On 9/5/06, Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The only thing 'public' about the infrastructure of the internet is DNS and IP addresses. Everything else is up the the entities and their networks.
Becouse the cost of entry and cost per customer is so much higher. Until the day comes when WiFi can be used to deliver widespread and cheap network access, it will remain this way. Once it does happen, holy crap will there be a shakeup.
The main issue with this idea is that advances in technology would never get rolled out in the interest of cost savings. On the other hand, however, existing infrastructures may now have more research done on providing greater capacilities over existing hardware technologies.
Companies don't look at the long term much anymore. But they seem to be coming around to it now that they've found they can enter NEW markets, such as telephony and television.
But the internet only exists in the terms of IP and DNS. How traffic is handled has nothing to do with it.
If I decide to block, say, anonymous SIP traffic over port 5060 at a given company, am I now breaking the law by not allowing SIP traffic from external providers in?
ThomasOn 9/3/06, Jeff Kinz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The problem here is that we have a business running part of the public
> infrastructure. Sadly, human nature being what it is, this never works
> out for the best.
"Public infrastructure" is defined how, exactly? Serious question.
The longer I think about it, the trickier it becomes. I certainly
think that the Internet should be considered *something* more that a
bunch of private networks, but how? Just because it sees use by many?
Well, so does Wal-Mart, but I wouldn't call it public infrastructure.
The only thing 'public' about the infrastructure of the internet is DNS and IP addresses. Everything else is up the the entities and their networks.
Another point: History is certainly littered with examples about how
large businesses abused the public trust. On the other hand, "never"
is a bit strong. Not every such situation is a failure. A good
example would be package and freight delivery. Many argue the
commercial organizations do a much better job at package delivery than
the USPS. We see two large organizations (FedEx and UPS), a mid-sized
org striving to catch them (DHL), and a multitude of independent
operators. This industry remains a vibrant, healthy commercial
ecosystem -- an example of capitalism at its best. Why is that, when
the telecom industry fails so miserably?
Becouse the cost of entry and cost per customer is so much higher. Until the day comes when WiFi can be used to deliver widespread and cheap network access, it will remain this way. Once it does happen, holy crap will there be a shakeup.
My choice of industry is not an accident. As you note in your own
post, telecom infrastructure bears a striking resemblance to our
highway system, except that the telcos own both the highways *and* the
vehicles which travel upon them. Many have put forward the idea that
perhaps we should try and make the telecom industry more like the
highway system, where a government-granted monopoly manages the
roads/wires, and the free market competes in the space of
vehicles/service-on-the-wires. The telecom term for this is
"structural separation"; you can Google for it. My own opinion is
that this has a better chance of working than many other ideas I've
seen put forward.
The main issue with this idea is that advances in technology would never get rolled out in the interest of cost savings. On the other hand, however, existing infrastructures may now have more research done on providing greater capacilities over existing hardware technologies.
> The business never chooses to run the infrastructure
> in the way that is in the best interests of the people it serves.
For that case, the usual answer is that the long-term interests of a
company are better served by giving customers what they want, rather
than taking advantage of them in the short-term.
Companies don't look at the long term much anymore. But they seem to be coming around to it now that they've found they can enter NEW markets, such as telephony and television.
> The supposed choice implied by "If you don't like it, go somewhere
> else." is non existent.
That is a problem. Any time you have that situation, you are going
to have problems. Net Neutrality and email blocking are just a few
examples in a long list of problems associated with telecom
monopolies. Even if we "solve" those problems with legislation, we
will only end up fighting different battles again tomorrow. As I have
stated before, I feel we should go after the cause -- the unhealthy
telecom market -- not perpetually treat the symptoms.
But the internet only exists in the terms of IP and DNS. How traffic is handled has nothing to do with it.
If I decide to block, say, anonymous SIP traffic over port 5060 at a given company, am I now breaking the law by not allowing SIP traffic from external providers in?
