In a letter of complaint sent yesterday to Gates, POGO asserted that the new capsules will provide no special communications or work capabilities beyond those already available for top officials on Air Force transport aircraft.
The idea behind the capsules has nothing to do with their productivity, it has everything to do with their comfort. I didn't read about one thing in that article that would help them work better or faster.
Exactly. The only reason most routers even touch the layer 4 header for is to look at port numbers for blocking purposes. This is a change in the end to end communication, and how the end devices detect and limit their bandwidth usage in a single "conversation".
I implement Wireless networks for Cisco inside their offices. All of the issues raised in the article are issues that can be easily addressed. The issues these businesses face are due to lack of planning, experience, or the appropriate hardware. The wireless networks I implement are available everywhere from the elevator to the bathroom, support VPN users, corporate users, anonymous users, and it does all this while being extremely secure. This isn't a matter of the technology lacking, its a matter of knowing how to implement it properly.
The difference being that the AT&T companies are "silo'd" so that they can only interact with each other the same as any other company can. While they are all under the same roof, this actually impedes the effeciency of the company because they have to have seperate databases and deal with seperate companies.
While a Comcast phone monkey can take a call from a customer and at the same time schedule a technician dispatch to troubleshoot the problem, AT&T cannot. When an AT&T phone monkey gets a call about a down internet line, that technician calls another department, opens a ticket, goes through the troubleshooting process, then that department calls another departments, opens a ticket, troubleshoots. Then that department calls another departments, opens a ticket... it can get to the point where you have 10 seperate entities on the phone at a time for one single circuit.
Ma bell is definately a different animal today than it was 30 years ago.
You're still talking about prioritizing, which is QoS. The other forms of queueing, outside of policy based routing, cannot differentiate traffic based on the source in order to give them less priority.
The problem people are worried about (read: AT&T has never implemented anything of the sort. AT&T's stance towards the internet is to be as seemless and invisible to the customer as possible) is that someone will block traffic and request a payment. This would undoubtedly cause a serious drop in subscriber count. I know I wouldn't stay with an ISP that blocks google because google won't pay to get to me.
Rolling out the product initially to "wealthy neighborhoods" makes perfect sense. It doesn't make any sense to roll fiber to everyones house at once, before offering the service to a few pilot areas. Also, as it is a somewhat expensive service, initially deploying it in upper class neighborhoods gives a bigger likelyhood of more subscribers.
When they prioritize your IPTV traffic, thats exactly what they do, prioritize your TV traffic. Your regular 'net traffic will be treated just the same as every other DSL customer. They're not looking to screw the common person, they're looking to provide a revolutionary service and the only way that works reliably is to prioritize the traffic.
Net Neutrality is a broad concept that has not been specifically defined. However, QoS and net neutrality go hand in hand. In order to give poor service to one customer or better service to another, you need a mechanism to differentiate and prioritize that traffic. Access lists and policy based routing are other methods, but niether method is as versatile as QoS.
The idea of QoS and being able to give specific traffic special treatment is, by itself, a wonderfull idea and opens a doorway to services and technology that wouldn't otherwise be available. Your worries are that an ISP is going to go overboard and charge people just to use the service. However, AT&T hasn't implemented anything of the sort, and they've had the technology to do so for years.
So AT&T saying they won't include their IPTV service in this network neutrality clause is a good thing. How can an ISP hope to give you reliable TV service over the internet if they arn't allowed to use Quality of Service to prioritize that traffic. Their backbone isn't crowded, so QoS doesn't matter there, its first in first out. The only place QoS (non-net-neutrality?) has any effect is on a congested link... like, I dunno, your DSL circuit?
Without QoS on your IPTV service, your 15 y/o daughter would cause daily reception problems because she keeps downloading Britney Spears albums.
With SBC's acquisition of AT&T's network almost under their belt, You need only wait for SBC to take over the world, then there will only be one Tier 1 ISP and there will be no peering relationship issues!
And this begs the question, why are they called "Google WiFi spots" that indicates google has their own implamentation of wifi AP's, or they have a contract to only use one companies Wifi spots? but it sounds more like the former option.
Re:The link in the article is wrong. Fixed link he
on
Google WiFi+VPN Confirmed
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
That still leaves the question of why they call them "Google WiFi locations."
Assuming that they are using third party wifi sites, then it really doesn't matter where the traffic comes from (SF, LA, NY, France) as it eventually has to hit the internet to travel over to googles ISP and eventually to google, effectively destroying any need to be local to the VPN server.
Re:The link in the article is wrong. Fixed link he
on
Google WiFi+VPN Confirmed
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
If this were simply a software application, why would they refer to "Google WiFi locations"?
Also, why would it only be available in the SF bay area?
Where can I go to download Google Secure Access?
The program can currently be downloaded at certain Google WiFi locations in the San Francisco Bay Area.
Slashdot Mirror
FTFA
In a letter of complaint sent yesterday to Gates, POGO asserted that the new capsules will provide no special communications or work capabilities beyond those already available for top officials on Air Force transport aircraft.
The idea behind the capsules has nothing to do with their productivity, it has everything to do with their comfort. I didn't read about one thing in that article that would help them work better or faster.
This is a ridiculous use of funds.
I believe TCP adjusts its window based on packet loss, not latency.
Exactly. The only reason most routers even touch the layer 4 header for is to look at port numbers for blocking purposes. This is a change in the end to end communication, and how the end devices detect and limit their bandwidth usage in a single "conversation".
I implement Wireless networks for Cisco inside their offices. All of the issues raised in the article are issues that can be easily addressed. The issues these businesses face are due to lack of planning, experience, or the appropriate hardware. The wireless networks I implement are available everywhere from the elevator to the bathroom, support VPN users, corporate users, anonymous users, and it does all this while being extremely secure. This isn't a matter of the technology lacking, its a matter of knowing how to implement it properly.
The difference being that the AT&T companies are "silo'd" so that they can only interact with each other the same as any other company can. While they are all under the same roof, this actually impedes the effeciency of the company because they have to have seperate databases and deal with seperate companies.
While a Comcast phone monkey can take a call from a customer and at the same time schedule a technician dispatch to troubleshoot the problem, AT&T cannot. When an AT&T phone monkey gets a call about a down internet line, that technician calls another department, opens a ticket, goes through the troubleshooting process, then that department calls another departments, opens a ticket, troubleshoots. Then that department calls another departments, opens a ticket... it can get to the point where you have 10 seperate entities on the phone at a time for one single circuit.
Ma bell is definately a different animal today than it was 30 years ago.
You're still talking about prioritizing, which is QoS. The other forms of queueing, outside of policy based routing, cannot differentiate traffic based on the source in order to give them less priority.
The problem people are worried about (read: AT&T has never implemented anything of the sort. AT&T's stance towards the internet is to be as seemless and invisible to the customer as possible) is that someone will block traffic and request a payment. This would undoubtedly cause a serious drop in subscriber count. I know I wouldn't stay with an ISP that blocks google because google won't pay to get to me.
Rolling out the product initially to "wealthy neighborhoods" makes perfect sense. It doesn't make any sense to roll fiber to everyones house at once, before offering the service to a few pilot areas. Also, as it is a somewhat expensive service, initially deploying it in upper class neighborhoods gives a bigger likelyhood of more subscribers.
When they prioritize your IPTV traffic, thats exactly what they do, prioritize your TV traffic. Your regular 'net traffic will be treated just the same as every other DSL customer. They're not looking to screw the common person, they're looking to provide a revolutionary service and the only way that works reliably is to prioritize the traffic.
Net Neutrality is a broad concept that has not been specifically defined. However, QoS and net neutrality go hand in hand. In order to give poor service to one customer or better service to another, you need a mechanism to differentiate and prioritize that traffic. Access lists and policy based routing are other methods, but niether method is as versatile as QoS.
The idea of QoS and being able to give specific traffic special treatment is, by itself, a wonderfull idea and opens a doorway to services and technology that wouldn't otherwise be available. Your worries are that an ISP is going to go overboard and charge people just to use the service. However, AT&T hasn't implemented anything of the sort, and they've had the technology to do so for years.
So AT&T saying they won't include their IPTV service in this network neutrality clause is a good thing. How can an ISP hope to give you reliable TV service over the internet if they arn't allowed to use Quality of Service to prioritize that traffic. Their backbone isn't crowded, so QoS doesn't matter there, its first in first out. The only place QoS (non-net-neutrality?) has any effect is on a congested link... like, I dunno, your DSL circuit?
Without QoS on your IPTV service, your 15 y/o daughter would cause daily reception problems because she keeps downloading Britney Spears albums.
With SBC's acquisition of AT&T's network almost under their belt, You need only wait for SBC to take over the world, then there will only be one Tier 1 ISP and there will be no peering relationship issues!
Not if Cogent is not accepting/advertising routes to level 3's network.
And this begs the question, why are they called "Google WiFi spots" that indicates google has their own implamentation of wifi AP's, or they have a contract to only use one companies Wifi spots? but it sounds more like the former option.
That still leaves the question of why they call them "Google WiFi locations." Assuming that they are using third party wifi sites, then it really doesn't matter where the traffic comes from (SF, LA, NY, France) as it eventually has to hit the internet to travel over to googles ISP and eventually to google, effectively destroying any need to be local to the VPN server.
If this were simply a software application, why would they refer to "Google WiFi locations"?
Also, why would it only be available in the SF bay area?
Where can I go to download Google Secure Access?
The program can currently be downloaded at certain Google WiFi locations in the San Francisco Bay Area.