right on! more like Same Old Anus for wont of a wanky TLA...
if you're going to design a service platform, design a freaking service platform - if you're going to build a service-based business, well then build a f*cking service-based business. if your legacy sh*t is sh*tty and holding you back from where you want to be well then rip it out. no need to apologise. no need to look to some enterprise-grade apologist for the magic bullet, there isn't one...
Your idea of a government-run ISP will only produce yet-another-bankrupt government organization like the USPS, or Amtrak, or SSI, or Medicare, or.....
Last thing I want is a government-run ISP. I want an effective independent regulator with sufficient checks and balances to hold private (corp) and public (gov) interests accountable while promoting consumer friendly competition.
The fundamental problem with competition in the telecoms market lies in the local loop/last mile - the physical infrastructure. It's uneconomical and certainly impractical to expect every player to dig their own trenches, build ducts and pull cable. So some form of infrastructure sharing is required. In some countries this is achieved through structural separation - only good if the mature local loop is of reasonably decent quality. But what about ultimately replacing the aging copper with something shiny and fast like optic fibre? Who's going to pony up the money in the interests of free and fair competition?
BTW, the Sherman Act isn't a good example of fair play enforced by top-down regulations. Antitrust remedies are reactive in nature, only once anti-competitive behaviour has been proven is the corporation sanctioned. By this time it's too late, Joe Consumer has already been screwed.
you need structural separation if you want to open your own pizza shop. that being said, structural separation is kinda like having all the pizza shops (telcos) share the same pizza ovens (local loop)!;-) as long as the regulations allow me to bring my own cheese (new services) then that should be cool, no?
currently it's like the rules allow only one shop to build and operate the pizza ovens.
Bottom-up only works properly if the top-down regulations permit fair play. Otherwise we end up with robber [railroad|telco] barons all over again and *that would never do* (to quote the Fat Director whose poor railway was nationalised as a knee jerk reaction to crappy capitalism at work!).
There was a good reason why the pendulum swung to the left in the early-mid 20th century. We've seen it swing back since, and I'm sure it's in the process of swinging back again this time. Here's hoping the telecoms industry in North America gets a belated kick up the backside as a result.
It's all good and well if you can freeload off MIT's connection - kudos to the lads, neat idea, but what happens when MIT gets wise to the fact that their upstream is congested by "non-academic" traffic? Great while it's tolerated but...
Same situation if I decided to do a backhaul wi-fi mesh between myself and some colleagues - we live in line of sight of each other and one of the dudes has line of sight to the office. Supercool, let's shove an access point on the corporate network. all is great until someone notices that the upstream connection to the Net is hosed - thanks to the 37337 service I'm running from home... ass in a sling time again:-(
Hey, you should speak to Easynet UK - they're at least trying to rise above the bullsh!t restrictions that BT have imposed, and they can guarantee 20:1 contention...
But I agree, the situation in the UK is way more poxy than France.
You think you have it bad in Korea? In France we have the dubious honour of having to rely on the national telco monopoly (France Telecom) for the basic DSL line. Then we have a choice of ISP. Two charges, one to FT the other to the ISP.
What's wrong with that?
Well some ISP's (including France Telecom's subsidiary) have managed to solve the problem of nasty thieving customers putting NAT boxes behind their DSL connections and use a PPTP tunnel for your access. So, even though you can connect a NAT box between your home LAN and your DSL modem (and use your NAT box for PPPoE authentication - as this is standard in France), you can *ONLY* use one PC at a time with the PPTP tunnel! Most NAT boxes (like Linksys) allow only one PPTP tunnel to be passed through.
At least there are some decent service providers here that can offer you a service w/o PPTP and allow NAT, but they cost about $15-$20 more per month.
If Korea Telecom were smart (or devious!) they would force all the domestic users to connect via PPTP.
...Lest we forget that many countries don't have decent DSL or cable services and a *lot* of people are grateful to have 56k dialup for their SOHO or small business.
Many products that are taken for granted in the US (Linksys et al) are not necessarily available in certain countries due to Telco regulations (many countries with monopoly telecom operators force a modem manufacturer to comply with certain rules - this can be expensive).
So, this appears to be an Australian product. Kudos to them. Don't knock the design or functionality simply because you've transcended this method of connection years ago. Small companies would find the opportunity to share 56k dialup access with a few PC's very interesting in some less well connected locations.
So I decide to check my dear colleague's hotmail account through the cracked link and bingo - plenty plenty plenty confidential info forwarded from his work address as he is on vacation.
Fsck, this is serious.
I see the cgi prog is no longer at the 2038 URL:->
Slashdot Mirror
right on! more like Same Old Anus for wont of a wanky TLA...
if you're going to design a service platform, design a freaking service platform - if you're going to build a service-based business, well then build a f*cking service-based business. if your legacy sh*t is sh*tty and holding you back from where you want to be well then rip it out. no need to apologise. no need to look to some enterprise-grade apologist for the magic bullet, there isn't one...
Your idea of a government-run ISP will only produce yet-another-bankrupt government organization like the USPS, or Amtrak, or SSI, or Medicare, or.....
Last thing I want is a government-run ISP. I want an effective independent regulator with sufficient checks and balances to hold private (corp) and public (gov) interests accountable while promoting consumer friendly competition.
The fundamental problem with competition in the telecoms market lies in the local loop/last mile - the physical infrastructure. It's uneconomical and certainly impractical to expect every player to dig their own trenches, build ducts and pull cable. So some form of infrastructure sharing is required. In some countries this is achieved through structural separation - only good if the mature local loop is of reasonably decent quality. But what about ultimately replacing the aging copper with something shiny and fast like optic fibre? Who's going to pony up the money in the interests of free and fair competition?
BTW, the Sherman Act isn't a good example of fair play enforced by top-down regulations. Antitrust remedies are reactive in nature, only once anti-competitive behaviour has been proven is the corporation sanctioned. By this time it's too late, Joe Consumer has already been screwed.
you need structural separation if you want to open your own pizza shop. that being said, structural separation is kinda like having all the pizza shops (telcos) share the same pizza ovens (local loop)! ;-) as long as the regulations allow me to bring my own cheese (new services) then that should be cool, no?
currently it's like the rules allow only one shop to build and operate the pizza ovens.
Comrade Commode-Soixante-Quatre-Amour
Bottom-up only works properly if the top-down regulations permit fair play. Otherwise we end up with robber [railroad|telco] barons all over again and *that would never do* (to quote the Fat Director whose poor railway was nationalised as a knee jerk reaction to crappy capitalism at work!).
There was a good reason why the pendulum swung to the left in the early-mid 20th century. We've seen it swing back since, and I'm sure it's in the process of swinging back again this time. Here's hoping the telecoms industry in North America gets a belated kick up the backside as a result.
Who pays for the upstream connection?
:-(
It's all good and well if you can freeload off MIT's connection - kudos to the lads, neat idea, but what happens when MIT gets wise to the fact that their upstream is congested by "non-academic" traffic? Great while it's tolerated but...
Same situation if I decided to do a backhaul wi-fi mesh between myself and some colleagues - we live in line of sight of each other and one of the dudes has line of sight to the office. Supercool, let's shove an access point on the corporate network. all is great until someone notices that the upstream connection to the Net is hosed - thanks to the 37337 service I'm running from home... ass in a sling time again
how about the real X11R6 from MIT?
compiled fine on my old DECStation 5000 (w/ MIPS R4400 CPU) back in the day when Digital wasn't Compaq...
Hey, you should speak to Easynet UK - they're at least trying to rise above the bullsh!t restrictions that BT have imposed, and they can guarantee 20:1 contention...
But I agree, the situation in the UK is way more poxy than France.
You think you have it bad in Korea? In France we have the dubious honour of having to rely on the national telco monopoly (France Telecom) for the basic DSL line. Then we have a choice of ISP. Two charges, one to FT the other to the ISP.
What's wrong with that?
Well some ISP's (including France Telecom's subsidiary) have managed to solve the problem of nasty thieving customers putting NAT boxes behind their DSL connections and use a PPTP tunnel for your access. So, even though you can connect a NAT box between your home LAN and your DSL modem (and use your NAT box for PPPoE authentication - as this is standard in France), you can *ONLY* use one PC at a time with the PPTP tunnel! Most NAT boxes (like Linksys) allow only one PPTP tunnel to be passed through.
At least there are some decent service providers here that can offer you a service w/o PPTP and allow NAT, but they cost about $15-$20 more per month.
If Korea Telecom were smart (or devious!) they would force all the domestic users to connect via PPTP.
...Lest we forget that many countries don't have decent DSL or cable services and a *lot* of people are grateful to have 56k dialup for their SOHO or small business.
Many products that are taken for granted in the US (Linksys et al) are not necessarily available in certain countries due to Telco regulations (many countries with monopoly telecom operators force a modem manufacturer to comply with certain rules - this can be expensive).
So, this appears to be an Australian product. Kudos to them. Don't knock the design or functionality simply because you've transcended this method of connection years ago. Small companies would find the opportunity to share 56k dialup access with a few PC's very interesting in some less well connected locations.
No, I am the real Matthew Smith...
...Miner Willy meets the CrackWhores(TM)
So I decide to check my dear colleague's hotmail account through the cracked link and bingo - plenty plenty plenty confidential info forwarded from his work address as he is on vacation.
:->
Fsck, this is serious.
I see the cgi prog is no longer at the 2038 URL
Even better than PIN codes, how about biometric info. Take a look Cryptoflex from Schlumberger for some funky examples...