-

Open Economies - Re: [OpenEconomies] A "must read" forward: Trans-Pacific Tour, part two -- SMART Lett er #81

Mailing List Home

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [OpenEconomies] A "must read" forward: Trans-Pacific Tour, part two -- SMART Lett er #81 

Miles:

It looks like we agree more than we don't and where we don't the
distinctions you draw are more purely technical and I am not nearly
qualified to disagree with you. I do believe that the problems that exist
could be solved quickly at an application level in an ecosystem where they
are encouraged to do so.

In Canada we had the world's first IP over cable service in 1994 and open
access to the cable plant mandated in 1996. The QoS arguments that were
raised by the cablecos that precluded it ever being implemented (effectively
to this day) were weak. It was clear that market solutions could have
worked, allowing well-incented technical solutions to follow. Anything is
possible if the economic incentives are permitted to exist rather than
discouraged.

The pure technical merits of end-to-end principles are best left (by me) to
others.

Regards

----- Original Message -----
From: "Miles Nordin" <carton@Ivy.NET>
To: <openeconomies@eon.law.harvard.edu>
Sent: Thursday, January 02, 2003 6:56 PM
Subject: Re: [OpenEconomies] A "must read" forward: Trans-Pacific Tour, part
two -- SMART Lett er #81


> >>>>> "en" == Elliot Noss <enoss@tucows.com> writes:
>
>     en> disincent use of the network.
>     en> PPPoE
>     en> forced caches
>     en> dissuade running servers of any sort
>
>     en> they would seem to prefer that the network is used as little
>     en> as possible.
>
> This is not the same as Isenberg's claimed sin that they prefer a
> ``smart'' network over a ``stupid'' network.  Just because the tools
> used to implement the censorship have complexity does not make them
> part of the same issue.  Although disturbing, the cable Interweb
> censorship tools are largely transparent, which makes them irrelevant
> on the smart-network/stupid-terminal vs. stupid-network/smart-terminal
> spectrum.
>
> What's currently the best way around the Interweb problem---get an ISP
> like Speakeasy or BWay or AceDSL that has a favorable AUP and minimal
> censorship practices---is a pretty good argument for layered
> competition.  However, I don't see how it connects with the ``stupid
> network'' mantra since it is the smart-network (ATM)---the
> considerable underlying complexity of DSL provisioning---that permits
> this competition on DSL and prevents it on the cable Interweb.
>
> And unfortunately, DSL competition patterns don't seem to generalize
> well into the mobile space at all, as far as I can tell.  All the
> examples Isenberg sites from Japan only make the opposite argument---a
> useful service can't be pulled off without a single powerful
> integrator-and-carrier autocratically bringing the network, the
> terminals, and the backend into some proprietary master architecture.
> I don't like it, but it's what his own examples suggest.
>
>     en> IMHO, by the end of 2004, third-parties providing broadband
>     en> over 802.11 will be the leading providers of broadband in the
>     en> US
>
> While I share your frustration with the Interweb trend and am furious
> at the unchecked power of a short list of powerful companies to censor
> the Internet, and I also hold high hopes for productive work coming
> out of 802.11b communities, I must respectfully disagree with your
> highly optimistic future vision.
>
>  http://sakima.Ivy.NET/~carton/academia/80211-zealotry.html
>
> The 802.11b MAC is a sad joke when it comes to building seamless or
> congestion-friendly networks.
>
>     en> Lastly, I assume the writer has never used a SIP phone.
>
> I've never used an Imarsat terminal, or even an i-mode keitai, either.
> Is this supposed to be an argument?
>
> Actually I'm aware that VoIP works, and I have used VoIP phones.  My
> argument was that VoIP is a waste of spectrum when transmitted over
> wireless, and that ``smart'' networks---meaning the existing networks
> where the notion of voice calls, ringing, answering, u.s.w., is
> inseperable from the low-level network---make significantly more
> efficient and sustainable use of radio spectrum than ``stupid''
> networks, such as VoIP over 802.11b.  Holding an 802.11b voice handset
> in your hand will not help argue for or against this point.
>
> --
> The army and people of the DPRK led by Kim Jong-il, the invincible
> commander, will rise up to mete out determined and merciless
> punishment to the US imperialist aggressors
> -- Defence Minister Kim Il-chol
>
> _______________________________________________
> Openeconomies mailing list
> Openeconomies@eon.law.harvard.edu
> http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/lists/info/openeconomies
 
 
-