On the BBC’s website. Nicely done, though now we need some non-“market socialists” too.
(Thanks Donat!)
-
Archives
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- May 2011
- March 2011
- November 2010
- October 2010
- August 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005
- February 2005
- January 2005
- December 2004
- November 2004
- October 2004
- September 2004
- August 2004
- July 2004
- June 2004
- May 2004
- October 2003
- September 2003
- August 2003
- July 2003
- June 2003
- May 2003
- April 2003
- March 2003
- January 2003
- December 2002
- November 2002
- October 2002
- September 2002
- August 2002
-
Meta
amusing. this time, it’s the commons-ists standing athwart history yelling “stop” and impeding innovation with the ridiculous notion that telecommunications networks must use one, and only one, communications protocol.
What is being proposed is more like building two roads into every town and up to every house, one smooth and well-maintained tarmac and the other a dirt track, and then letting Tesco and Waitrose bid for the right to use the good road.
what a load of crap. what is being proposed is more like building two roads. full stop. if there is a public demand for TCP/IP, then TCP/IP will continue to flourish as a bit pipe – a dirt road starved for commercial content which is the status quo today.
so someone wants to build a paved road – but here the analogy fails because a fibre optic cable is not land, there is room for 10,000 roads.
what, pray tell, is the problem with competition? why shouldn’t a coaxial cable carry two, or three, or 100 different protocols? and why shouldn’t users be able to decide what protocol delivers the content and services they want?
locking the world into the straightjacket that is TCP/IP isn’t communism, it isn’t socialism, it’s silly-ism that impedes innovation in road building technology for no obvious good reason. it is the same thing as saying that wires on poles could only be used for morse code because, god forbid, if they were used for mr. bell’s new-fangled telephone, morse code would die out.
3blind,
what pray tell protocols do you want to support? while I do beleive that mr. lessig has been mixing with the wrong folks as of late, i do agree with the general premise that public IP ( TCP or UDP ) networks can eliminate a lot of problems. the fact is that the telecom biz happens in the courts not in the salesroom. Because their product depends on a communal resource( either municipal land for data pipes or radio spectrum ).
“a dirt road starved for commercial content which is the status quo today.”
not really, if I all fiber were to be utilized today than we could implement voice lines that are a mere fraction of the cost they are today. the problem is that the phone company bought them out! its a problem.
the ‘innovation’ argument is a favorite of the telcos. Value-add services and locked in applicaitons. No thanks. See ‘rise of the stupid network’ by isenberg. it will change your life. Or maybe you have already read it and you are with the company who fired him for writing it.
I am glad to see that people like you are always blogging about the stuff no one really talks about,
Keep up the good work, and keep on blogging
Joe
http://www.myhummer3.com
Value-add services and locked in applicaitons. No thanks.
your choice, Tim Lee’s Back Burner, should not dictate ours. nor do we particularly want to impede your choices.
Because their product depends on a communal resource( either municipal land for data pipes or radio spectrum ).
this is somewhat of a false argument. you are ignoring the investment required to string the fibres or broadcast the radio – allocating “public” resources is a small part of building a communications network. there is nothing stopping you from stringing your own fibres along the same municipal land, or bidding for those radio frequencies. nothing but a business model that is large on investment and short on return. as long as someone has to build the network, there can be no free as in libré. what you want is free beer.
See ‘rise of the stupid network’ by isenberg. it will change your life.
the stupid network and smart ends argument. yawn. a smart network and dumb ends also has many advantages. an ATM network, for example, is vastly superior to TCP when it comes to delivering multi-media. guaranteed QoS, as you probably know, is hard to come by with TCP. spotty QoS undermines applications like VoIP and IPTV.
moreover, we mice would like a network that provides DRM so that we can gain legal access to the rich content of films, music, and photographs that are missing from “the internet.” is it not ironic, that there is more video content available on a black and white analog TV than there is on the net? one can watch just so much c-span.
it is also ironic that the only thing george bush got right was a mis-statement? internets and not internet. that’s the future. parallel networks – parallel roads – one full of traffic, secure, delivering valuable goods and the other, the commons road, largely unused for fear of the highway robbery that occurs along the shoulders.
you should be free to choose which road to take. don’t deny us, the path not taken by you.
I don’t think there’s a good anti-QoS argument–if you insist that everything has to be carried over a single “public Internet” channel, then you’re saying that voice and video should not be given priority over spam and denial of service attack traffic from the millions of compromised machines on the public Internet, and the resulting congestion and traffic drops can go ahead and disrupt services dependent on low latency.
Mice, you’ve gone over the edge this time. Apparently you have forgotten we once HAD a “two tiered internet?” Actually, it was even more than that – We had Compuserve, AOL, and Prodigy and alongside those, in the “free” realm, we had FIDOnet – and all of them (yes, even AOL) eventually succumbed to “the internet” because “the internet” offered a combination of value and service and standardization that encouraged worldwide growth.
Businesses today work pretty well on that road you characterize as so dangerous. Yes, many get hijacked – in every case due to their own bad practices. If you trust your family jewels to a safety deposit box in the local bank and they are prone to wandering for lunch while leaving the safe open to inspection, do you not also hold the bank liable when someone makes off with your valuables?
Adding another, parallel network that works just like the old except not as good if you don’t pay your way is not going to make enyone more secure. Security has to be built into the terminations, not the cables that connect them. the US is far, far from being the most populous nation inhabiting this wired space; wallling off the “paid” internet from the “free” internet would be a first great leap toward erecting our own “great firewall,” further isolating a nation that is already far too isolated from the realities of the world outside our borders.
Mice, you’ve gone over the edge this time. Apparently you have forgotten we once HAD a “two tiered internet?”
dial up bulletin boards were not the same thing as an interconnected network, poptones. no doubt the “network effect” is key, but there is no reason why this can’t be achieved with other protocols.
look at what the radio guys are doing: ITU has approved FIVE different standards for 3G – completely incompatible with each other except that they all operate in the same frequency band and terminate in TCP. these are international standards, some already in operation in europe and asia.
there is no reason (except lack of imagination and the existing marriage to TCP) why the wired world can’t do the same thing.
Businesses today work pretty well on that road you characterize as so dangerous.
some businesses poptones. the content industry is conspicuously absent. different standards for different industries. “one big one” is the soviet model.
Adding another, parallel network that works just like the old except not as good if you don’t pay your way is not going to make enyone more secure. Security has to be built into the terminations, not the cables that connect them.
huh? what makes you think that different parallel networks should work all in the same way? have a little fantasy.
local policy enforcement doesn’t solve all the security problems and is likely to be even more anathema to users than network control. moreover, local policy enforcement does nothing to solve network problems like QoS.
dial up bulletin boards were not the same thing as an interconnected network, poptones.
Sorry mice, but it appears you’re out of your limit on this one. Dialup BBS systems that were interconnected via FIDOnet were exactly the same in functionality as the early internet and very much like the still very functional and ever growing usenet.
no doubt the “network effect” is key, but there is no reason why this can’t be achieved with other protocols.
You’re straining at the wrong gnat. this is not about “protocols” – the internet exists today on a vast assemblage of tcp and frame relay equipment and “translating” between these systems is a problem long ago handled.
The issue here is more of creating walled gardens of access.
the content industry is conspicuously absent. different standards for different industries.
Methinks you do not, in any way, grasp the technical issues at hand here. It doesn’t matter whether you stream video in tcp, udp, frame relay or plain old NTSC, if the termination point is insecure you can install a hundred layers of cryptography and foolhardy security-through-obscurity protocols and the “pirates” are still going to own your content.
I’m all about adding security to the system, but walling off networks isn’t the answer. And this isn’t a QOS issue – every ISP around already has all the capability they need; proxies and local database servers will aptly take care of any global network problems. The reason QOS nearly universally sucks in the US – the reason a pacbell DSL customer can’t even properly stream a 256kbps music video feed to her apartment in LA – isn’t because of the routers and switches in Virginia and San Francisco, it’s because pacbell oversold their own bandwidth. And now they’re trying to make the content companies (Yes, google is content every bit as much as Disney) pay the bill for the localized proxy and database servers they need in order to properly serve their own customers.
Ultimately I don’t see what role regulation an play in this – customers will either pay for better service or they won’t, but I doubt very much customers are going to stay with services that intentionally offer lower quality connections to the services they use – and google is one very widely used service.
It’s useless for you to try painting this as a security issue or a “quality” issue, because that is a notion very easily refuted by anyone with even unremarkable technical competency – this is purely a money issue arising from an unregulated, greedy and well-proven corrupt telco system.
there is nothing stopping you from stringing your own fibres along the same municipal land, or bidding for those radio frequencies.
nothing except fat pig telco reps like yourself.
Here’s both a carrot for mice and a question for the professor:
The threat facing the Internet today is that network owners will convince regulators to go back on that original design. Through regulatory policies that permit broadband providers to act however their private interests dictate, these regulatory policies would threaten the economic potential of the network generally. New innovation always comes from outsiders. If insiders are given both
technical and legal control over innovation on the Internet,
innovation will be stifled.
as a rural customer I can tell you “insiders” may often be “outsiders.” That is, I’ve been trying for years now to devise a way to make broadband service – or at least “always on” lower bandwidth service – available in my area. I live in the south and wifi is not an answer – the humidity is far too high and there are too many trees and hills. In order to use wifi I would have to erect dozens, if not hundreds, of repeaters. Lower frequency technologies have a much higher entry fee – a single base unit doesn’t cost tens of dollars, it costs hundreds or even thousands, and the terminations cost far more than a wal-mart wifi port.
I’m not altogether opposed to walled gardens – indeed, even if I were able to erect this local network my primary concern was not in having “unlimited” access to the greater internet at large. Numerous studies (as well as personal anecdotes related to me by others who have erected community networks) have shown there can be considerable value in even such “walled gardens” where access to the internet itself may be only through limited bandwidth hubs.
Now, if I can go to google and arrange something with them to help me fund this sort of network in exchange for giving their video feeds preferential treatment to members of our rural network cooperative, where does that harm innovation? My customers would have something they now desperately need, google (and those who are paying google to host the content) would have a greater audience. How does this, in any way, harm innovation? Isn’t a little better access for those communities that need it better than no access at all?
You talk of carrot and stick, but us rural customers have no carrot nor stick to wield – we are simply being left out of this discussion entirely… and all in the name of higher profits to corporations and their shareholders.
it is also ironic that the only thing george bush got right was a mis-statement? internets and not internet. that’s the future. parallel networks – parallel roads – one full of traffic, secure, delivering valuable goods and the other, the commons road, largely unused for fear of the highway robbery that occurs along the shoulders.
the solution is a state funded superhighway system that everyone owns and is a citizens right to use. Oh crap, Bill Clinton’s back!
poptones, we may well be straining the limits of our memory of ancient history when it comes to USEnet (we were pretty young then).
It’s useless for you to try painting this as a security issue or a “quality” issue, because that is a notion very easily refuted by anyone with even unremarkable technical competency – this is purely a money issue arising from an unregulated, greedy and well-proven corrupt telco system.
oh really? wethinks you underestimate the problems with Quality of Service (QoS) in the TCP bitpipe. the problem is end to end and has far more to do with network latency than oversold bandwidth in the access network. oversold and shoddy bandwidth – and burstiness purposefully introduced into the the access – is no doubt a problem, but it isn’t the only – or the worst – problem. (although focusing on this makes it easy for you to blame the telcos and ignore other underlying technical issues) – follow the link Jim Lippard provided and read his more extensive comments he posted in his blog on this topic. there are some clever solutions out there – such as mapping network characteristics – but they cannot create bandwidth where there is none. reservation based on class of service (a temporary walled garden, if you will) was a cornerstone of ATM, TCP’s egalitarian approach treating all connections and all packets the same, as frank zappa said of brown shoes, just don’t make it. VoIP and other streaming technologies are severly constrained by the status quo. unless you love lars von trier films, it will never suffice for broadcast quality on a large scale.
if you want to believe that this is soley an issue of “greedy, corrupt telcos” there is probably little we can say that will change your mind.
and please – state your case using fewer adjectives. you obviously know a bit about this and your contributions could be valuable, but your your condescending attitude is insufferable. we are here to learn and discuss, not to be lectured to. so kindly knock it off.
it’s late here and the hole in the wainscotting is calling so good night. have a pleasant tomorrow.
content industry
see Konstipated Kontent Krowd. I think we should make a decree that the public buys no technology from a company that Isenberg does not directly endorse. All hail Isenberg!
I am glad to see that people like you are always blogging about the stuff no one really talks about,
is this Mark Shander?
Poptones: “I doubt very much customers are going to stay with services that intentionally offer lower quality connections to the services they use.”
But they would stay with services that intentionally offer higher quality connections for voice and video services and “best effort” for public Internet, so long as that “best effort” is as good as they get today and continues to improve (i.e., bandwidth continues to go up).
Anybody doing lots of voice minutes over IP is using QoS on their network *today* to give voice traffic priority over other Internet traffic. I don’t understand why you say this can’t work. Sure, if your endpoints that can generate priority packets get hacked you can face DoS attacks at higher classes of service, but it’s not happening today. The compromised endpoints are far more likely to be consumer Windows boxes than telecom VoIP equipment.
Multinational corporations are also *today* heavily into running IP-VPN networks that are higher-priority overlays over MPLS networks, and carrying voice and video as separate virtual circuits within those VPNs. They can carry QoS markings across provider boundaries; they can set up Extranet VPN connections that preserve QoS markings between partners. Are you advocating unwinding all of that in the name of “net neutrality”?
Does “net neutrality” prohibit private Extranet or peering arrangements which include mutually agreed-upon classes of differentiated services, paid for under whatever terms (including settlement-free peering) organizations choose?
guaranteed QoS, as you probably know, is hard to come by with TCP.
what about UDP multicast ya dumbass? You think no one knows why you chose not to support that in deployted networks despite it being considered an important part of IP networking. But wait, that may interfere with our phone profit model! quick get Murphy Brown! You are a thief.
it was designed to allow for high-volume high speed delivery from one-to-many points. It is very capable of supporting voice and video. What about that you god damn telco henchman hack retard? I am freaking sick of having some ivy league dropout sock puppet drop in every time anyone suggests the idea of of alternatives to the telecom mafia. go to hell.
consumer Windows boxes
ok we know who these people are now. no mystery there. fuck you gates. go back to india.
anyone who is reading this: SKYPE KICKS ASS.
VONAGE IS A PIECE OF SHIT.
hi Groo the Wanderer here,
anyone who buys Vonage stock will lose their money. Everyone at the telcos knows that Vonage will lose the battle. Poor, poor fat pig telco execs.
I know what happens next. The telcos release UDPMax and claim its ‘better’ than standard UDP. Half of the tech community is convinced. Although communications techhnology progresses, it does not get cheaper because of fat pig telco execs.
DEMAND UDP MULTICAST! appoint Isenberg Director of FCC! Lynch the idiot who fired Isenberg. do it today!
we will now return to your regular scheduled blogging.
poptones, we may well be straining the limits of our memory of ancient history when it comes to USEnet (we were pretty young then).
Had we not been conversing here so many months I might be tempted to ask were you born yesterday. You see, many of us (myself included) still make vast use of USEnet on a daily (if not hourly) basis. Google spent considerable investment archiving and making its access even easier for the public at large, and I am certain you’re not so young as to not be able to recall that maneuver perhaps five years back. Even the remnants of the old FIDOnet remain in that space, though not exactly in their original context.
It takes a whopping 32kbps of UDP bandwidth to handle a single SKYPE call. Even out here in the netherlands of the internet I can occasionally make use of voip services via dialup. UDP was created for this sort of traffic – multicast and streaming where “losses” can be tolerated. Even with half those measly bits dropped a call can still be quite tolerable. Are these poor telcoms so incredibly oversold they cannot afford to accomodate VOIP traffic that utilizes the very same bandwidth that would be utilized were those calls routed over their per-minute billable ATM circuits?
Poor, poor telcoms.
Anybody doing lots of voice minutes over IP is using QoS on their network *today* to give voice traffic priority over other Internet traffic. I don’t understand why you say this can’t work.
of course it can work. I even said I don’t see where regulation can directly address this issue. and my followup question should have made clear, I thought, that I can easily see both sides of this issue.
But when we go from allowing QOS “bits” in UDP traffic to only allowing QOS bits in some UDP traffic, where does that leave me and you when we decide to talk? There is a very real danger here of telcos “walling” their gardens so completely only “blessed” traffic is allowed peer to peer – they are already trying it and in some cases succeeding. Will we all have to pay VPN premiums to connect to offshore proxies simply to utilize the network as we already do today?
The internet is the new “airwaves” and content corporations are quickly walling off all “public bandwidth.” Are individuals and small companies destined to become the new ham operators of this revolution?
…they would stay with services that intentionally offer higher quality connections for voice and video services and “best effort” for public Internet, so long as that “best effort” is as good as they get today and continues to improve
Dream on. I bought 1.5 mbps DSL service (at $70 a month) when I lived in LA. I was one of the first in my neigborhood to get it when it was offered. Within six months they had so overbooked their flights I couldn’t even stream 128kbps video. I see lots of telcos talking about how they need more money, meanwhile they continue charging the same prices for more customers. Where is that money going? Perhaps they need to hire some new accountants, or more responsible cfos…
SKYPE KICKS ASS.
Well, intel sure seems to think so…
More of that “network neutrality” going out the window…
if you want to believe that this is soley an issue of “greedy, corrupt telcos” there is probably little we can say that will change your mind.
not really jackass. all you have to give us is exactly what we want, rather than what the rich and powerful want. its that simple. so shut up. its our turn to speak. while you were building your ivory tower we were building our catapult. You simultaneously claim probelms of profit margin while at the same time touting your companies uwavering profit value to the stockholding sheep. shame on you. your men are weak and your women are whores.
Does “net neutrality” prohibit private Extranet or peering arrangements which include mutually agreed-upon classes of differentiated services, paid for under whatever terms (including settlement-free peering) organizations choose?
listen up, fucko. your job is to get my IP packets from my house to where I want it to go. and do it as cheap as possible without looking at it. if you can’t do that there are tons of outsourced programmers who can. try switching careers, massage therapy is very lucrative I hear.
content industry
and finally… TAKE YOUR MINDNUMBING KONTENT AND SHOVE IT UP YOUR ASS. In the future I will be able to stream a video from my living room and the whole god damn country will be able to see it and I will say whatever the fuck I want on it you son of a bitch. and if those people want to vote for me because I represent thier interests, they will. AND YOU WONT BE ABLE TO DO SHIT ABOUT IT. So go tell your boss when you assume the position at the next board meeting.
have a wonderful day.
poptones…
Intel cut a deal with voice over Internet Protocol provider Skype that calls for the VoIP company to provide advanced conference-calling features exclusively on PCs that run Intel chips.
embrace and extend….
BTW- Jim Lippard works for Cox communications in Phoenix.
Tim Lee’s Backburner: You are a very poor researcher. My home network service provider is Cox, but I have never worked for them.
why the secrecy Jim? you should be proud of what you do and who you work for and the service they provdie to society and other Phoenicians.
TLB, do you have a point? It seems you are a very poor “debater” indeed. Do you have anything at all to offer this discussion other than flames and personal attacks?
Refuting the other person on the basis of self interests does not win debates nor turn opinions. Who someone works for has nothing at all to do with the merits of their argument.
But thanks for making me look, in contrast to your flame filled rhetoric, “fair and balanced.”
actually you look more like a snobby twit. but thanks for patting yourself on the back. at least someone appreciates you.
poptones,
just because you are not educated enough and lack the experience to understand my arguments, it doenst make it my fault. I cannot possibly be expected to meet you at your level of ignorance and lack of mental acuity. Please read up on the above subjects and report back here when you have gained the background to make an accurate assertation in this philosophical venue.
Thanks, Tim Lee’s Backburner
just because you are not educated enough and lack the experience to understand my arguments, it doenst make it my fault.
LOL. Whose fault is it you can’t form a coherent sentence?
Happy valentines day!
poptones,
stop flaming this comment forum. Please take your uncouth manners elsewhere.
yours truly,
Tim Lee’s Backburner
You first…
[rant/zero revision warning]
My stomach curls when I a lot of stuff on the internet.
Watching a libertarian speak his good intentions on every issue is consistant and believable even if he isn’t in position to achieve his intentions. Then again, it seems there is a pattern in history that most good things came from men who stood on the shoulders of other men and produced something excellent only to have their face ripped off by an industrialist type. e.g.: tesla, armstrong, galileo(heh). Hell, so it turns out edison didn’t invent the light bulb, and alexander bell didn’t invent the telephone. The perception that most achievements, inventiveness, and innovation are solo acts by individuals is completely blown out of proportion. It’s a cultish mantra that has been in the US culture for a long time. It is a notion I believe grew out of the ‘TV years’ between 1950 to 2000 when a relatively few number messages were repeated over and over on the airwaves. Before 1950 propoganda was less centralized, and since the internet boom around 2000 cultural ideas will again become less centralized.
Now (guestimately-speaking) a third of the population get their information from a wide range of sources, and the other two thirds (roughly 200 million) are still under the centralized propoganda of network television.
The Telecoms are trying to capture those two thirds of people by reverting the entire information distribution system back to a firehouse of a limited number of cultural ideas i.e. propoganda and manipulating them to be a source of revenue stream (think matrix).
There is nothing ‘they'(the telecoms) are doing for ‘us’. The whole network was financed by a long history of people paying monthly utility bills. There’s nothing about a surge in stock investments that can take away this network from the people of the US. It will always be a community infrastructure. They don’t have a ‘right’ to invent services to finance a network they want to keep for themselves leaving the public with their thumbs up thier asses. the term ‘added-value’ is no more than an euphonism for monetizing something that costs nothing and billing people to line pockets. Are traffic lights something the government should charge us a la cart based on the worth of their ‘added value’? What would that be, $3 a light with poor people taking their chances?
But watching someone go around thanking fastfood cashiers for reminding them to order fries, conspicuously sign up for extended service plans, and talk about how efficient the US health system is compared to the health system in South Africa is just unnatural. Absolutely nobody thinks that way. Yet people tend to give a person like that the benefit of the doubt. I mean who is to say what another person believes?
When I read three blind mice’s posts I, personally, do not believe that he believes anything he writes. He writes on a technical level that suggests he’d know why his own arguements are complete bunk. Continuing to point his flaws out only leads to a circular arguement that ‘establishes two equal and opposing sides’, which is BS.
The internet we have now has improved vastly over the last 10 years and is continuing at an incredible rate. There is nothing stopping the US from widening the pipes 20x to 100x what we have now. As we all know other countries have those speeds now.
There’s a few central issues here. Do we want a 0.001% (a few thousand) of the US population controling our media, web/software development, and innovation? or do we want 1% (a few million willing US citizens) to be involved.
Do we really need 0 tolerance QoS in an age where people come home from work and watching shows on their tivo? What is so neccessary about watching a sitcom in ‘real time’ when the show was recorded weeks earlier? Where did this time deficit come from where we have to worry about milliseconds? It’s all BS. Things stream already stream pretty well in the US and even better in iceland, korea, ect.
All of three blind mices arguments are BS pure and simple. Who is he convincing? He’s only convincing others they need to explain it too him.
He should go tell his crap to the corporations, but he’d only be preaching to the choir. For some reason they would agree.
Things stream already stream pretty well in the US and even better in iceland, korea, ect.
Apparently you’ve never been a pacbell customer.
Things do not already stream all that well. But it shouldn’t matter because there’s no real need for “streaming” content save for two examples: real time conversations (which are inherently low bandwidth) – and to prevent people from “copying” media in permanent fashion onto their hard drives. Of course, anyone who knows how to use mplayer knows the absurdity of that argument – therefore there’s only one use of realtime data streaming that cannot be replicated by a tivo like model of “broadcast” wherein the “subscriber” simply chooses what programming she wants and watches it at her leisure.
But this isn’t about the internet being so clogged with realtime streams it’s impossible to maintian proper qos – that’s already handled. This is about those who control the “last mile” – the people who own the routers that control the flow of data to end users in their living rooms – turning off the flow of data or prioritizing it as suits their demands. Thus, if google is not a “partner” with your cable company you get an artifical scarcity of google’s data compared to the flow you get when you hit disney.com.
This is entirely a last mile issue: ISps want to be able to provide “premium” services even when the creators of those services did not create their services to be “premium.” They want to bottle services they did not create and charge end users extra for those most in demand not because it costs them more to deliver them but simply because they can. It’s essentially usurping google’s business model to better suit their own antiquated system of tiering access to content rather than access to services because the “flawed” nature of the internet undermines their monopoly on providing those services.
The people who turn my stomach are these bastards who think our freedom of speech, freedom of press, and freedom of assembly are terroritories to be conquered. These sysadmins who think it is ‘their job’ to argue for the fat pig corporations who think this kind of thing is routine make me sick. Lippard, get a fucking life you are not going to make millions in real estate. FUCK YOU!
The only contact information for Mr. Lessig in the contact page on this site is a phone number for press inquiries? I was only going to suggest that Mr. Lessig might be interested in commenting on this amendment to California Legislation AB 307 that (if passed) will require that technology education plans (required to receive public funding)
It doesn’t say anything specific about the content of this “ethical behavior” education requirement, or who would be responsible for approving it, but something to look into.
im from china.now im a college student.I have read your “code”(chinese version) just now.
very good,really.btw,my major is Law.
i thought u understand net and law.
my english is not very good.
u idea is similiar with me.my homeland did meet some problom which lead me into thinking about it.
u must know msn space,micsoft deleted one’s space in china.i know it must be the goverment’s idea.I thought this action is needed,but …
stop here now.
Damn it Jessie, I told you not to post to public lists! If you do that one more time Verizon is going to cancel your h1b visa and you can go home, and you know what that means… its back to 1 bag of peanuts instead of two.
sincerely, Bob Boberson
Middle Management
Verizon, Inc.
NOTE TO BRAINWASHED MASSES:
UDP multicast will allow wide area video streaming at low bandwidth cost. For instance: if I wanted to stream a live video to All of europe the brainwashed engineer thinks: “hmm, if this guy wants to stream to 100,000 people that means we have to carry 100,000 streams across the atlantic, hmm thats 80kbs * 100,000; golly gosh darn we’ll never be able do that.” Smart, informed engineer says: “NO, you idiot! with UDP multicast we only have to carry ONE stream across the atlatic, it will be muticast when it arrives at the peer. now go order me a pizza.”
That only works when it’s a realtime broadcast. If I’m watching the same video you are watching but a half hour behind you, that’s still two streams. How many “broadcasts” on the internet are realtime? They exist, but they’re most certainly in the minority.
UDP might work great in such a case for keeping subscribers tivos stocked with on demand video, but it doesn’t get you out of the one peer/one connection mode if you want to VOD stream old music video shows, movies, or even porn dvds.
You can cache the data at peer nodes. No anchovies please.
Uh, yeah.. you’re talking about exactly the sort of device I mentioned – a tivo type appliance. That only works if the peer knows about the broadcast and is prepared to receive it. That doesn’t do anything at all for google or yahoo or sputnik7 (are they still around?) and their streaming video feeds unless the “peers” you are talking about are proxy servers in the last mile – neighborhood caches of content. And once you have neighborhod caches of content the streams never have to go over the primary internet again and the content can be delivered to living rooms via pretty much any protocol without causing greater burden on the isp.
Charging premiums to broadband content providers is an end run around that – allow isps to provide essentially the same quality of service to their users (ie same aggregate bandwidth to the main pipe) without having to invest in the equipment that is really needed: more and widely distributed proxy caches. End result is anyone who wants to serve content now has to go through one of the “blessed” content providers or their packets get no priority in the queue. Rather than encouraging a universe of small providers competing fairly this encourages centralization and consolidation. Too much trouble to negotiate special deals with roadrunner and warner and cox and all the other hundreds of local isps? Form licensing pacts and pay one fee to our sanctified “rights” organization and we agree not to drop your packets whenever we feel like it – essentially fostering the creation of giant “media brokers” on the internet.
Its almost as if phone and cable companies don’t really have the right to exist as something seperate and distinct from digital networks. They certainly don’t have the right to limit competition form IP based networks( which is what they are doing by buying it out ). Maybe FCC policy should be based strictly on digital networks( which are easy to tax, manage, and measure; a bit is a bit ). Powell, make the network stupid already… weve been subjected to Murphy Brown now give us something back.
YOU ARE NOT GOING TO CONFOUND THIS ISSUE. You telecom people are thieves. You are stealing our constitutional rights and selling them to the highest bidder. YOU WILL NOT BE A PART OF THIS AMERICAS FUTURE.
NOTE TO AMERICAN PUBLIC: The telco lobby is trying to decieve you. They are releasing reports such as this one http://www.emarketer.com/Article.aspx?1003833
to divert the public’s attention away from the fact pure IP networks can replace our traditional phone and cable system WITH LITTLE INVESTMENT IN INFRASTRUCTURE. A small fiber optic cable is enough to support phone, video, and any infomation service you want for a medium size town. They want total control of your living room. Profit is only a small part of it, its the fact that the want to make sure the poor side of town cannot talk to the same people as the rich side of town. They want to make sure that the cost of broadcasting a video message stays high, so only the wealthy may have their say. Sound fair?
I just noticed, Bush axed Powell last year in favor of this guy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Martin_%28FCC%29
that explains a lot.
Oh SHinano me love ur blog! here is video of me. I hope internet be fast enough so you can see it… god damn verizon sons of bitches! banzaiiii!!!!!! me wish there was UDP multicast so no bandwidth clog and ted turner not rule world.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6346879660168193189&q=manga
Hello,
My name is Travis B., I am a 2L law student in San Antion, Texas and also a frequent contributor to Wikipedia.
Wikipedia is allegedly at the forefront of “freeing up the world’s information” but the reality is much more troubling. Users with little or no legal training interpret Copyright law strictly and delete information which clearly falls within the defense of fair use. The most recent case is of administrators and Jimmy Wales agreeing to delete thumbnails of hundreds of Time Magazine covers.
I write to ask if your organization or your users may be aware of a list of intellectual property right lawyers which possibly would be interested in taking a couple of hours and clarifying intellectual property rights for these users. This brief appeal could go directly to Jimmy Wales himself on Wikipedia.
I felt like this and your legal foundation was probably the best place to start inquiring.
Thank you in advance,
Travis B.
YOU WILL NOT CONFUSE THE PUBLIC. THE TRUTH SPEAKS FOR ITSELF. VERIZON, AT&T ARE UNAMERICAN!
Travis
You raise a very interesting issue in regards to fair use on the wiki-paedia. Could you please clarify the exact course of events in regards to the nature of the material uploaded to wikipaedia and the manner of the use. For example, were the Time magazine covers used in the extract for time magazine or for another purpose? Also – from where were the Time magazine covers copied?
Im sure someone will get some answers to you as soon as possible.
|
|
|
|