But IP Multicast won't cut it for the current method of watching TV on the Internet "on demmand". Right now, say you want to watch last week's episode of your favorite show. If its multicast out, then anyone who starts the stream after you will have missed the beginning. Kind of a bummer for them. IP Multicast is great to stream shows on a scheduled basis. Then viewers could "tune in" at the appropriate time and catch the show, just like they do with standard TV.
Its possible that someone may devise an way for the "on-demmand" viewing model to work using the efficiency of IP multicast, but right now its not a drop in replacement to magically save bandwidth.
BTW, I am a big believer in using multicast on the Internet...
"Or better yet, have a bunch of prepaid cell phones, which you loan out to people to use while you're carrying around their parentally-supplied one. After all, nobody wants to be without a phone: it's uncool."
If possible, why not just use call forwarding from the "Nanny" phone to the prepaid cell phone. This may work if the location feature returns locale based on physical location of the target phone or the local "forwarded" phone (I think the former). In that case, just leave the phone on at a safe location (i.e. friend's family room). The "tracker" only gets locale of the now-stationary phone, but if a voice follow up is done, you can be reached. Cuts out the middle man...
In the fast moving technology industry, new companies are born and old companies die all the time. I've always viewed comments refering to how much a company has in the bank as an indicator of its inevitable decline, such as the previous poster notes:
"But they have over $5 billion in the bank..."
Granted the poster mentions other good qualities such as talent pool, etc., but if you have to lead in with how much they have in the bank, its never a good sign. Just because they have a lot of $$$ does not necessarily indicate any potential for turn around. The only thing it says is how much money they have, that's all, nothing more.
" The dispute between SCO and I.B.M. has not yet slowed the advance of Linux in the marketplace, according to industry executives. But the prospect that the suit may linger indefinitely can only add to the anxiety of corporate technology buyers.
"They're really concerned," noted George Weiss, an analyst at Gartner. "The significance of this case is unclear, but there's no question it has gotten the attention of people." "
SCO & MS are injecting some good ol' fashion Uncertainty & Doubt into the minds of corporate IT people considering a Linux project with IBM. Both SCO & MS have nothing to lose by bringing this case.
Win: They get some $$ and stop IBM's new Linux business strategy Lose: They spread enough UD around to make buyers hesitate, thus still stopping IBM's Linux business.
I follow your description and it jives with me on how they can avoid the Optical-Electrical-Optical (O-E-O) conversion problems in the core of the router. But here's the part that from the article that I did not quite get:
"The optiputer will initially consist of about 500 processors linked via the optical switching system that will permit parts of the computer to share information at the speed of light."
Precisely how will the processors connect to the optical lines? Will there be some optical transceiver connected to the front side bus? Do the processor pins wire directly into the transceiver?
In the emerging world of softswitches, the bulk of those are running Solaris on Sun workstations. Also, if the "softswitch" stack is sold to another company that actually write the wrapper application to get billing stats, etc., its mostly likely on some flavor of *nix.
If I follow this quote from the article correctly,
"I'm not sending you a file that you listen to later," Kimball says, describing the service. "I'm getting you right now, while we talk. I know you like the Stones, and you're in my life, and as we listen to the song I say, 'Remember the time we went to the concert three years ago?'"
Is this not a violation of copyright law? Even if the sender own a *legit* copy of the CD and ripped the Stones song, isn't sharing it in digital form illegal since the listener could also save the song?
Or does this come under the realm of illegal broadcasting? Does the sender need to pay CARP fees? Is this addressed in the article on Webcasting from earlier today?
OK, so who wants to bring AOL up on charges...
Re:And what did Sikorsky do for a living?
on
The Coming Air Age
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
"When a man who makes helicopters tells you everyone needs a helicopter"
Like the old saying goes, "If you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail"
I don't think that making it Linux to sell more was Sony's intention. I think, as the article mentions, it was to make the profit margins better by avoiding hefty MS licensing fees. Having to pay MS a fee per box sold would cut too deep. I'm guessing that, as already mentioned, they just tweak and repackaged TiVo, that TiVo's licensing fee was OK with Sony.
I really don't think Sony has a particular pro- or anti-Linux bent, its just about the $$.
I've read this article and I've been reviewing this thread after many, many, people have posted. I'm sure someone's already rasied this point, but I must still bring it to the fore:
Problems with potential misuse of the ETC systems? How about just ripping out the friggin' tolls!!
Seriously, the current bulk of electronic transponder data comes from its implementation in toll roads. Do away with tolls, and the transponders go too! Toll roads are a completely outdated concept and only are still in place to serve politicians to garner support from and provide benefit to special intreset groups (read that as "toll collectors union"). They cause worse traffic by having cars artificially slow down and generate more pollution with cars idling in toll lanes.
Get rid of big brother and his toll monitoring by completely eliminating tolls!!!
And for you readers in New Jersey: http://www.EndTolls.com
Well since you've brought it up, I'm compelled to go into my diatribe about 7-Eleven's missuse of their basic unit of liquid measurement, the "gulp". As it stands:
Gulp = 16 oz. Big Gulp = 32 oz. Super Big Gulp = 44 oz. Double Gulp = 64 oz.
Now it stands to reason that if the "Gulp" is 16, shouldn't the 32 be the "Double Gulp", followed by the 44 being the "Big Gulp", and lastly the 64 being the "Super Big Gulp"?
I would not be opposed to calling the 64 the "Double Big Gulp", but only if the 44 oz. "Super Big Gulp" went away.
I am ready to petition for this re-naming plan, 'cause it bugs me that much...
While I agree with all the statements above, I still feel there is an upside to this, namely the fact that the DMCA backers (RIAA, MPAA, etc) cannot use the IEEE as an automatic enforcement agency. By leaving the clause in there, DMCA backers can strong arm the IEEE into "turning in" authors works that are submitted in violation of DMCA provision, regardless of whether they get published or not. The DMCA enforcement lawyers could say to the IEEE "You made the authors sign this form therefore you are now responsible for turning them over to us".
There are so many things wrong with the DMCA, but my particular, most-pet-peevish provision is how it coerces common carriers, publishers, etc, to be the enforces for this. All it takes is one letter from a lawyer saying "we suspect such-and-such of DMCA violations while using your system, make them stop or YOU go to jail!".
This aspect applies equally to ISPs and publishers like the IEEE, so I see their move in dropping the DMCA line still as a positive move.
Several of the big name telecom CEOs are already lobbying the US Gov't for this type of thing.
Taken from http://www.dslprime.com/News_Articles/news_article s.htm
"Chambers, Benhamou, Intel want 100 meg to every home
Refuse to back Tauzin-Dingell despite pressure "Broadband should be a national imperative for this country in the 21st Century, just like putting a man on the moon was an imperative in the last century." John Chambers of Cisco. ADSL and cable modems aren't fast enough for America's future, a dozen of America's smartest CEOs announced through Technet. We need ubiquitous broadband, fast enough for multiple video streams, to allow telemedicine, work at home, granny cams, unlimited music, and everything else the Internet can deliver. The companies spoke up because their own sales require breaking down obstacles to Internet speed. This will require fiber to the home or the curb, and an investment of about $10B a year for a decade to dig up the streets. A lot of money, but a pittance compared to the economic benefits, making it smart public policy. At Supernet, FCC Commissioner Kevin Martin has already jumped on the bandwagon. 'The FCC in the past viewed broadband in a way that is too slow."
"A battle of the past" the country's top CEOs called Tauzin-Dingell. ""It's hard to find any significant impact it would have on the grow-out of technology " Key telco CEOs have personally lobbied committee members, and SBC and Verizon are among Cisco's largest customers. But they would go no further than speak generally against regulations. The committee included John Chambers of Cisco, John Doerr, Eric Benhamou of 3Com, John Young of Hewlett Packard; Les Vadasz of Intel, Microsoft COO Bob Herbold, and others. Martin's comment puts him strongly against Tauzin-Dingell, although he wouldn't say so directly, because T-D defines broadband as "usually more than 375K" in one direction, far less than the video speeds Martin is speaking about. "The Third Internet is fast enough to watch - and it's ready to deliver", I've been shouting for years, essentially the same message. Perhaps these CEOs, and the engineers like David Reed of the recent NRC report, will get the word out more effectively than I have.
If there are enough voices calling for it, particularly the 'right' voices, evetnually the gov't. will make it happen.
It is ALL about the culture clash. Back in the mid-to-late Internet bubble rise, I made the opposite move from Government DoD R&D employee to telcom equipment manufacturer. I won't lie and say the "rewards" part of the equation didn't play a part, because it certainly did, but the foremost reason I made the move was to get AWAY from Government/Defense mind set. When I was working on the various DoD communications projects, innovation and application of new technologies to improve the military comm picture was NOT rewarded by seeing your work deployed to the "end user" (a.k.a fielded solider, company, division, etc). The driving factor was the mentality of the organization responsible for actually delivering the equipment to the "end user". These people were nice but not of the "new and improved" type mentality. They went with what the large defense contractors told them what was the best comm solution, which of course was the system the incumbent contractor was pushing.
It is this lack "using what may be the best" (including all factors such as cost and ease of use) part of the culture that drove me away. In the open market, competition drives the best product to succeed and make it out into the market place. No so in gov't. work. The individual persons working on each project may be intelligent and talented, but the pervading culture is too overwhelming to overcome.
In prinicple I'm not in favor of government forays into areas in which the private sector can undertake on thier own, but I do see a benefit in this appraoch because it may wind up being a catalyst for private services providers anyway. There may be service providers out there who are considering upgrading thier networks, but are hesitant due to the cost-to-return ratio being to high. But after a few municipally funded networks arise and they see there is strong support in the community for a broadband service, perhaps then private service providers will get wise and undertake upgrading their networks to deploy broadband.
Great, a subscription service for my nano-clothes. What happens when I'm late with a payment? Do they come to resposes? I suppose if they did, I'd be forced to give them the shirt of my back!!!
Re:What is it about DSL and wireless companies?
on
Rhythms Flatlines
·
· Score: 1
"It Still Does Nothing since telcos keep saying I See Dollars Now"
...and while we're on the topic of catchy ISDN acronyms, lets not forget "It Sends Data Nowhere"
I work for vendor of Subsrciber Management Systems (SMS) and I have to say that your technical assesment is right on the money. Where I have to disagree is with your somehwat "positive" spin on this. By "inserting" themselves in the loop between the ISP and the end user, SBC will be able to syphon off customers from the ISP all under the guise of "positive" aspects gained by moving to this type of network deployment. Yes, I agree with most of your counterpoints to the PPPoE agrguements. With good RADIUS deployment, people can get static IPs. And ditching ATM on the link between the ISP and DSLAM will definitely save money on network operations, which could possibly be passed onto the consumer. I just really don't like the business implications of this.
When SBC forces all the ISP's retailing DSL from them to the PPPoE model, they will either solely respond themselves to the PPPoE Discover packets and then L2TP Tunnel the subscribers onto the ISPs -OR- relay the PPPoE Discover packets onto the ISP, where they will most likely add in the SBC server's PPPoE Offer packets back with the ISP's. In either case, SBC gets to "freely" advertise their service to the ISP's customer.
Why should they be allowed to this? When an ISP rents the DSL line from an ILEC, they should be the only ones to provide services or content on that line. The ISP was the one who invested in the marketing, sale, and (hopefully) good technical support for this customer. After all their investment in time and money, now SBC gets to throw in (IMHO) the equivalent to a pop-up banner add?!?
Think about what will happen with Joe Q. User when this model is deployed. Let's say they've been a customer of ISP A, who's done a bang up job supporting this user. Now they bring up their PPPoE client and suddenly a list of choices of servcies/providers comes up, with say all but one being SBC's. Some services may be SBC video on demmand while another may be SBC ISP service. Eventually the user will try some SBC service (its only natural to be curious), and quite possibly switch away from ISP A after a while. In the end, SBC will just wind up sucking up all of the customers of every ISP who retails from them.
Yes, I am fully aware that this was one of PPPoE's original intents, to make it easy to switch providers and not be locked into one. And I'm all for choice, but because of where SBC will be inserting themselves, there is potential for anit-competitive abuses to take place, especially without any independent arbitrator to mediate this process.
Slashdot Mirror
But IP Multicast won't cut it for the current method of watching TV on the Internet "on demmand". Right now, say you want to watch last week's episode of your favorite show. If its multicast out, then anyone who starts the stream after you will have missed the beginning. Kind of a bummer for them. IP Multicast is great to stream shows on a scheduled basis. Then viewers could "tune in" at the appropriate time and catch the show, just like they do with standard TV.
Its possible that someone may devise an way for the "on-demmand" viewing model to work using the efficiency of IP multicast, but right now its not a drop in replacement to magically save bandwidth.
BTW, I am a big believer in using multicast on the Internet...
I've gone blind and can't see my monitor. Plus my palm is too hairy to click the mouse.
Its not just the spam, dial my sig...
"Or better yet, have a bunch of prepaid cell phones, which you loan out to people to use while you're carrying around their parentally-supplied one. After all, nobody wants to be without a phone: it's uncool."
If possible, why not just use call forwarding from the "Nanny" phone to the prepaid cell phone. This may work if the location feature returns locale based on physical location of the target phone or the local "forwarded" phone (I think the former). In that case, just leave the phone on at a safe location (i.e. friend's family room). The "tracker" only gets locale of the now-stationary phone, but if a voice follow up is done, you can be reached. Cuts out the middle man...
I'm surprised the RIAA hasn't tried to re-introduce the concept debtor's prisions. That seems to be the timeframe they think they're operating in...
I think this is such an excellent idea. Let's award them a statue for all their hard work. I think we just need to give this guy a remote, and it will fit the bill... http://www.flickr.com/photos/kentbrew/60225257/in/ photostream/
In the fast moving technology industry, new companies are born and old companies die all the time. I've always viewed comments refering to how much a company has in the bank as an indicator of its inevitable decline, such as the previous poster notes:
"But they have over $5 billion in the bank..."
Granted the poster mentions other good qualities such as talent pool, etc., but if you have to lead in with how much they have in the bank, its never a good sign. Just because they have a lot of $$$ does not necessarily indicate any potential for turn around. The only thing it says is how much money they have, that's all, nothing more.
Directly from the article:
" The dispute between SCO and I.B.M. has not yet slowed the advance of Linux in the marketplace, according to industry executives. But the prospect that the suit may linger indefinitely can only add to the anxiety of corporate technology buyers.
"They're really concerned," noted George Weiss, an analyst at Gartner. "The significance of this case is unclear, but there's no question it has gotten the attention of people." "
SCO & MS are injecting some good ol' fashion Uncertainty & Doubt into the minds of corporate IT people considering a Linux project with IBM. Both SCO & MS have nothing to lose by bringing this case.
Win: They get some $$ and stop IBM's new Linux business strategy
Lose: They spread enough UD around to make buyers hesitate, thus still stopping IBM's Linux business.
You're right, you are alone on this one...
I follow your description and it jives with me on how they can avoid the Optical-Electrical-Optical (O-E-O) conversion problems in the core of the router. But here's the part that from the article that I did not quite get:
"The optiputer will initially consist of about 500 processors linked via the optical switching system that will permit parts of the computer to share information at the speed of light."
Precisely how will the processors connect to the optical lines? Will there be some optical transceiver connected to the front side bus? Do the processor pins wire directly into the transceiver?
Anyone know this part of the setup???
In the emerging world of softswitches, the bulk of those are running Solaris on Sun workstations. Also, if the "softswitch" stack is sold to another company that actually write the wrapper application to get billing stats, etc., its mostly likely on some flavor of *nix.
If I follow this quote from the article correctly,
"I'm not sending you a file that you listen to later," Kimball says, describing the service. "I'm getting you right now, while we talk. I know you like the Stones, and you're in my life, and as we listen to the song I say, 'Remember the time we went to the concert three years ago?'"
Is this not a violation of copyright law? Even if the sender own a *legit* copy of the CD and ripped the Stones song, isn't sharing it in digital form illegal since the listener could also save the song?
Or does this come under the realm of illegal broadcasting? Does the sender need to pay CARP fees? Is this addressed in the article on Webcasting from earlier today?
OK, so who wants to bring AOL up on charges...
"When a man who makes helicopters tells you everyone needs a helicopter"
Like the old saying goes, "If you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail"
I don't think that making it Linux to sell more was Sony's intention. I think, as the article mentions, it was to make the profit margins better by avoiding hefty MS licensing fees. Having to pay MS a fee per box sold would cut too deep. I'm guessing that, as already mentioned, they just tweak and repackaged TiVo, that TiVo's licensing fee was OK with Sony.
I really don't think Sony has a particular pro- or anti-Linux bent, its just about the $$.
I've read this article and I've been reviewing this thread after many, many, people have posted. I'm sure someone's already rasied this point, but I must still bring it to the fore:
Problems with potential misuse of the ETC systems? How about just ripping out the friggin' tolls!!
Seriously, the current bulk of electronic transponder data comes from its implementation in toll roads. Do away with tolls, and the transponders go too! Toll roads are a completely outdated concept and only are still in place to serve politicians to garner support from and provide benefit to special intreset groups (read that as "toll collectors union"). They cause worse traffic by having cars artificially slow down and generate more pollution with cars idling in toll lanes.
Get rid of big brother and his toll monitoring by completely eliminating tolls!!!
And for you readers in New Jersey:
http://www.EndTolls.com
Well since you've brought it up, I'm compelled to go into my diatribe about 7-Eleven's missuse of their basic unit of liquid measurement, the "gulp". As it stands:
Gulp = 16 oz.
Big Gulp = 32 oz.
Super Big Gulp = 44 oz.
Double Gulp = 64 oz.
Now it stands to reason that if the "Gulp" is 16, shouldn't the 32 be the "Double Gulp", followed by the 44 being the "Big Gulp", and lastly the 64 being the "Super Big Gulp"?
I would not be opposed to calling the 64 the "Double Big Gulp", but only if the 44 oz. "Super Big Gulp" went away.
I am ready to petition for this re-naming plan, 'cause it bugs me that much...
While I agree with all the statements above, I still feel there is an upside to this, namely the fact that the DMCA backers (RIAA, MPAA, etc) cannot use the IEEE as an automatic enforcement agency. By leaving the clause in there, DMCA backers can strong arm the IEEE into "turning in" authors works that are submitted in violation of DMCA provision, regardless of whether they get published or not. The DMCA enforcement lawyers could say to the IEEE "You made the authors sign this form therefore you are now responsible for turning them over to us".
There are so many things wrong with the DMCA, but my particular, most-pet-peevish provision is how it coerces common carriers, publishers, etc, to be the enforces for this. All it takes is one letter from a lawyer saying "we suspect such-and-such of DMCA violations while using your system, make them stop or YOU go to jail!".
This aspect applies equally to ISPs and publishers like the IEEE, so I see their move in dropping the DMCA line still as a positive move.
CPT Carl
"But really, since when did "Ask Slashdot" become "Free Advice for those who don't want to ask their Lawer?"."
_ La nders_adviser_to_millions_dead_at_83+.shtml
It obviously happened when Ann Landers died...
http://www.boston.com/dailyglobe2/174/metro/Ann
CPT Carl
Several of the big name telecom CEOs are already lobbying the US Gov't for this type of thing.
e s.htm
Taken from http://www.dslprime.com/News_Articles/news_articl
"Chambers, Benhamou, Intel want 100 meg to every home
Refuse to back Tauzin-Dingell despite pressure "Broadband should be a national imperative for this country in the 21st Century, just like putting a man on the moon was an imperative in the last century." John Chambers of Cisco. ADSL and cable modems aren't fast enough for America's future, a dozen of America's smartest CEOs announced through Technet. We need ubiquitous broadband, fast enough for multiple video streams, to allow telemedicine, work at home, granny cams, unlimited music, and everything else the Internet can deliver. The companies spoke up because their own sales require breaking down obstacles to Internet speed. This will require fiber to the home or the curb, and an investment of about $10B a year for a decade to dig up the streets. A lot of money, but a pittance compared to the economic benefits, making it smart public policy. At Supernet, FCC Commissioner Kevin Martin has already jumped on the bandwagon. 'The FCC in the past viewed broadband in a way that is too slow."
"A battle of the past" the country's top CEOs called Tauzin-Dingell. ""It's hard to find any significant impact it would have on the grow-out of technology " Key telco CEOs have personally lobbied committee members, and SBC and Verizon are among Cisco's largest customers. But they would go no further than speak generally against regulations. The committee included John Chambers of Cisco, John Doerr, Eric Benhamou of 3Com, John Young of Hewlett Packard; Les Vadasz of Intel, Microsoft COO Bob Herbold, and others. Martin's comment puts him strongly against Tauzin-Dingell, although he wouldn't say so directly, because T-D defines broadband as "usually more than 375K" in one direction, far less than the video speeds Martin is speaking about. "The Third Internet is fast enough to watch - and it's ready to deliver", I've been shouting for years, essentially the same message. Perhaps these CEOs, and the engineers like David Reed of the recent NRC report, will get the word out more effectively than I have.
If there are enough voices calling for it, particularly the 'right' voices, evetnually the gov't. will make it happen.
It is ALL about the culture clash. Back in the mid-to-late Internet bubble rise, I made the opposite move from Government DoD R&D employee to telcom equipment manufacturer. I won't lie and say the "rewards" part of the equation didn't play a part, because it certainly did, but the foremost reason I made the move was to get AWAY from Government/Defense mind set. When I was working on the various DoD communications projects, innovation and application of new technologies to improve the military comm picture was NOT rewarded by seeing your work deployed to the "end user" (a.k.a fielded solider, company, division, etc). The driving factor was the mentality of the organization responsible for actually delivering the equipment to the "end user". These people were nice but not of the "new and improved" type mentality. They went with what the large defense contractors told them what was the best comm solution, which of course was the system the incumbent contractor was pushing.
It is this lack "using what may be the best" (including all factors such as cost and ease of use) part of the culture that drove me away. In the open market, competition drives the best product to succeed and make it out into the market place. No so in gov't. work. The individual persons working on each project may be intelligent and talented, but the pervading culture is too overwhelming to overcome.
Would that make you a Smooth Criminal (hoo)?
In prinicple I'm not in favor of government forays into areas in which the private sector can undertake on thier own, but I do see a benefit in this appraoch because it may wind up being a catalyst for private services providers anyway. There may be service providers out there who are considering upgrading thier networks, but are hesitant due to the cost-to-return ratio being to high. But after a few municipally funded networks arise and they see there is strong support in the community for a broadband service, perhaps then private service providers will get wise and undertake upgrading their networks to deploy broadband.
CPT Carl
...as to who will be the new ISP for Comcast and Cox cable modem customers.? Any /.'ers care to speculate who it'll be?
Great, a subscription service for my nano-clothes. What happens when I'm late with a payment? Do they come to resposes? I suppose if they did, I'd be forced to give them the shirt of my back!!!
"It Still Does Nothing since telcos keep saying I See Dollars Now"
...and while we're on the topic of catchy ISDN acronyms, lets not forget "It Sends Data Nowhere"
I work for vendor of Subsrciber Management Systems (SMS) and I have to say that your technical assesment is right on the money. Where I have to disagree is with your somehwat "positive" spin on this. By "inserting" themselves in the loop between the ISP and the end user, SBC will be able to syphon off customers from the ISP all under the guise of "positive" aspects gained by moving to this type of network deployment. Yes, I agree with most of your counterpoints to the PPPoE agrguements. With good RADIUS deployment, people can get static IPs. And ditching ATM on the link between the ISP and DSLAM will definitely save money on network operations, which could possibly be passed onto the consumer. I just really don't like the business implications of this.
When SBC forces all the ISP's retailing DSL from them to the PPPoE model, they will either solely respond themselves to the PPPoE Discover packets and then L2TP Tunnel the subscribers onto the ISPs -OR- relay the PPPoE Discover packets onto the ISP, where they will most likely add in the SBC server's PPPoE Offer packets back with the ISP's. In either case, SBC gets to "freely" advertise their service to the ISP's customer.
Why should they be allowed to this? When an ISP rents the DSL line from an ILEC, they should be the only ones to provide services or content on that line. The ISP was the one who invested in the marketing, sale, and (hopefully) good technical support for this customer. After all their investment in time and money, now SBC gets to throw in (IMHO) the equivalent to a pop-up banner add?!?
Think about what will happen with Joe Q. User when this model is deployed. Let's say they've been a customer of ISP A, who's done a bang up job supporting this user. Now they bring up their PPPoE client and suddenly a list of choices of servcies/providers comes up, with say all but one being SBC's. Some services may be SBC video on demmand while another may be SBC ISP service. Eventually the user will try some SBC service (its only natural to be curious), and quite possibly switch away from ISP A after a while. In the end, SBC will just wind up sucking up all of the customers of every ISP who retails from them.
Yes, I am fully aware that this was one of PPPoE's original intents, to make it easy to switch providers and not be locked into one. And I'm all for choice, but because of where SBC will be inserting themselves, there is potential for anit-competitive abuses to take place, especially without any independent arbitrator to mediate this process.