Now that Jobs is on record as being supportive of a DRM free world, maybe he can be convinced to support allowing OSX "content" on any device, as well as music on any device. Or does DRM-free only apply to other people's content?
This was done at Ipsilon for Greg Minshall, who kept requesting a real office instead of a cube. The CEO and his carpenter friend came in and put up real framing, a serious roof, etc., and painted the whole thing YELLOW. After the fire inspectors saw it, we had to put a sprinkler inside.
OK, Slashdotters - each and every one of us who do business with C&W needs to get on the phone (irony) and express our displeasure. After all, it seems unlikely that the Panama government came up with that list of ports by themselves.
C&W has a *lot* of IP business - let's take it away and see how they feel.
If one looks at the history of why the telephone system is so universal, I think there are 3 key points - first, a monopoly was granted to AT&T in order to guarantee its financial survival; second was the requirement that AT&T provide universal access (in return for the monopoly), and thirdly, that AT&T was forbidden to engage in "value added" services, an arena in which they could leverage their access monopoly to exclude innovation and competition.
Wouldn't it be nice if we could get this for the Internet? First, municipal level monopolies that provide universal access (this is how cable networks were until a few years ago). But a very important part of the deal is to restrict higher level services - i.e., the monopoly provides only *transport* - IP. Additional, this new carrier should be a "common carrier" - they can't discriminate either on types of customers or on whats in the IP packets. However, since the common carrier can't be responsible for content, an "internet driver's license" might be required of users of this network for which they specifically acknowledge their responsibilites.
Many ISPs are already evolving to not be involved with IP level processing - it gets outsourced to backbone providers and access wholesalers. So the model wouldn't change much for "retail" ISPs and their users. Instead, my proposal encourages the emergence of real IP access networks instead of stupid tricks with copper leftover from older days.
Of course, it'd be a friggin miracle if any of this really happened, given the total dominance of the regulators by the regulated. Perhaps we'll see this in other countries first, perhaps with newer technologies like IPv6.
See also my keynote from the Hot Interconnects conference at http://www.lyon-about.com/pres/hoti.[ppt,pdf].
Slashdot Mirror
What happens if one of those ships breaks lose?
Bits will be washing up all over the beaches of the world!
Think of the seabirds struggling to regain their natural analog resolution after being covered in bits!
Now that Jobs is on record as being supportive of a DRM free world, maybe he can be convinced to support allowing OSX "content" on any device, as well as music on any device. Or does DRM-free only apply to other people's content?
This was done at Ipsilon for Greg Minshall, who kept requesting a real office instead of a cube. The CEO and his carpenter friend came in and put up real framing, a serious roof, etc., and painted the whole thing YELLOW. After the fire inspectors saw it, we had to put a sprinkler inside.
OK, Slashdotters - each and every one of us
who do business with C&W needs to get on the
phone (irony) and express our displeasure.
After all, it seems unlikely that the Panama government came up with that list of ports by themselves.
C&W has a *lot* of IP business - let's take it away and see how they feel.
The 1xRTT technology, like GPRS, is packet switched.
BUT, the boneheads are charging by the minute anyways.
Aaaarrrrrggghh!
If one looks at the history of why the telephone system is so universal, I think there are 3 key points - first, a monopoly was granted to AT&T in order to guarantee its financial survival; second was the requirement that AT&T provide universal access (in return for the monopoly), and thirdly, that AT&T was forbidden to engage in "value added" services, an arena in which they could leverage their access monopoly to exclude innovation and competition.
Wouldn't it be nice if we could get this for the Internet? First, municipal level monopolies that provide universal access (this is how cable networks were until a few years ago). But a very important part of the deal is to restrict higher level services - i.e., the monopoly provides only *transport* - IP. Additional, this new carrier should be a "common carrier" - they can't discriminate either on types of customers or on whats in the IP packets. However, since the common carrier can't be responsible for content, an "internet driver's license" might be required of users of this network for which they specifically acknowledge their responsibilites.
Many ISPs are already evolving to not be involved with IP level processing - it gets outsourced to backbone providers and access wholesalers. So the model wouldn't change much for "retail" ISPs and their users. Instead, my proposal encourages the emergence of real IP access networks instead of stupid tricks with copper leftover from older days.
Of course, it'd be a friggin miracle if any of this really happened, given the total dominance of the regulators by the regulated. Perhaps we'll see this in other countries first, perhaps with newer technologies like IPv6.
See also my keynote from the Hot Interconnects conference at http://www.lyon-about.com/pres/hoti.[ppt,pdf].