connectivity issues

[Chris Janicki]

You must be getting dizzy from all that circular reasoning.  

There are two components to communication: the one who INITIATES the 
communication, and the one who ACCEPTS the communication.  Once the lines 
of communication are established, data is bidirectional.

Let's stick to one analogy- the phone.  For a basic service charge you 
are allowed to accept unlimited calls, and during those calls data is 
exchanged bidirectionally, but you didn't initiate the call.  Calls you 
initiate cost extra.  (Please don't start some spiral of logic concerning 
local calling areas or I'll toss my cookies.)

Non-commercial web service is similar, although the direction is simply 
reversed... for a basic service charge you get to initiate communications 
(send mail, browse web sites, etc.).  The communication is still 
bidirectional, but you initiated it.  To accept new connections (host a 
web server, etc.) is a premium service, like initiating phone calls is a 
premium service.

The logic seems pretty simple to me.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Original Message <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

On 8/11/01, 10:28:36 AM, John Chambers <jc at trillian.mit.edu> wrote 
regarding Re: connectivity issues:


> --------

> | Your analogies are flawed.  Receiving phone calls and snail mail are
> | essentially an unlimited part of the service, but making calls
> | (especially long distance) and sending mail cost a premium.  Are you
> | suggesting that we protest to get free long distance calls too?

> I'm not sure how to reply to this, since I don't have  a  clue  about
> what  "essentially an unlimited part of the service" might mean.  You
> certainly don't mean that making calls (long distance  or  local)  or
> sending  mail  are  free.  They're obviously not; you pay for both of
> them.  In the case of phone service, this usually  includes  a  fixed
> monthly  "rental" charge for local calls, but it's not free.  They do
> call local service "unlimited", but in fact if you start  using  your
> line  24  hours  per  day  (to  an  ISP  or  with  a demon dialer for
> instance), you will find the phone company insisting that you  change
> your service to one that costs a lot more.

> I'd think the analogy is pretty direct.  Telephone service is used to
> make a call from one telephone (number) to another.  In all but a few
> very special cases, such calls can be made from any telephone to  any
> other.   It's  true  that you may be charged more for some calls than
> others, but costs aren't relevant to the analogy.  The point is  that
> when  you  ask a phone company for phone service, they *never* try to
> insist that you can only make outgoing calls.  You  have  to  request
> this  as  a  special service.  By default, telephones accept incoming
> calls from anyone.

> Similarly, it takes very special circumstances  (and  usually  either
> suspicious behavior or a court order) for the postal system to refuse
> mail to or from anyone.  Mail carriers will generally accept  letters
> from  anyone,  no  questions  asked,  if  they  have  the appropriate
> postage.  The only usual limit is the reasonable one of how much  the
> carrier can carry.  If you want to send a 5-pound package, you should
> probably expect to take it  to  the  post  office.   But  this  isn't
> relevant  to the analogy.  The postal system's default behavior is to
> accept mail from anyone and deliver it  to  anyone.   A  "send  only"
> postal   service   is  almost  unknown,  and  would  require  special
> arrangements with the local post office.

> In the case of the postal system, there are cases  where  the  system
> won't  deliver.   But  it's always because the recipient is in a very
> remote location, and for a price, they'll be happy to deliver. So the
> analogy  is still pretty direct.  If the post office provides service
> at all, it is two-way by default.

> The design of the Internet was very similar to this. An Internet host
> accepts packets from clients (processes) and attempts to deliver them
> to other clients.  As with the phone and postal systems,  any  client
> can send and receive.  In fact, bidirectional exchange is the norm in
> all three systems.  Exchange in the postal system is many  orders  of
> magnitude  slower, of course, but this has been the norm since postal
> systems were started.  The phone system has always been  based  on  a
> "connection" model, and exchange has always been the norm. IP is more
> like the postal system, connectionless, but connections were built on
> it from the start and have been the norm from the start.  (We do have
> things like NFS and SNMP that are connectionless, but they are really
> examples of packages that implement their own sort of connection.)

> The commercial idea that the Internet is a new sort of TV really is a
> major  distortion of its design and intended use.  And it puts a real
> damper on how people can use it.  This also  results  in  some  major
> inefficiencies.   We  have  a lot of users now who are getting things
> like digital cameras (still and video).  Many of them think that  the
> only way to get such things to friends is as attachments to email. So
> they attach the file, and send it to N friends or ralatives,  loading
> the  network  with  N  copies of the same data at the same time.  The
> right way to do this is to include the  URL  pointing  to  your  home
> machine.  Then others can download it when and if they like.

> To do this, of course, that you need to have a  web  server  on  your
> machine.   All  systems, even W98, now come with web servers.  In the
> long run, this will be a normal part of  every  computer,  and  users
> will  get  used  to  the  idea that they can just drop files into the
> server's directories to make them available to others (with  maybe  a
> short message to tell friends about the new files).  But in the short
> term, we have the problem that the commercial guys don't want you  to
> do  this.   This is potentially of such value that we should be doing
> everything we can to make sure that ISPs allow it.

> We do have the problem that they are usually big, powerful companies,
> and we don't have the clout.

> -
> Subcription/unsubscription/info requests: send e-mail with
> "subscribe", "unsubscribe", or "info" on the first line of the
> message body to discuss-request at blu.org (Subject line is ignored).
-
Subcription/unsubscription/info requests: send e-mail with
"subscribe", "unsubscribe", or "info" on the first line of the
message body to discuss-request at blu.org (Subject line is ignored).