point out the goofiness of benchmarks...yes, they have their uses, but they're pretty limited.
'tis why I put the disclaimer on there...I didn't remember the actual frequency response...but knew it was a fairly small fraction of what the actual copper wire could handle.:) So, the main point still really stands...that DSL uses the freq. response that POTS and ISDN doesn't use on the wire, and that the switches and trunks aren't really set up to handle, so it can't be switched and all that jazz.
Thanks for correcting the freq. response numbers.:)
Let me clarify on point 2 a bit. Analog phone lines (commonly called POTS, or Plain Old Telephone Service) have a frequency response (if I remember this correctly) of about 40 Hz to about 4000 Hz. This means that *all* of the equipment between one phone in your home and the phone that you are calling in someone else's home, has to handle that frequency response (or a reasonable approximation to it). The telephone switches are capable of sampling that frequency response, digitizing it, switching it, trunking it, etc.
ISDN is a bit different...its a digital connection to the home, so the terminal adaptor or ISDN router is responsible for digitizing the data...and for analog signals on the back of your TA, it does it in much the same way that the telco switches do for the analog line above...for a data connection...well, the data is already digital from the computer, so its just a matter of encoding it for the line protocol that ISDN uses...thus it soak up the full 64Kbps channel available to it. In the telco switches, its just a matter of taking that already encoded data and switching it...this is fairly trivial since you're already dealing with digital data, its just a matter of taking it off of one line and throwing it on another (well...there's more to it than that in implementation of course, but the basic idea is simple). However, because the telco network was set up with 64Kbps (sometimes just 56Kbps) channels for transmission of the digitized audio data, ISDN limits at 64Kbps as well...this is a direct result of the analog connections in the first point. The whole telephone system was set up to handle 64Kbps chunks, so that's what ISDN gets, since its transmitted across largely the same telco infrastructure.
xDSL is a whole different beast entirely. As I figure most of you are aware, the physical copper wires that are run into your house (business, whatever) are physically capable of handling a much greater bandwidth response than the telco's are making use of (*this* is where Shannon's limit really comes in). So, xDSL uses frequency responses that the telephone network has never made use of before (4000Hz up to some really bignum Hz). However, because the telco infrastructure isn't designed to handle these frequency responses (and bandwidth quantities!) the switches and trunks and other telco stuff can't handle DSL directly... Here's where the really big limitation with DSL really is...the DSL equipment has to be on the copper line *before* it hits the switch, or, if the signal goes through the switch, it gets clipped back to the 40-4000Hz signal that the switches are designed to handle. So, your DSL equipment has to be at the telco Central Office (a considerable expense for non-telco's to co-locate equipment), your phone line (actual copper wire) has to be rewired to hit the DSL equipment and then split off from there into the switch, and because the switches can't handle the frequency response (and bandwidth) it can't be "switched" meaning you can't place calls on DSL...really...in the telco world, this seriously limits the usefulness of DSL. Even in the ISP world its somewhat limiting...if you are using one ISP for your DSL, you can't hang up and dial another DSL provider...you'd have to have a completely seperate DSL line in from that second provider to use that...kinda sucks.
Don't get me wrong...DSL is really cool...but there are some serious limitations.
To get back on topic a bit:/ 3Com's modems do x2/v.90 quite well actually...please remember the adoption phase of v.34...it progressed at about the same speed...particularly with new modems, this stuff is done really in software (DSP's running software that perform the modem functionality)...particularly for central site modem equipment (with 3Com HiPer DSP's for example, they use a single PPC chip to be 24 modems, plus other functionality)...and we're still basically dealing with version 1.0 of this v.90 modem software, well, maybe we're at version 1.1 at this point...compatibility is getting better.
Oh, another point...before you go off and complaining to your ISP about your v.90 connect speeds, the critical side of a v.90 connect is the client side modem...ie, the one attached to your computer, not theirs. For example, if you have a Lucent WinModem, you better make *darn* sure you have at least version 5.32 of the code on your modem before you start calling up and complaining to your ISP or you're going to be sending them some sheepish apologies eventually. There are other code revisions that help with other types of modems...a good resourse is http://www.56k.com for finding this information.
I don't consider myself an expert, but it seems like most any communications protocol would apply here.
Of particular interest, I would think would be ssh. The metadata being the public and shared keys, the processing being done would be the encryption and decryption and communication. Indeed, through the ssh config files and sshd config files both sides can specify and control what data is exchanged (do they do public key authentication or password authentication?) And for the kicker, ssh is particularly used for privacy issues.
The main question that I have, and wasn't able to find off the top of my head and a quick search of some likely sites, is; is the ssh specification prior to what they are claiming?
Can anyone fill that in?
Jeff
Re:Intellectual Property
on
DOJ vs NSI
·
· Score: 2
To take this a bit farther...maybe to an extreme...but extremes seem to be good thought experiments to figure out concepts.
What if a new registration database started up (to my knowledge, ICANN/IANA and crew are *not* setting up a seperate database, just ensuring that other companies can register in to the already existing database), and my company put the same information in this new database? If NSI is claiming that they own the information in their database, can they then sue my company for putting our contact information (identical to what's in NSI's whois) in another database? Theoretically, if they own that data, then they could conceivably sue over that.
Like I said...perhaps its extreme...but perhaps not...if there's anything I've learned in my dealings with NSI, is don't assume anything is extreme with them.
I think Lucas actually addresses this somewhat...the SW trilogies were not intended to represent any one religion, but a sort of blurring of all religions (sp?) together. Lucas even commented in the interview about how, when the first SW movie came out, practitioners of nearly all faiths pointed out the similarities between the SW theology/cosmology, and that of their own faith. Lucas and Moyers both made points of SW using myths that were largely common between most all faith traditions. For example, Moyers pointed out Luke being tempted by his father as being analogous to Jesus being tempted by the devil in his 40 day wilderness excursion after his baptism, and Lucas responded with a similar myth from the Bhuddist (sp?) tradition.
I suspect, that you finding similarities between Lucas' statements and Pagan revivalists, that you have some connection with such? practitioner, or familiarity with that tradition? (not an accusation in any way, curious as much as anything)
Slashdot Mirror
As I posted in an earlier thread, when they made the announcement of the purchase of Star Division (I watched some of it on their web site), they *explicitly* referred to the SCSL as "Open Source" with references to Linux and other popular (true) Open Source projects.
Jeff
Yup, which promptly raises the price of the system back up above the $2000 mark that they're touting.
Doncha just love marketing?
Jeff
>The SCSL is not a free or open license and it was never ment to be and it isn't Suns problem that people get it confused with various internet software movements.
:) (though if they continue in this vein, I'm not sure how much longer I will continue to be either)
You are incorrect, sir. You apparently did not see any of the announcement broadcast of Sun's purchase of Star Division, where they *explicitely* called the SCSL an Open Source license, with references to the Open Source movement, and other "institutions" that are part of the "true" Open Source movement as we know it.
I have just sent off a letter to Sun investor-relations (investor-relations@sun.com) complaining about the terms of the SCSL and Sun's apparent intentions with respect to the license. The nice thing about that is that I get to complain as both as customer *and* a stockholder!
Jeff
>On the flip side of the coin, Chess players can be extremely autistic and/or not so socially responsible,
/. threads talking about some programmers being at least somewhat autistic. Very interesting parallel there IMHO.
Interesting...this somewhat harkens back to the previous
Jeff
>Fiber lines, on the other hand, pose no such problem unless you're standing in water when you hit one (there's a lot of power going through to feed all the repeaters on a long-haul circuit).
;)
Power? Going through a fiber optic line? That's a neat trick.
Jeff
As you somewhat note at the end...there's a big difference between "supporting" (as in being able to answer technical support questions), and having a setup that supports (as in, it can work) an operating system. Qwest seems to have made a conscious choice to only support (as in, it can work) Win95/98. That's dumb, IMHO. Its just not that terribly hard to set up an ISP so that a wide variety of operating systems work.
Jeff
>Not only is this a reinforcement of the Microsoft monopoly (are they paying ISPs to do this?)
MSFT has made several significant investments and "strategic partnerships" with Qwest, so...basically, yes.
Jeff
Oh good grief...you really have no clue what you're talking about.
I don't think anyone has ever said that there is absolutely no competition in broadband service completely, but instead that enhancement of competition within the cable modem access media specifically would improve cable modem service. I don't see how anyone that has worked within this field at all could even halfway argue that point.
>And do you really believe that the cable companies are going to simpl ignore the already millions of internet users on ISP's not their own (AOL = 19 million). They will open up their lines to these ISP's...
And this statement clenches it...you really are *totally* out of your field of knowledge...either that or you work in a marketing department for a cableco. I have not heard any significant cableco ever express any intentions of opening up their access to any other ISPs, ever.
Jeff
So, what you're saying is that a monopoly position is going to encourage these cable companies to roll out there services in other areas more quickly? How do you say that with a straight face? I've been practicing that and can't suppress the giggles every time I say it.
Look at it this way. The cablecos are going to more quickly deploy it in other areas (if they're not idiots, which certainly remains to be seen) because they don't have to build out their proprietary Internet access to these locations. They can set up the cable plant for cable-modem service, hook up whatever local ISPs are already in the area and immediately start gaining revenue from the service. Cable modem access was long ago available to be up and running in our area...what was the delay? Waiting for @Home to build their (still pathetically performing) network out to our location enough to actually be able to sell their service on the cable network. All that time, Intermedia was sitting there with the possibility to sell cable modem access, but refused to let anyone hook on because they were waiting for Intermedia to come in and provide the only (already overloaded and its only been running here for couple of months) service on the network.
Here's a clue...if cablecos are depending on competition with DSL to keep the regulators off their backs...they're in bad shape, 'cause right now, every local and national ISP that's not affiliated with a cableco is badmouthing (and rightly so) the cable-modem access for the suckiness that it is. Any time that DSL is a viable alternative, the cablecos are gonna lose and lose big time! @Home can't even provide service to a tiny fraction of the population where I am...DSL already has more customers around here and its only been available for a month, and even its not opened up to alternatives ISPs very well. When BellSouth gets a clue on their pricing and other ISPs can viably offer DSL service via their DSL network, Intermedia/@Home is dead.
Long term, customer choice is almost always gonna be better than monopoly positions both for consumers, and even for the monopoly company! By the cablecos not fostering competition, and by governments not fostering competition within the cable access networks, both entities are ultimately shooting themselves in their respective feet.
Jeff
Oh, nonsense...
A monopoly position is going to encourage development? That would be a first.
Listen...there's basically two seperate services being offered here. First, there's a cable modem network service, which is what I've been calling "cable access." There's not much hope in getting competition in here as cable companies are unlikely to want to come in and build their own infrastructure when one already exists, and that's assuming the franchises even allow that! The second in Internet Services that happen to be served over cable modem networks as well as other access media. There's significant competition in this arena on most media, cable-modems being the only exception.
Basically, the cable companies are leveraging thier monopoly in cable access providing (the actual wires) to force there way into another market (Internet access). That's arguably anti-competitive and illegal!
Making the arguement that cable companies won't upgrade their cable plant if they don't have a monopoly on Internet access via the cable plant is specious at best.
Let's continue the analogy to telcos since it really is a pretty good one....back in the day when you could only rent your telephone from AT&T, upgrades and improvements to the telephone system were virtually non-existant. Allowing other people to build their own equipment to connect to the telephone company network pushed AT&T (and the baby bells) to make improvements rather more quickly. Introduction of local telco competition in 1996 is pushing telco's to make upgrades even more rapidly.
So, to apply this to cablecos. Sure...the best way to encourage cable companies to upgrade and make improvements would be to have competing cablecos in the same franchise area...the franchise where I live allows for this, but doesn't require it...so far, no other cablecos have decided to come in and set up a competing shop. So, barring that happening, the best we can do is allow multiple people to connect to the cable network to encourage the upgrades and improvements. Allowing cablecos to monopolize Internet access via cable networks is going to encourage them *not* to make upgrades and improvements (despite their marketing crap they spew) as a person is considerably less likely to switch from a cable modem to DSL, than they are to switch from provider 1 (say @Home) to provider 2 (pick any other) on cable modems.
No, your arguements are bogus at best. Encourage competition wherever possible...this is almost always in the best interest of the end consumer. Encouraging monopoly providers almost always results in a lowering of service quality.
Jeff
Uhm....T3's are faster than E3's I believe (45Mbps vs. 34Mbps or so?) Sorry to burst your bubble.
Jeff
Ack...too early in the morning.
That should say, "I've not seen *anyone* even hint at the idea that 'Open Access' requirements would come with*out* compensation to the cable companies".
I promise to proofread better next time.
Jeff
I'm sorry, but there are some statements here that I have to take issue with.
:)
>What some companies tend to overlook is that the upfront costs is the sunk infrastructure but the long-term value is in the services on top. Unfortunately it does lead to a chicken and egg situation as nobody wants to seriously risk all that capital without having some guarenteed of payback down the track (can we say cable companies here?)
I've not seen *anyone* even hint at the idea that "Open Access" requirements would come with compensation to the cable companies. This concept that the cable companies have to have monopoly ISP access on the cable networks is so bogus. Its predicated on the thought, I guess, that the cable companies aren't charging enough for the access level, and instead are making up for the loss by charging more for the Internet Access over top of the cable modem access. More practically speaking...they aren't overcharging for what they are promising...but they certainly aren't (for the most part) delivering on what they promised.
Every Open Access proposal I've seen would open up cable modem access to multiple ISP, but the cable company would still get paid for each and every cable modem installed...ie, for the access via the cable network. This would be *direcly* analogous to dial-up access. There are multiple ISPs available, but you still pay the telco for your phone line.
If the cable companies aren't charging enough for the basic cable modem access, then that's their fault. They shouldn't punish consumers because they're too dumb to figure out what their cost structure is.
Shoot...with the use of cable modems and PPPoE and the like, you can even have consumers switch ISPs on the fly, which makes it almost a dial'ed type of situation, which makes the analogy with telco's even more accurate.
My personal thought is that the cable companies are using the "cost recovery" as an excuse to maintain a monopoly hold on the even more lucrative ISP business in the cable network area. "Cost recovery," is not an issue in a well-done open access setup.
Jeff
Yeah...its call UU.Net. :)
Seriously though...my question is...does MCI WorldCom use the same service level agreements on their frame cloud that uu.net does on their internet access? If so...this could be a *SIGNIFICANT* hit to MCI WorldCom's pocketbook.
For those of you who don't know...UU.Net's SLA's basically say that for every hour of downtime, you get a *day* of credit on your circuit. So...for 8 days of downtime...that's over 6 months of service for free!
Ouch.
Jeff
The folks at Maxis (creators of the SimCity family of "games") could very likely be of some help here. From the reading that I've done, their simulations of traffic flows and city modeling behavior is actually pretty sophisticated, though, obviously on a much smaller scale than these people are talking about. Regardless...their experiences with the SimCity "games" might be useful.
Jeff
Dang...someone beat me to the reality check.
To add just a bit to this point...you can do the same thing with just about any product...its not just Cisco...and since we have a significant Linux leaning here, you can even do the same in Linux. The latest incarnation is called Class Based Queuing I believe. You also might see some of the same features listed as Traffic Shaping (Packeteer has been doing this for a *long* time), and there's probably some other names that I'm forgetting.
I do think (from what I've seen..haven't seen the actual press release) that Cisco's Marketing department hosed this one up, but the technology is just a tool, and just like a hammer is a tool, it can be used for good (building a house for the homeless) or evil (bashing in someone's skull).
This very same tool that Cisco is talking about and everyone is up in arms about is also being used by many ISPs to prevent ICMP ping floods or SYN attacks and the like from killing connections. This very same tool that can be used for anti-competitive purposes can also be used to prevent abuses.
Jeff
>The analogy with phone numbers is wrong. Like it or not, the phone company does own your number, although there are some gray-area issues there too.
Actually...in the 1996 telecommunications reform act (the act that opened up local telephone service to competition...or was supposed to) it was decided that you *do* own your telephone number. If you switch from one telephone company to another, you take your telephone number with you. The telephone companies are required by law to work with you and each other to make sure that you can still use the same telephone number.
Jeff
Bingo! This is *exactly* the reason that I don't like unions. If I could go to work at a shop with a Union and be given the choice to join or not. I would be all for them (might not join, but I'd support their right to exist).
I'd even take it a step farther...Unions seem to use the rhetoric of competition being a good thing. So let's see them put their money where their mouth is. Why not have two unions competing for the membership of workers at any one place? If the Union can convince the workers that they will benefit from joining the Union, then they will get membership...but if the Union can't show that they have any relevance to the situation, they'll loose membership. Seems like a pretty nice set of checks and balances on Union vs. Management power.
So, for example, if mgmt is treating workers like crap, they're more likely to join the union, and with more workers in the union, the union will have more clout with mgmt. If mgmt is being cool towards the workers, then there is less incentive for them to join the union, and with fewer members, the union looses clout with mgmt, and thus looses the ability to abuse their clout.
Jeff
Bah...you shouldn't be moderated down because you're incorrect...but you are incorrect. :)
At least here where I live...the cableco (Intermedia in my case) *is* definitely monopolistic...they are the only cableco available to get service from where I live. While the franchise is not an exclusive franchise...meaning that other cableco's could come in and compete...that certainly hasn't happened and general consensus is that it won't happen...
So...cableco's in most places (I think most have similar franchise agreements) are monopolistic.
Further...I find most of the cableco arguments (AT&T and the like) to be flakey at best...perhaps I'll expound on my thoughts in a later post...don't have time at the moment.
Jeff
You kind of hit on a good point here...lemme elaborate on it a bit more...you also kind of missed a point. :)
You say a web server serving external clients won't bog the system...that's not exactly true...but it bogs the system for a different reason.
The benchmarks were run with directly connected networks, no routing, no wan links, etc. What does this mean to how the typical web hit is processed? The typical web hit on a benchmark is (I would guess...don't have real numbers here...educated guesses) about 1 to 2 seconds long...the connection is made...the data is passed very rapidly because you're dealing with 100Mbps pipes all the way through, no routing, etc., and the connection is shut down.
In a typical Internet web serving situation, each hit will be much longer lived. How long does it take, start to finish, to load a typical web page on a typical v.90 modem connection? 30 seconds? a minute? I may be high on these numbers, but the idea stands...its not going to be (for the most part) a 1 or 2 second connection duration.
With the longer duration connections, you're going to have more apache processes running (remember, you have one apache process per hit...and apache processes aren't typically small), you're going to have kernel structures allocated, etc.
The meaning of all this being...that 1 processor 256 MB RAM box, is likely *not* going to even get close to serving 6 t1's worth of data to typical Internet clients before it falls over.
To generalize that further...while this benchmark has exposed some limitations of Linux in serving large amounts of data...and this guy's article does give some good perspective on it...don't take his conclusions on how much a linux box will serve without a grain of salt...yes, he does acknowledge that dynamic content has a huge affect on the serving...but that's not all that affects it.
Yet another posting to point out the goofiness of benchmarks...yes, they have their uses, but they're pretty limited.
Jeff
A'ight...I'll buy that. :)
:) So, the main point still really stands...that DSL uses the freq. response that POTS and ISDN doesn't use on the wire, and that the switches and trunks aren't really set up to handle, so it can't be switched and all that jazz.
:)
'tis why I put the disclaimer on there...I didn't remember the actual frequency response...but knew it was a fairly small fraction of what the actual copper wire could handle.
Thanks for correcting the freq. response numbers.
Jeff
Let me clarify on point 2 a bit. Analog phone lines (commonly called POTS, or Plain Old Telephone Service) have a frequency response (if I remember this correctly) of about 40 Hz to about 4000 Hz. This means that *all* of the equipment between one phone in your home and the phone that you are calling in someone else's home, has to handle that frequency response (or a reasonable approximation to it). The telephone switches are capable of sampling that frequency response, digitizing it, switching it, trunking it, etc.
:/ 3Com's modems do x2/v.90 quite well actually...please remember the adoption phase of v.34...it progressed at about the same speed...particularly with new modems, this stuff is done really in software (DSP's running software that perform the modem functionality)...particularly for central site modem equipment (with 3Com HiPer DSP's for example, they use a single PPC chip to be 24 modems, plus other functionality)...and we're still basically dealing with version 1.0 of this v.90 modem software, well, maybe we're at version 1.1 at this point...compatibility is getting better.
:)
ISDN is a bit different...its a digital connection to the home, so the terminal adaptor or ISDN router is responsible for digitizing the data...and for analog signals on the back of your TA, it does it in much the same way that the telco switches do for the analog line above...for a data connection...well, the data is already digital from the computer, so its just a matter of encoding it for the line protocol that ISDN uses...thus it soak up the full 64Kbps channel available to it. In the telco switches, its just a matter of taking that already encoded data and switching it...this is fairly trivial since you're already dealing with digital data, its just a matter of taking it off of one line and throwing it on another (well...there's more to it than that in implementation of course, but the basic idea is simple). However, because the telco network was set up with 64Kbps (sometimes just 56Kbps) channels for transmission of the digitized audio data, ISDN limits at 64Kbps as well...this is a direct result of the analog connections in the first point. The whole telephone system was set up to handle 64Kbps chunks, so that's what ISDN gets, since its transmitted across largely the same telco infrastructure.
xDSL is a whole different beast entirely. As I figure most of you are aware, the physical copper wires that are run into your house (business, whatever) are physically capable of handling a much greater bandwidth response than the telco's are making use of (*this* is where Shannon's limit really comes in). So, xDSL uses frequency responses that the telephone network has never made use of before (4000Hz up to some really bignum Hz). However, because the telco infrastructure isn't designed to handle these frequency responses (and bandwidth quantities!) the switches and trunks and other telco stuff can't handle DSL directly... Here's where the really big limitation with DSL really is...the DSL equipment has to be on the copper line *before* it hits the switch, or, if the signal goes through the switch, it gets clipped back to the 40-4000Hz signal that the switches are designed to handle. So, your DSL equipment has to be at the telco Central Office (a considerable expense for non-telco's to co-locate equipment), your phone line (actual copper wire) has to be rewired to hit the DSL equipment and then split off from there into the switch, and because the switches can't handle the frequency response (and bandwidth) it can't be "switched" meaning you can't place calls on DSL...really...in the telco world, this seriously limits the usefulness of DSL. Even in the ISP world its somewhat limiting...if you are using one ISP for your DSL, you can't hang up and dial another DSL provider...you'd have to have a completely seperate DSL line in from that second provider to use that...kinda sucks.
Don't get me wrong...DSL is really cool...but there are some serious limitations.
To get back on topic a bit
Oh, another point...before you go off and complaining to your ISP about your v.90 connect speeds, the critical side of a v.90 connect is the client side modem...ie, the one attached to your computer, not theirs. For example, if you have a Lucent WinModem, you better make *darn* sure you have at least version 5.32 of the code on your modem before you start calling up and complaining to your ISP or you're going to be sending them some sheepish apologies eventually. There are other code revisions that help with other types of modems...a good resourse is http://www.56k.com for finding this information.
Sorry so long.
Jeff
I don't consider myself an expert, but it seems like most any communications protocol would apply here.
Of particular interest, I would think would be ssh. The metadata being the public and shared keys, the processing being done would be the encryption and decryption and communication. Indeed, through the ssh config files and sshd config files both sides can specify and control what data is exchanged (do they do public key authentication or password authentication?) And for the kicker, ssh is particularly used for privacy issues.
The main question that I have, and wasn't able to find off the top of my head and a quick search of some likely sites, is; is the ssh specification prior to what they are claiming?
Can anyone fill that in?
Jeff
To take this a bit farther...maybe to an extreme...but extremes seem to be good thought experiments to figure out concepts.
What if a new registration database started up (to my knowledge, ICANN/IANA and crew are *not* setting up a seperate database, just ensuring that other companies can register in to the already existing database), and my company put the same information in this new database? If NSI is claiming that they own the information in their database, can they then sue my company for putting our contact information (identical to what's in NSI's whois) in another database? Theoretically, if they own that data, then they could conceivably sue over that.
Like I said...perhaps its extreme...but perhaps not...if there's anything I've learned in my dealings with NSI, is don't assume anything is extreme with them.
Jeff
I think Lucas actually addresses this somewhat...the SW trilogies were not intended to represent any one religion, but a sort of blurring of all religions (sp?) together. Lucas even commented in the interview about how, when the first SW movie came out, practitioners of nearly all faiths pointed out the similarities between the SW theology/cosmology, and that of their own faith. Lucas and Moyers both made points of SW using myths that were largely common between most all faith traditions. For example, Moyers pointed out Luke being tempted by his father as being analogous to Jesus being tempted by the devil in his 40 day wilderness excursion after his baptism, and Lucas responded with a similar myth from the Bhuddist (sp?) tradition.
I suspect, that you finding similarities between Lucas' statements and Pagan revivalists, that you have some connection with such? practitioner, or familiarity with that tradition? (not an accusation in any way, curious as much as anything)
Jeff