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