As a network engineer at a company with 2x 1 GigE connections to the internet I can vouch for the fact that your first bandwidth limiting factor is going to be your firewalls. Our Cisco PIX 501s are only rated for a few hundered Mb/s and even then cost alot more $$ (or Euros in this case) then a home user would be willing to pay. Switch ASIC based ACLs may be fine for an ordinary home user (though nice Gig switches aren't cheap either), but if you want to use your shiny bandwidth for any sort of business and then you need a real firewall.
V3xt0r I think you mis-understand the Libertarian perspective on free-trade and individual choice. Free trade means if I am a telecom provider and I risk my hard earned capital to provide Internet access services then I should be free to set my own prices and service terms. As a consumer you should also be free to choose to buy my services or not if offered in your area. The "net neutrality" laws would explicitly prevent me from determining how to run my network (forget traffic engineering, what a carrier thinks is spam the Feds could call ham), and also tell me how to charge for my services by disallowing me from charging more for enhanced QoS. The end result of the "net neutrality" schemes will be to prevent innovation and keep prices high.
I believe your real concern should be your lack of ISP choices at home. There are two factors at work here. First your local municipalities limit by law the number of cable providers, or telephone operators, or any other service providers who can do business in your neighborhood. This is done out-right in the case of the cable TV duopolies, and more subtly for any new facilities based telecom carriers by using regulations to make it very difficult to upgrade or stringing new cables. I used to work for a CLEC and believe me, politicians from cities like LA and Pasadena and in Sacramento are very happy to protect their cozy ($$) relationship with incumbent carriers at the expense of their citizens. If you want better home ISP choices you'd be better off fighting for less telecom regulation then for more regulation in the form of "net neutrality". There are plenty of new technologies like fixed wireless, Passive Optical, and such that could make SBC and Verizon's built out copper look as antiquated as a horse and buggy. But no one is going to risk capital on these technologies in an environment where the Federal government can take away any chance for profit in the name of some populist mantra like "net neutrality".
PS. The 43rd State Assembly district doesn't include Pasadena, but if you change your mind about us Libertarians, Jim Keller is running for US Congress in the 29th district which does includes Pasadena.
This bill and bills like it are a horrible idea. The power and success of the Internet is that it's lightly regulated and robustly competitive, especially for hosting services. Anyone wanting to host an Internet server have lots of options for data centers, and data centers have many choices for Internet service providers, and Internet providers are free to negotiate interconnect agreements with any and all other Internet service providers. If some ISP wants to charge extra or restrict access to some Internet application how do you think their customers will behave? If no offsetting benefit is provided then reasonable customers will switch providers. Or maybe the ISP charging the extra fees can some how offset that cost with some features their customers want; let them try. Either way the individual customers and overall market should decide prices and services NOT the Federal Government. Don't forget what the Feds have contributed to our phone system over the years: taxes, regulations, and creation (and subsequent dismantling) of monopolies.
The situation for home users is slightly different, but the same principles apply. If you live in any relatively urban part of the US you will have at least two if not more choices for Internet access. If some or both providers try to charge extra or degrade your service then the providers need to offer some compelling reason to stick with them or another competitor will take your business. If you happen live in a rural area that can only support one service provider, then you've made your choice by living there. Urban folks pay a lot more for everything from housing to insurance to dinner and movie; but pay less and have more choices for Internet access. If you want the Feds to give everyone the same access everywhere and for the same price (such as was done with phone, mail, and electrical service) then you penalize the rational consumers and promote things like urban sprawl and government sponsored (universal access) monopolies.
As other posters have said the Internet is already (in the industrialized countries) a well connected mesh of peer networks. It's true that traffic flows through the tier one provides but that's only because they provide the best route to where ever your data is trying to get to. If a network provider stops routing traffic or starts censoring or port blocking certain applications then it's your job as Joe consumer to pressure your ISP to not use that providers backbone.
The real threat to the Internet as we know it is government regulations designed to "level the playing field" between VoIP and IPTV vendors and old line PoTS and Cable monopolies. The old time monopolies got their status from the Government by agreeing to a whole raft of "universal service" and other government mandates. These mandates sound great but really just drive up costs and slow innovation. The monopoly companies want to hoist these old rules on Internet providers knowing it will kill their businesses. A good example is trying mandate E911 and WireTap features for VoIP phone companies. Cable companies are getting in to the act to and saying that phone companies shouldn't be able to compete with them by offering IPTV because Telcos don't have the "universal access" rule of having to provide TV to everyone in a franchise area. The monopolies also claim if you get too many providers trying to offer service in an area the streets will be torn up all the time which is also a bogus excuse. Everyone should have access to public rights of way and the cities should just set rules about when and how long streets can be disrupted to cause the least annoyance for people. It's the phone and cable TV monoplies who today wine and dine the cities to let them tear up the streets anywhere and any time they want.
The RIGHT (tm) solution is to drop government regulations and government sponsored monopolies and leave it to the free market to innovate solutions. What right in a free society does the Government have in be involved with any communications business (except as a paying customer)? If cable companies can't compete with IPTV by offering CableTV at a decent rate then let them go bankrupt and a let a company who can do the job buy up their network and make it work. Same goes for phone companies, if no one wants to buy over priced phone and T1 lines from them then get out of the business and let someone else manage all those pretty copper strands. I'm sure there are plenty of smart companies who can use them for phone, Internet, TV, and who know what else.
On a related note, there is one major choke point in the Internet and that's the stupid DNS system. Just FYI, the internet (IP, UDP, TCP, BGP, etc.) will work fine with out it. All it does is take a server name everyone can remember and gives you back the right numeric IP address (66.35.250.150) for that server (ok it does a few more things but that's the basics). Anyone is free to invent a new efficient decentralized network address to network number system to replace DNS. An example of a very cool system that does just that is called JXTA (http://jxta.org) from the good people at Sun Microsystems. It's billed as a P2P protocol and collaboration system but it is also a beautiful re-imagining of the Internet sans DNS.
This is really just about adding high density flash to an existing smart card platform. Other then having alot of flash this (16 bit CPU, 4-8K RAM) card is just like most other JavaCards out there (such as in your cell phone or AMEX Blue card).
The innovative smart cards these days have 32 bit CPUs such as the P9SC648 from Philips and ST22N256 from ST Micro. The Philips card is alot more powerful then IBM/Sharp's card and still has 512 KB Flash. The ST card has 256 KB Flash and 368 ROM and is shipping now for $4 to $5 in quantity.
I'd love to see this chip in a USB smart card. The most advanced USB cards out there from Axalto only have 8-bit CPUs from ST with 4 KB of RAM and 64 KB of EEPROM. All sorts of fun and games would be possible with a secure 32-bit USB card. So anyone from Atmel want to comment on if you're talking to any of the Smart Card vendors? I'm sure the folks from the MUSCLE card group would be happy to create a linux driver.
Slashdot Mirror
As a network engineer at a company with 2x 1 GigE connections to the internet I can vouch for the fact that your first bandwidth limiting factor is going to be your firewalls. Our Cisco PIX 501s are only rated for a few hundered Mb/s and even then cost alot more $$ (or Euros in this case) then a home user would be willing to pay. Switch ASIC based ACLs may be fine for an ordinary home user (though nice Gig switches aren't cheap either), but if you want to use your shiny bandwidth for any sort of business and then you need a real firewall.
I believe your real concern should be your lack of ISP choices at home. There are two factors at work here. First your local municipalities limit by law the number of cable providers, or telephone operators, or any other service providers who can do business in your neighborhood. This is done out-right in the case of the cable TV duopolies, and more subtly for any new facilities based telecom carriers by using regulations to make it very difficult to upgrade or stringing new cables. I used to work for a CLEC and believe me, politicians from cities like LA and Pasadena and in Sacramento are very happy to protect their cozy ($$) relationship with incumbent carriers at the expense of their citizens. If you want better home ISP choices you'd be better off fighting for less telecom regulation then for more regulation in the form of "net neutrality". There are plenty of new technologies like fixed wireless, Passive Optical, and such that could make SBC and Verizon's built out copper look as antiquated as a horse and buggy. But no one is going to risk capital on these technologies in an environment where the Federal government can take away any chance for profit in the name of some populist mantra like "net neutrality".
-- Steve Myers
Libertarian Candidate
California State Assembly, District 43
http://myers4assembly.com/
PS. The 43rd State Assembly district doesn't include Pasadena, but if you change your mind about us Libertarians, Jim Keller is running for US Congress in the 29th district which does includes Pasadena.
The situation for home users is slightly different, but the same principles apply. If you live in any relatively urban part of the US you will have at least two if not more choices for Internet access. If some or both providers try to charge extra or degrade your service then the providers need to offer some compelling reason to stick with them or another competitor will take your business. If you happen live in a rural area that can only support one service provider, then you've made your choice by living there. Urban folks pay a lot more for everything from housing to insurance to dinner and movie; but pay less and have more choices for Internet access. If you want the Feds to give everyone the same access everywhere and for the same price (such as was done with phone, mail, and electrical service) then you penalize the rational consumers and promote things like urban sprawl and government sponsored (universal access) monopolies.
-- Steve Myers
Libertarian Candidate,
California State Assembly, 43rd District
http://myers4assembly.com/
The real threat to the Internet as we know it is government regulations designed to "level the playing field" between VoIP and IPTV vendors and old line PoTS and Cable monopolies. The old time monopolies got their status from the Government by agreeing to a whole raft of "universal service" and other government mandates. These mandates sound great but really just drive up costs and slow innovation. The monopoly companies want to hoist these old rules on Internet providers knowing it will kill their businesses. A good example is trying mandate E911 and WireTap features for VoIP phone companies. Cable companies are getting in to the act to and saying that phone companies shouldn't be able to compete with them by offering IPTV because Telcos don't have the "universal access" rule of having to provide TV to everyone in a franchise area. The monopolies also claim if you get too many providers trying to offer service in an area the streets will be torn up all the time which is also a bogus excuse. Everyone should have access to public rights of way and the cities should just set rules about when and how long streets can be disrupted to cause the least annoyance for people. It's the phone and cable TV monoplies who today wine and dine the cities to let them tear up the streets anywhere and any time they want.
The RIGHT (tm) solution is to drop government regulations and government sponsored monopolies and leave it to the free market to innovate solutions. What right in a free society does the Government have in be involved with any communications business (except as a paying customer)? If cable companies can't compete with IPTV by offering CableTV at a decent rate then let them go bankrupt and a let a company who can do the job buy up their network and make it work. Same goes for phone companies, if no one wants to buy over priced phone and T1 lines from them then get out of the business and let someone else manage all those pretty copper strands. I'm sure there are plenty of smart companies who can use them for phone, Internet, TV, and who know what else.
On a related note, there is one major choke point in the Internet and that's the stupid DNS system. Just FYI, the internet (IP, UDP, TCP, BGP, etc.) will work fine with out it. All it does is take a server name everyone can remember and gives you back the right numeric IP address (66.35.250.150) for that server (ok it does a few more things but that's the basics). Anyone is free to invent a new efficient decentralized network address to network number system to replace DNS. An example of a very cool system that does just that is called JXTA (http://jxta.org) from the good people at Sun Microsystems. It's billed as a P2P protocol and collaboration system but it is also a beautiful re-imagining of the Internet sans DNS.
This is really just about adding high density flash to an existing smart card platform. Other then having alot of flash this (16 bit CPU, 4-8K RAM) card is just like most other JavaCards out there (such as in your cell phone or AMEX Blue card). The innovative smart cards these days have 32 bit CPUs such as the P9SC648 from Philips and ST22N256 from ST Micro. The Philips card is alot more powerful then IBM/Sharp's card and still has 512 KB Flash. The ST card has 256 KB Flash and 368 ROM and is shipping now for $4 to $5 in quantity.
I'd love to see this chip in a USB smart card. The most advanced USB cards out there from Axalto only have 8-bit CPUs from ST with 4 KB of RAM and 64 KB of EEPROM. All sorts of fun and games would be possible with a secure 32-bit USB card. So anyone from Atmel want to comment on if you're talking to any of the Smart Card vendors? I'm sure the folks from the MUSCLE card group would be happy to create a linux driver.