North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
[email@example.com: Re: Two Tiered Internet]
- From: bmanning
- Date: Wed Dec 14 23:32:02 2005
somhow, this esacped into a private thread. i'm pretty
sure that there is a fairly high thermal component to this
thread and not too many photons... so this is it for me
on this thread...
----- Forwarded message from firstname.lastname@example.org -----
> > > You start with a flawed assumption, you end up with wrong conclusions.
> > > Who said this had anything to do with "the Internet"?
> > well... the press? the telco marketing droids??
> It seems to be the press and the Google lobbyist droids trying to stir
> things up that use the "Internet" word the most. A problem is some
> reporters think anything that uses IP (Internet Protocol) means the
> same thing as "the Internet."
that is common... in part 'cause you can't ever tell if its
-not- part of the Internet. (I note the subject line of this
thread talks about a two-tier Internet... which we are both
actively responding to... :) If its not Internet, then lets
call it what you claim it is, private virtual pipes, some of
which touch the commodity Internet and some which run a private,
IP-based network for Telcos use only. Right there next to the
dedicated copper, lambdas, and glass that they lease to others.
> Most, but not all, of the telco droids have tried to stay on message,
> that this is about bringing more competition to video. It is not the
> Internet, it is not cable TV, it is IPTV. But when people expand the
> acronym IPTV, it seems to come out as Internet video. Much like VOIP
> seems to turn into Voice over the Internet, even though a lot of VOIP
> uses private networks.
-IF- we can be assured that the telco/ folks -REALLY- will keep
(or cable co)
parts of thier network fabric isolated and disconnected from
the Internet, and have the ability for random, third-party
inspection that these closed, private networks that use IP
-STAY- that way, then sure.
> > they should not call it "the Internet" then should they? :)
> Maybe it would have helped if the technologists had chosen less similar
> names for the network ("Internet") and the networking protocal ("IP").
> There are lots of networks using IP which are not the Internet.
again, its nearly impossible to tell when/if an IP network is
or is not part of what might be part of the Internet. Mobil
nodes are common and mobil networks are becoming so. Virtually
every (save two) IP based network that I have touched in the
last 25 years has at one point or another touched other IP based
networks... thus becoming part of the Internet... as seen by others.
That said, there are many IPbased networks which rarely touch
what most think of as the Internet. I've come to the conclusion
that the commodity or commercial services Internet is a small subset
of the larger Internet. as usual, YMMV.
----- End forwarded message -----