Throw out IP patents and software copyright with it, and you've got yourself a deal. Passing the 'Net Neutrality' laws will interfere with QoS and your 'level playing field' will never turn into a game worth playing. If these big ISPs start filtering access the way everyone is describing, it will push the customer base back to the local, private ISPs that have been dissapearing latley. How is that a bad thing for us?
What we need is a (near) completley deregulated internet, and privacy on our home computers. If ATT and SBC start filtering Google and Amazon, then maybe ppl will sign up with companies like Speakeasy and otherlocalproviders.
Actually, his description is mostly a T-Mo thing. I used them for a long time (T-Mobile GSM 1900), and hated them. I gave the phone to my g/f and got a Verizon (CDMA 800/1900) phone. I've since switched to Cingular (GSM 850/1900) for other reasons, and the coverage isn't nearly as good at Verizon, but makes T-Mo look like a couple of cans connected by a frayed piece of yarn.
Since most of the TDMA networks in the US are converting to GSM, things are improving considerabley, but they still have a way to go to catch up to Verizon's CDMA network.
Personally, I think CDMA 1xRTT and EVDO are much better technologies than GSM/GPRS after comparing data, voice, and call quality with good signal, having used them both.
"Open market" phones are no longer that viable on Verizon's netwrok. I have used them for years, and they have the best coverage anywhere I've been. For years, I rarely used a Verizon branded phone.
I was using a 6585 from Ebay for 8 months. I sent it in to Nokia to have the firmware updated, and when I got the phone back, I was told that it was not compatable.
Not compatable when I had been using it for 8 months, and it was giving me much better service than the one Verizon branded phone I had been using in the interim. When I pointed this out enough times, I was told that it was because my phone wasn't E911 complant. It was. Eventually, I got them to reactivate that ESN under a different model, that they carried. It took a month and over a dozen calls to customer service, escelating every time to get that done.
I have since switched to Cingular, in spite of lessor service and worse coverage and call quality, and have been switching between the phone they gave me and another that I used to use on TMobile.
I think it's really unfortunate that Verizon has gotten so overprotective of their hardware sales margains that they're willing to give up customers. I used to reccomend them to everyone that I knew because of superior coverage and customer service. Now customer service has tanked, and they don't get my reccomendations.
On the other hand, my favorite N-Series Nokia is gonna be the N-80.
I think the article isn't refering to forwarding individual messages, but globally. Standard POP does this via a.forward file, and Gmail has a global forwarding option.
How much does this "upgrade" cost? They are pushing Hotmail to colleges. . . TFA says there are no ads while the student is in school, but MS may turn them on afterword. I really don't see the point.
Seems to me that the cellular connection would be always on. When you recieve a call, it routes over the cell network, then the handset would redirect if it can also connect via WiLan. That would also have the advantage of verifying the connection. If you're behind a firewalled NAT, it's possible to connect to the internet, but not be able to route VoIP traffic.
The cellular connection would only be dropped if the VoIP connection is verified in-call That way if you're outside and still connected to the LAN, but don't have enough signal strengh to keep actual data transfer up, you'd still be okay too.
Perhaps we should revisit the Halloween documents. Microsoft is attacking Linux and the GPL because they are bigger targets, and percieved as a bigger threat. They are convinced that ANY open source is working against them. They are willing to 'play nice' with BSD for the short term until the Linux threat is demolished. Just like in battle, you concentrate on the nuke before the grenade.
Don't doubt that if Linux were destroyed tomorrow, Microsoft would be going after BSD before the weekend.
As far as the immorality of it, Linux is like a barter faire. Everything is free, but you have to give something back, and do the same for everyone else there. BSD is a good samaritan. BSD gives, not because it expects something in return, but because someday, you will do something good for BSD. If I released something based on BSD, then announced that the BSD contributors were a bunch of idiots, I would be lynched, and rightly so. But thats exactly what Microsoft does. They have used BSD licensed code on multiple occasions, and will stll propigate FUD telling us that Open Source are a bunch of flaky hippies that can't do for you what Windows does. BSD is less visible, so they let it be for now. But if they ever get the wolf, they WILL attack the mosquito.
I used the word 'steal' not because it's technically correct, but in the spirit of the action. Microsoft has done nothing but criticize and attack Open Source, but they'll exploit the efforts of that community.
But you are correct, they were legally entitled to do so. However, they did it because it was convenient, not because it was morally right. In the spirit of F/OSS, they should give something back to the community, even if it's just letting F/OSS develop in peace.
Thats not what I meant. They hide their sourcecode, so they won't be caught unless someone that worked on the project they stole from is employed by them in the right place. They have stolen code from BSD because it was there and the BSD license doesn't prohibit it, but that was just convenient.
And they're getting more aggressive. I have no doubt that they wouldn't lose a bit of sleep if they stole from a GPL'd project if they were sure it wouldn't be found out. Because their source is so protected, its not like the F/OSS community can audit them. Remember the big deal that they made over the Windows sourcecode leak a few years ago? That made bigger news than Hurricaine Rita. Wonder what would happen if someone got a chance to really review the code in WinVista?
Because Microsoft is going to follow the law to the letter if they can't be caught.
Seriously, if they release nothing but.exe binaries and keep their sourcecode under the typical Rhura Penthe style security, how would anyone be able to tell them that they violated the GPL? How do we know that they haven't done this for years?
Lets consider the full implications of this for a minute.
This kind of regulation wouldn't just affect telcos. I've worked at two different ISPs that this could have affected. Both were providing VoIP, and one was providing IPTV. In order for those services to work as well as they needed, that traffic has to be prioritized over regular IP traffic. While the it was not the intent, the law could easily be used by cable and telephone providers could stop that prioritization.
What I don't understand is why Microsoft was against it. This would easily work well for their monopoly, as they are providing service with Verizon DSL.
It could also be detrimental to small, specialty ISPs. I haven't read the bill itself, but it seems that it was written very vaguely. A vague 'Internet Neutrality' would mean that I couldn't start an ISP wih porn filters in place. While I don't believe that ISPs should be parents, it's also not my place to tell them that they can't be. Nor is it the Government's place.
I think we'll find that if ISPs impliment 'tiered internet', that the customers will react badly. This will cause people to start moving to the local ISPs and providers like Speakeasy and Earthlink.
The Republicans did us a favor. Somehow, I think if this same result happened because the Democrats wanted it to happen, the reaction on Slashdot would be a little different.
Slashdot Mirror
10.6: Sweet and Sour "Chicken"
What we need is a (near) completley deregulated internet, and privacy on our home computers. If ATT and SBC start filtering Google and Amazon, then maybe ppl will sign up with companies like Speakeasy and other local providers.
Actually, his description is mostly a T-Mo thing. I used them for a long time (T-Mobile GSM 1900), and hated them. I gave the phone to my g/f and got a Verizon (CDMA 800/1900) phone. I've since switched to Cingular (GSM 850/1900) for other reasons, and the coverage isn't nearly as good at Verizon, but makes T-Mo look like a couple of cans connected by a frayed piece of yarn.
Since most of the TDMA networks in the US are converting to GSM, things are improving considerabley, but they still have a way to go to catch up to Verizon's CDMA network.
Personally, I think CDMA 1xRTT and EVDO are much better technologies than GSM/GPRS after comparing data, voice, and call quality with good signal, having used them both.
"Open market" phones are no longer that viable on Verizon's netwrok. I have used them for years, and they have the best coverage anywhere I've been. For years, I rarely used a Verizon branded phone.
I was using a 6585 from Ebay for 8 months. I sent it in to Nokia to have the firmware updated, and when I got the phone back, I was told that it was not compatable.
Not compatable when I had been using it for 8 months, and it was giving me much better service than the one Verizon branded phone I had been using in the interim. When I pointed this out enough times, I was told that it was because my phone wasn't E911 complant. It was. Eventually, I got them to reactivate that ESN under a different model, that they carried. It took a month and over a dozen calls to customer service, escelating every time to get that done.
I have since switched to Cingular, in spite of lessor service and worse coverage and call quality, and have been switching between the phone they gave me and another that I used to use on TMobile.
I think it's really unfortunate that Verizon has gotten so overprotective of their hardware sales margains that they're willing to give up customers. I used to reccomend them to everyone that I knew because of superior coverage and customer service. Now customer service has tanked, and they don't get my reccomendations.
On the other hand, my favorite N-Series Nokia is gonna be the N-80.
I just want a phone to make calls and nothing else, you insensitive clod!
AAGH MY BRAIN!
.
[gets a mop]
Linkage for those curious. .
technical specifications
N Series overview
I think the article isn't refering to forwarding individual messages, but globally. Standard POP does this via a .forward file, and Gmail has a global forwarding option.
How much does this "upgrade" cost? They are pushing Hotmail to colleges. . . TFA says there are no ads while the student is in school, but MS may turn them on afterword. I really don't see the point.
Hopefully this will die quietly, like BOB did.
So, we solve the world's hunger problem along with DC power problems. . . talk about killing two. . . [clears throat]
Seems to me that the cellular connection would be always on. When you recieve a call, it routes over the cell network, then the handset would redirect if it can also connect via WiLan. That would also have the advantage of verifying the connection. If you're behind a firewalled NAT, it's possible to connect to the internet, but not be able to route VoIP traffic.
The cellular connection would only be dropped if the VoIP connection is verified in-call That way if you're outside and still connected to the LAN, but don't have enough signal strengh to keep actual data transfer up, you'd still be okay too.
Don't doubt that if Linux were destroyed tomorrow, Microsoft would be going after BSD before the weekend.
As far as the immorality of it, Linux is like a barter faire. Everything is free, but you have to give something back, and do the same for everyone else there. BSD is a good samaritan. BSD gives, not because it expects something in return, but because someday, you will do something good for BSD. If I released something based on BSD, then announced that the BSD contributors were a bunch of idiots, I would be lynched, and rightly so. But thats exactly what Microsoft does. They have used BSD licensed code on multiple occasions, and will stll propigate FUD telling us that Open Source are a bunch of flaky hippies that can't do for you what Windows does. BSD is less visible, so they let it be for now. But if they ever get the wolf, they WILL attack the mosquito.
I used the word 'steal' not because it's technically correct, but in the spirit of the action. Microsoft has done nothing but criticize and attack Open Source, but they'll exploit the efforts of that community.
But you are correct, they were legally entitled to do so. However, they did it because it was convenient, not because it was morally right. In the spirit of F/OSS, they should give something back to the community, even if it's just letting F/OSS develop in peace.
Thats not what I meant. They hide their sourcecode, so they won't be caught unless someone that worked on the project they stole from is employed by them in the right place. They have stolen code from BSD because it was there and the BSD license doesn't prohibit it, but that was just convenient.
And they're getting more aggressive. I have no doubt that they wouldn't lose a bit of sleep if they stole from a GPL'd project if they were sure it wouldn't be found out. Because their source is so protected, its not like the F/OSS community can audit them. Remember the big deal that they made over the Windows sourcecode leak a few years ago? That made bigger news than Hurricaine Rita. Wonder what would happen if someone got a chance to really review the code in WinVista?
Because Microsoft is going to follow the law to the letter if they can't be caught.
.exe binaries and keep their sourcecode under the typical Rhura Penthe style security, how would anyone be able to tell them that they violated the GPL? How do we know that they haven't done this for years?
Seriously, if they release nothing but
Lets consider the full implications of this for a minute.
This kind of regulation wouldn't just affect telcos. I've worked at two different ISPs that this could have affected. Both were providing VoIP, and one was providing IPTV. In order for those services to work as well as they needed, that traffic has to be prioritized over regular IP traffic. While the it was not the intent, the law could easily be used by cable and telephone providers could stop that prioritization.
What I don't understand is why Microsoft was against it. This would easily work well for their monopoly, as they are providing service with Verizon DSL.
It could also be detrimental to small, specialty ISPs. I haven't read the bill itself, but it seems that it was written very vaguely. A vague 'Internet Neutrality' would mean that I couldn't start an ISP wih porn filters in place. While I don't believe that ISPs should be parents, it's also not my place to tell them that they can't be. Nor is it the Government's place.
I think we'll find that if ISPs impliment 'tiered internet', that the customers will react badly. This will cause people to start moving to the local ISPs and providers like Speakeasy and Earthlink.
The Republicans did us a favor. Somehow, I think if this same result happened because the Democrats wanted it to happen, the reaction on Slashdot would be a little different.
or. . .
I less than three you
Scotty: 8 weeks, sir
Kirk: Mr Scott I-
Scotty: But you don't have 8 weeks, so I'll do it for you in 2
Kirk: Mr Scott, have you always multiplied your repair estimates by a factor of four?
Scotty: Of course, Admiral, how else can I keep my reputation as a Miracle Worker?
Kirk: Your reputation is secure, Mr Scott.
If I recall, this dialoge was in ST:3, but I'm not sure of that.