At 02:29 PM 12/15/02 -0600, Jim Choate wrote: >On Wed, 11 Dec 2002, Steve Schear wrote: > >> From the article: >> "The court dismissed suggestions the Internet was different from other >> broadcasters, who could decide how far their signal was to be transmitted." >> >> This is totally bogus thinking. The Internet is not broadcast medium.
> >Yes, it is. Every site that emits a packet broadcasts it onto the network. "The network?" Sorry, its one wire from here to there. Even a router with multiple NICs only copies a given packet to a single interface. >One can even make a comparison between 'frequency & modulation' with 'IP & >service'. > >> Information from Web sites must be requested, the equivalent of ordering a >> book or newspaper, > >Or tuning your browser to the 'frequecy' of the web server. For purposes of thinking about *channels* you can use the old "Marconi" way of thinking of frequency as channel-selector. The net has under 2^32 x 2^16 (IP x port) endpoints or 'channels'. However in detail this mildly useful metaphor breaks down. In particular, most protocols (e.g., TCP) set up a virtual, temporary circuits. Clients have to request such circuits. Servers have to grant them. Not the case for a true broadcast net, eg radio. More like making a phone call. Do you think when you speak on the phone that you are "broadcasting" into the Network? You are not. --- Of course, words mean different things in Choate-prime. Apologies to the C-prime filterers.
