"I’m pretty sure I’ve not captured the whole picture here. I’d be interested to hear reader feedback on what drives networks to be open or closed, or references to academic study on the matter." Martin
Since you like Latin:
In Medium est Virtus
Let's talk about Flexibly open/close Network.
Let's make an example of what could be acceptable closeness and acceptable openess.
I am a Bank, I want to enjoy the new technologies, I have great lines with great speed, why should I go on feeding the Telecoms?
My first concern is : Security.
A Bank is an institution that would never accept a P2P Network.
But the Bank in my opinion is the Typical example of VoIP user.
It has branches all over the Nation and all over the World.
It has a number of employee which is enough to create a huge telephone bill at the end of the month.
In spite of the fact that a Bank typically has a great availability of money it is an institution that has a proportional eagerness to keep it as much as possible or as most of it as possible...
The calls would be mostly IP to IP, very good quality since they have good lines and completely free, if you consider the data lines already paid for other purposes and the availabilty of good hardware.
The eligibility still doesn't make the customer.
The security issue could be solved by building a VPN, Virtual Private Network.
For security reasons a Bank needs a close Network, but in the meantime it must be reachable by the customers.
So it needs a close/open Network.
To be open it must use an open standard codec.
Telecom Italia is open to Swiss Telecom, but requires a "toll" to be paid, a "roaming".
In this case apart from the cost of it (which I do not dicuss) it is right to charge for entering lines which Telecom Italia owns.
The same applies to Swiss Telecom when somebody from Italy calls Switzerland.
But in the case of a VoIP provider, he doesn't own the lines, neither he leases them
The Internet connection is entirely paid by the user.
What the VoIP provider provides is merely a directing of the call.
The closeness is a wrong way to copy the business model of the Telecoms.
You can call it "in" instead of "roaming", you can charge less (but it costs nothing), but at the end of the day, in this case, building a close Network and charging for entering it, is a mere and unfunded claim.
Saturday, April 30, 2005
Thursday, April 28, 2005
Why Skype is no different
It is very likely that you have heard about Skype; it is even probable that you are using Skype.
(Fair disclosure: I am not a subscriber of Skype.)
Michael Powell, FCC Chairman suggests that the telephony market place has changed dramatically since the arrival of Skype.
Is Skype really so special compared to other VoIP service providers? Of course Skype thinks so.
They say that unlike other VoIP service providers, Skype has a very intuitive user interface that does not require technical skills, but is easy to configure.
They also suggest that unlike other VoIP service providers, they solve NAT Traversal problem without the use of Proxies with the resultant better voice quality.
Of course the clincher is that Skype is P2P and so is infinitely scalable and resilient.
Before I analyze these points, let me describe the workings of Skype based on my understanding and what is available in public.
There is a Global Index Server where all clients login and authenticate themselves and exchange security key information.
Based on this exchange, the client will be assigned a Supernode, who will maintain the presence information; Supernodes also communicate with other Supernodes while locating other end-points.
The clients and Supernodes use the well documented UDP Hole Punching algorithm to solve the NAT Traversal problem.
Upon a little reflection, we can see that functionally this architecture is equivalent to other VoIP architectures like SIP.
Global Index Server is equivalent to the Registrar; the function described in item 2 is equivalent to Location Server and the function described in item 3 is Session Border Controller.
What is more, many SBC vendors solve NAT Traversal problems using similar optimization techniques with the same rate of success. Consequently, the clients in other environments also do not require complicated configuration setup.
Skype users have commented positively about its voice quality.
Global IP Sound indicates that Skype uses its codec, in particular iLBC.
GIPS also supplies their codec to other VoIP clients. X-ten also uses iLBC codec. So one can get Skype like quality in other systems as well.
The Global Index Server is a single point of failure. If it fails, clients can not login. I suppose new Supernodes can not be drafted either.
In my opinion, this is not a serious failure, because existing system can continue to function and a replacement GIS can be easily brought online.
But my concern regarding Supernode is more substantial.
It is suggested that since the Supernodes are nothing more than other Skype clients, Skype is infinitely scalable.
I submit that this may not be the case. To begin with, a client is eligible to be a Supernode only if it has enough processing power and bandwidth capacity to perform the functions of a Supernode.
Additionally, it is a requirement that they be present on the public Internet or behind a “transparent” NAT and a “permissive” Firewall.
I am betting that such clients will be scarce in relation to the total number of clients (a single Supernode serves around 100 clients).
If Supernodes need to have special capabilities, then it is likely that they will demand some form of compensation.
It is not clear whether Skype is setup for this. Additionally, it is not clear how the individual clients are protected from a misbehaving Supernode.
It is true that the media is encoded. But the Supernode is involved in the signaling phase. Since the Supernode has network connectivity to the client, it is tempting to use it for extra and unwanted commercial activity.
So Skype may deploy their own Supernodes, eliminating one more difference between it and other VoIP providers.
Some have expressed reservation because Skype is proprietary.
There have been previous instances where proprietary consumer items have found wide adoption without incurring huge collective cost. VCR is one of the examples that come to mind.
But in this case there are some differences:
Alternatives, based on standards are available
Skype uses mostly well-known and open technologies; only the protocol semantics is proprietary
Even though Skype (for that matter VoIP) is naturally a “product” and not a “service”, Skype views it as service.
For example, they do not allow an enterprise to use their own GIS, instead of the global one, even if communication will be restricted to internal use alone.
As I am told, there is no way to directly address another client, even if the IP address is known.
Windows Messenger from Microsoft has the same limitation, whereas NetMeeting allowed direct communication.
In this respect also, they are just like other VoIP providers.
It is disheartening to see that even those whose middle name should be P2P, think like this.
I am reminded of an ad that appeared in a New York based Indian newspaper in 1982. The ad was taken by an Indian Restaurant that offered two free alcoholic drinks in exchange for ticket stub for the movie Gandhi.
In summary, Skype shares the same functional architecture with other VoIP providers. It shares the same business plan and outlook.
But they have artificially cloaked it in a proprietary system. I guess this is their “economic moat” to use a Buffett term.
From a consumer point of view, the beauty of VoIP is that there is no moat and current technology is sufficient to realize direct IP Communications that does not require any intermediation.
Aswath Rao has 20 years of experience in the telecommunications field, having worked for leading R&D firms. He has worked on ISDN, Frame Relay, BISDN, wireless and satellite communications. For the past 5 years he has been working on VoIP related issues.
Long before intelligence at the end became acceptable, he advocated "functional terminals" in ISDN. His proposal for Inter Connect Function has been incorporated in the TIPHON architecture and currently it is known as Session Border Controller.
He has developed ways to offer PSTN subscribers many of the features available to VoIP subscribers. He maintains a blog. He can be reached at aswath@whencevoip.com
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.tablatronic.net/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/436
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Why Skype is No Different:
» Bursting the Skype Bubble from Om Malik on Broadband
For past few weeks there has been a lot of noise around Skype. What with company raising millions in venture capital, and all the gushing press, I thought perhaps it was time to take a lot at this more critically.... [Read More]
Tracked on March 27, 2004 08:03 AM
» Bursting the Skype Bubble from Lance Tracey
For past few weeks there has been a lot of noise around Skype. What with company raising millions in venture ...
[Read More]
Tracked on March 27, 2004 08:03 AM
» The Incredible importance of Instant Message clients from Om Malik on Broadband
Spring VoN 2004 is almost over, and after walking the conference floor, I am convinced about two things - there is too much hype around the technology. Secondly, the Instant Message clients are becoming incredibly important and will be the... [Read More]
Tracked on March 27, 2004 08:03 AM
» Scanning from Unbound Spiral
After a vacation the newsreader is full of posts. I missed out on VON and WTF last week so along with the normal Skype review I keyed in a few Feedster searches. The fragments below reflect some I noted and... [Read More]
Tracked on March 27, 2004 08:03 AM
» Skype vs. SIP from Aswath Weblog
There is an article in The Register which quotes Rohan Mahy challenging Skype. Rohan echoes some of the points I made in "Skype is no different". But I do not share his concerns regarding security. He feels rogue programs can... [Read More]
Tracked on March 27, 2004 08:03 AM
» Does SkypeOut Undermine FCC Regulations? from Aswath Weblog
Recently, Skype announced their new service called SkypeOut, which is a PC-to-phone service. This announcement has created a huge buzz; the latest addition is (via Jeff Pulver) a column by Kevin Werbach, entitled ?Tune In, Turn On, Skype Out?, which... [Read More]
Tracked on March 27, 2004 08:03 AM
» Bursting the Skype Bubble from Om Malik on Broadband
For past few weeks there has been a lot of noise around Skype. What with company raising millions in venture capital, and all the gushing press, I thought perhaps it was time to take a lot at this more critically.... [Read More]
Tracked on March 27, 2004 08:03 AM
» Bursting the Skype Bubble from Lance Tracey
For past few weeks there has been a lot of noise around Skype. What with company raising millions in venture ...
[Read More]
Tracked on March 27, 2004 08:03 AM
» The Incredible importance of Instant Message clients from Om Malik on Broadband
Spring VoN 2004 is almost over, and after walking the conference floor, I am convinced about two things - there is too much hype around the technology. Secondly, the Instant Message clients are becoming incredibly important and will be the... [Read More]
Tracked on March 27, 2004 08:03 AM
» Scanning from Unbound Spiral
After a vacation the newsreader is full of posts. I missed out on VON and WTF last week so along with the normal Skype review I keyed in a few Feedster searches. The fragments below reflect some I noted and... [Read More]
Tracked on March 27, 2004 08:03 AM
» Skype vs. SIP from Aswath Weblog
There is an article in The Register which quotes Rohan Mahy challenging Skype. Rohan echoes some of the points I made in "Skype is no different". But I do not share his concerns regarding security. He feels rogue programs can... [Read More]
Tracked on March 27, 2004 08:03 AM
» Does SkypeOut Undermine FCC Regulations? from Aswath Weblog
Recently, Skype announced their new service called SkypeOut, which is a PC-to-phone service. This announcement has created a huge buzz; the latest addition is (via Jeff Pulver) a column by Kevin Werbach, entitled ?Tune In, Turn On, Skype Out?, which... [Read More]
Tracked on March 27, 2004 08:03 AM
» Bursting the Skype Bubble from Om Malik on Broadband
For past few weeks there has been a lot of noise around Skype. What with company raising millions in venture capital, and all the gushing press, I thought perhaps it was time to take a lot at this more critically.... [Read More]
Tracked on March 27, 2004 08:03 AM
» Bursting the Skype Bubble from Lance Tracey
For past few weeks there has been a lot of noise around Skype. What with company raising millions in venture ...
[Read More]
Tracked on March 27, 2004 08:03 AM
» The Incredible importance of Instant Message clients from Om Malik on Broadband
Spring VoN 2004 is almost over, and after walking the conference floor, I am convinced about two things - there is too much hype around the technology. Secondly, the Instant Message clients are becoming incredibly important and will be the... [Read More]
Tracked on March 27, 2004 08:03 AM
» Scanning from Unbound Spiral
After a vacation the newsreader is full of posts. I missed out on VON and WTF last week so along with the normal Skype review I keyed in a few Feedster searches. The fragments below reflect some I noted and... [Read More]
Tracked on March 27, 2004 08:03 AM
» Skype vs. SIP from Aswath Weblog
There is an article in The Register which quotes Rohan Mahy challenging Skype. Rohan echoes some of the points I made in "Skype is no different". But I do not share his concerns regarding security. He feels rogue programs can... [Read More]
Tracked on March 27, 2004 08:03 AM
» Does SkypeOut Undermine FCC Regulations? from Aswath Weblog
Recently, Skype announced their new service called SkypeOut, which is a PC-to-phone service. This announcement has created a huge buzz; the latest addition is (via Jeff Pulver) a column by Kevin Werbach, entitled ?Tune In, Turn On, Skype Out?, which... [Read More]
Tracked on March 27, 2004 08:03 AM
» Skype under the microscope (with opaque lens) from Aswath Weblog
Richard Stastny identifies (and pointed out by Andy) a paper from Columbia University that tries to empirically observe the workings of Skype. Many of the findings confirm earlier claims. Some findings are new and have implications to us who are... [Read More]
Tracked on December 7, 2004 08:47 PM
» P2P, Serverless or ? from Aswath Weblog
Richard Stastny identifies (and pointed out by Andy) a paper from Columbia University that describes P2P based IP telephony using SIP. James Seng has dismissed it as not very useful. Given the pedigree of the senior author, it might be... [Read More]
Tracked on December 19, 2004 10:55 PM
Comments
We're hoping to address some of the issues that effect VOIP by using open systems (SIP/IAX) and existing call routing technology (Asterisk/SER) and enum.164 ( http://e164.org )...
Rather then being continuosly connected, enum.164 allows you to simply setup a gateway and receive them. Solving the supernode issue.
Posted by: Duane at March 27, 2004 08:03 AM
I think Skype is neat. Sure, if you're worried about someone tapping into the call setup, don't use it. Simple as that. For the general user who doesn't want anything else, Skype Just Works. Now, if they could only support IAX2 and SIP..
Posted by: John at March 27, 2004 08:03 AM
Freshtel have tried the same arrangement with a proprietary extension to IAX2. It is purported to work with standard clients, but doesn't. Bzzt.
Wanders off, singing: "Hi-de-ho, hi-de-hi, gonna get me a piece of the sky ..."
Posted by: Rob at March 27, 2004 08:03 AM
which is all you can really know about usa visa a stranger when you meet them (aside from usa visa maybe cues you get about where you see them green card lottery at, and inferences based on how they're dressed, green card etc., but those are only generalizations accept credit card
Posted by: Merchant Account at March 27, 2004 08:03 AM
We're hoping to address some of the issues that effect VOIP by using open systems (SIP/IAX) and existing call routing technology (Asterisk/SER) and enum.164 ( http://e164.org )...
Rather then being continuosly connected, enum.164 allows you to simply setup a gateway and receive them. Solving the supernode issue.
Posted by: Duane at March 27, 2004 08:03 AM
I think Skype is neat. Sure, if you're worried about someone tapping into the call setup, don't use it. Simple as that. For the general user who doesn't want anything else, Skype Just Works. Now, if they could only support IAX2 and SIP..
Posted by: John at March 27, 2004 08:03 AM
Freshtel have tried the same arrangement with a proprietary extension to IAX2. It is purported to work with standard clients, but doesn't. Bzzt.
Wanders off, singing: "Hi-de-ho, hi-de-hi, gonna get me a piece of the sky ..."
Posted by: Rob at March 27, 2004 08:03 AM
which is all you can really know about usa visa a stranger when you meet them (aside from usa visa maybe cues you get about where you see them green card lottery at, and inferences based on how they're dressed, green card etc., but those are only generalizations accept credit card
Posted by: Merchant Account at March 27, 2004 08:03 AM
We're hoping to address some of the issues that effect VOIP by using open systems (SIP/IAX) and existing call routing technology (Asterisk/SER) and enum.164 ( http://e164.org )...
Rather then being continuosly connected, enum.164 allows you to simply setup a gateway and receive them. Solving the supernode issue.
Posted by: Duane at March 27, 2004 08:03 AM
I think Skype is neat. Sure, if you're worried about someone tapping into the call setup, don't use it. Simple as that. For the general user who doesn't want anything else, Skype Just Works. Now, if they could only support IAX2 and SIP..
Posted by: John at March 27, 2004 08:03 AM
Freshtel have tried the same arrangement with a proprietary extension to IAX2. It is purported to work with standard clients, but doesn't. Bzzt.
Wanders off, singing: "Hi-de-ho, hi-de-hi, gonna get me a piece of the sky ..."
Posted by: Rob at March 27, 2004 08:03 AM
which is all you can really know about usa visa a stranger when you meet them (aside from usa visa maybe cues you get about where you see them green card lottery at, and inferences based on how they're dressed, green card etc., but those are only generalizations accept credit card
Posted by: Merchant Account at March 27, 2004 08:03 AM
(Fair disclosure: I am not a subscriber of Skype.)
Michael Powell, FCC Chairman suggests that the telephony market place has changed dramatically since the arrival of Skype.
Is Skype really so special compared to other VoIP service providers? Of course Skype thinks so.
They say that unlike other VoIP service providers, Skype has a very intuitive user interface that does not require technical skills, but is easy to configure.
They also suggest that unlike other VoIP service providers, they solve NAT Traversal problem without the use of Proxies with the resultant better voice quality.
Of course the clincher is that Skype is P2P and so is infinitely scalable and resilient.
Before I analyze these points, let me describe the workings of Skype based on my understanding and what is available in public.
There is a Global Index Server where all clients login and authenticate themselves and exchange security key information.
Based on this exchange, the client will be assigned a Supernode, who will maintain the presence information; Supernodes also communicate with other Supernodes while locating other end-points.
The clients and Supernodes use the well documented UDP Hole Punching algorithm to solve the NAT Traversal problem.
Upon a little reflection, we can see that functionally this architecture is equivalent to other VoIP architectures like SIP.
Global Index Server is equivalent to the Registrar; the function described in item 2 is equivalent to Location Server and the function described in item 3 is Session Border Controller.
What is more, many SBC vendors solve NAT Traversal problems using similar optimization techniques with the same rate of success. Consequently, the clients in other environments also do not require complicated configuration setup.
Skype users have commented positively about its voice quality.
Global IP Sound indicates that Skype uses its codec, in particular iLBC.
GIPS also supplies their codec to other VoIP clients. X-ten also uses iLBC codec. So one can get Skype like quality in other systems as well.
The Global Index Server is a single point of failure. If it fails, clients can not login. I suppose new Supernodes can not be drafted either.
In my opinion, this is not a serious failure, because existing system can continue to function and a replacement GIS can be easily brought online.
But my concern regarding Supernode is more substantial.
It is suggested that since the Supernodes are nothing more than other Skype clients, Skype is infinitely scalable.
I submit that this may not be the case. To begin with, a client is eligible to be a Supernode only if it has enough processing power and bandwidth capacity to perform the functions of a Supernode.
Additionally, it is a requirement that they be present on the public Internet or behind a “transparent” NAT and a “permissive” Firewall.
I am betting that such clients will be scarce in relation to the total number of clients (a single Supernode serves around 100 clients).
If Supernodes need to have special capabilities, then it is likely that they will demand some form of compensation.
It is not clear whether Skype is setup for this. Additionally, it is not clear how the individual clients are protected from a misbehaving Supernode.
It is true that the media is encoded. But the Supernode is involved in the signaling phase. Since the Supernode has network connectivity to the client, it is tempting to use it for extra and unwanted commercial activity.
So Skype may deploy their own Supernodes, eliminating one more difference between it and other VoIP providers.
Some have expressed reservation because Skype is proprietary.
There have been previous instances where proprietary consumer items have found wide adoption without incurring huge collective cost. VCR is one of the examples that come to mind.
But in this case there are some differences:
Alternatives, based on standards are available
Skype uses mostly well-known and open technologies; only the protocol semantics is proprietary
Even though Skype (for that matter VoIP) is naturally a “product” and not a “service”, Skype views it as service.
For example, they do not allow an enterprise to use their own GIS, instead of the global one, even if communication will be restricted to internal use alone.
As I am told, there is no way to directly address another client, even if the IP address is known.
Windows Messenger from Microsoft has the same limitation, whereas NetMeeting allowed direct communication.
In this respect also, they are just like other VoIP providers.
It is disheartening to see that even those whose middle name should be P2P, think like this.
I am reminded of an ad that appeared in a New York based Indian newspaper in 1982. The ad was taken by an Indian Restaurant that offered two free alcoholic drinks in exchange for ticket stub for the movie Gandhi.
In summary, Skype shares the same functional architecture with other VoIP providers. It shares the same business plan and outlook.
But they have artificially cloaked it in a proprietary system. I guess this is their “economic moat” to use a Buffett term.
From a consumer point of view, the beauty of VoIP is that there is no moat and current technology is sufficient to realize direct IP Communications that does not require any intermediation.
Aswath Rao has 20 years of experience in the telecommunications field, having worked for leading R&D firms. He has worked on ISDN, Frame Relay, BISDN, wireless and satellite communications. For the past 5 years he has been working on VoIP related issues.
Long before intelligence at the end became acceptable, he advocated "functional terminals" in ISDN. His proposal for Inter Connect Function has been incorporated in the TIPHON architecture and currently it is known as Session Border Controller.
He has developed ways to offer PSTN subscribers many of the features available to VoIP subscribers. He maintains a blog. He can be reached at aswath@whencevoip.com
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.tablatronic.net/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/436
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Why Skype is No Different:
» Bursting the Skype Bubble from Om Malik on Broadband
For past few weeks there has been a lot of noise around Skype. What with company raising millions in venture capital, and all the gushing press, I thought perhaps it was time to take a lot at this more critically.... [Read More]
Tracked on March 27, 2004 08:03 AM
» Bursting the Skype Bubble from Lance Tracey
For past few weeks there has been a lot of noise around Skype. What with company raising millions in venture ...
[Read More]
Tracked on March 27, 2004 08:03 AM
» The Incredible importance of Instant Message clients from Om Malik on Broadband
Spring VoN 2004 is almost over, and after walking the conference floor, I am convinced about two things - there is too much hype around the technology. Secondly, the Instant Message clients are becoming incredibly important and will be the... [Read More]
Tracked on March 27, 2004 08:03 AM
» Scanning from Unbound Spiral
After a vacation the newsreader is full of posts. I missed out on VON and WTF last week so along with the normal Skype review I keyed in a few Feedster searches. The fragments below reflect some I noted and... [Read More]
Tracked on March 27, 2004 08:03 AM
» Skype vs. SIP from Aswath Weblog
There is an article in The Register which quotes Rohan Mahy challenging Skype. Rohan echoes some of the points I made in "Skype is no different". But I do not share his concerns regarding security. He feels rogue programs can... [Read More]
Tracked on March 27, 2004 08:03 AM
» Does SkypeOut Undermine FCC Regulations? from Aswath Weblog
Recently, Skype announced their new service called SkypeOut, which is a PC-to-phone service. This announcement has created a huge buzz; the latest addition is (via Jeff Pulver) a column by Kevin Werbach, entitled ?Tune In, Turn On, Skype Out?, which... [Read More]
Tracked on March 27, 2004 08:03 AM
» Bursting the Skype Bubble from Om Malik on Broadband
For past few weeks there has been a lot of noise around Skype. What with company raising millions in venture capital, and all the gushing press, I thought perhaps it was time to take a lot at this more critically.... [Read More]
Tracked on March 27, 2004 08:03 AM
» Bursting the Skype Bubble from Lance Tracey
For past few weeks there has been a lot of noise around Skype. What with company raising millions in venture ...
[Read More]
Tracked on March 27, 2004 08:03 AM
» The Incredible importance of Instant Message clients from Om Malik on Broadband
Spring VoN 2004 is almost over, and after walking the conference floor, I am convinced about two things - there is too much hype around the technology. Secondly, the Instant Message clients are becoming incredibly important and will be the... [Read More]
Tracked on March 27, 2004 08:03 AM
» Scanning from Unbound Spiral
After a vacation the newsreader is full of posts. I missed out on VON and WTF last week so along with the normal Skype review I keyed in a few Feedster searches. The fragments below reflect some I noted and... [Read More]
Tracked on March 27, 2004 08:03 AM
» Skype vs. SIP from Aswath Weblog
There is an article in The Register which quotes Rohan Mahy challenging Skype. Rohan echoes some of the points I made in "Skype is no different". But I do not share his concerns regarding security. He feels rogue programs can... [Read More]
Tracked on March 27, 2004 08:03 AM
» Does SkypeOut Undermine FCC Regulations? from Aswath Weblog
Recently, Skype announced their new service called SkypeOut, which is a PC-to-phone service. This announcement has created a huge buzz; the latest addition is (via Jeff Pulver) a column by Kevin Werbach, entitled ?Tune In, Turn On, Skype Out?, which... [Read More]
Tracked on March 27, 2004 08:03 AM
» Bursting the Skype Bubble from Om Malik on Broadband
For past few weeks there has been a lot of noise around Skype. What with company raising millions in venture capital, and all the gushing press, I thought perhaps it was time to take a lot at this more critically.... [Read More]
Tracked on March 27, 2004 08:03 AM
» Bursting the Skype Bubble from Lance Tracey
For past few weeks there has been a lot of noise around Skype. What with company raising millions in venture ...
[Read More]
Tracked on March 27, 2004 08:03 AM
» The Incredible importance of Instant Message clients from Om Malik on Broadband
Spring VoN 2004 is almost over, and after walking the conference floor, I am convinced about two things - there is too much hype around the technology. Secondly, the Instant Message clients are becoming incredibly important and will be the... [Read More]
Tracked on March 27, 2004 08:03 AM
» Scanning from Unbound Spiral
After a vacation the newsreader is full of posts. I missed out on VON and WTF last week so along with the normal Skype review I keyed in a few Feedster searches. The fragments below reflect some I noted and... [Read More]
Tracked on March 27, 2004 08:03 AM
» Skype vs. SIP from Aswath Weblog
There is an article in The Register which quotes Rohan Mahy challenging Skype. Rohan echoes some of the points I made in "Skype is no different". But I do not share his concerns regarding security. He feels rogue programs can... [Read More]
Tracked on March 27, 2004 08:03 AM
» Does SkypeOut Undermine FCC Regulations? from Aswath Weblog
Recently, Skype announced their new service called SkypeOut, which is a PC-to-phone service. This announcement has created a huge buzz; the latest addition is (via Jeff Pulver) a column by Kevin Werbach, entitled ?Tune In, Turn On, Skype Out?, which... [Read More]
Tracked on March 27, 2004 08:03 AM
» Skype under the microscope (with opaque lens) from Aswath Weblog
Richard Stastny identifies (and pointed out by Andy) a paper from Columbia University that tries to empirically observe the workings of Skype. Many of the findings confirm earlier claims. Some findings are new and have implications to us who are... [Read More]
Tracked on December 7, 2004 08:47 PM
» P2P, Serverless or ? from Aswath Weblog
Richard Stastny identifies (and pointed out by Andy) a paper from Columbia University that describes P2P based IP telephony using SIP. James Seng has dismissed it as not very useful. Given the pedigree of the senior author, it might be... [Read More]
Tracked on December 19, 2004 10:55 PM
Comments
We're hoping to address some of the issues that effect VOIP by using open systems (SIP/IAX) and existing call routing technology (Asterisk/SER) and enum.164 ( http://e164.org )...
Rather then being continuosly connected, enum.164 allows you to simply setup a gateway and receive them. Solving the supernode issue.
Posted by: Duane at March 27, 2004 08:03 AM
I think Skype is neat. Sure, if you're worried about someone tapping into the call setup, don't use it. Simple as that. For the general user who doesn't want anything else, Skype Just Works. Now, if they could only support IAX2 and SIP..
Posted by: John at March 27, 2004 08:03 AM
Freshtel have tried the same arrangement with a proprietary extension to IAX2. It is purported to work with standard clients, but doesn't. Bzzt.
Wanders off, singing: "Hi-de-ho, hi-de-hi, gonna get me a piece of the sky ..."
Posted by: Rob at March 27, 2004 08:03 AM
which is all you can really know about usa visa a stranger when you meet them (aside from usa visa maybe cues you get about where you see them green card lottery at, and inferences based on how they're dressed, green card etc., but those are only generalizations accept credit card
Posted by: Merchant Account at March 27, 2004 08:03 AM
We're hoping to address some of the issues that effect VOIP by using open systems (SIP/IAX) and existing call routing technology (Asterisk/SER) and enum.164 ( http://e164.org )...
Rather then being continuosly connected, enum.164 allows you to simply setup a gateway and receive them. Solving the supernode issue.
Posted by: Duane at March 27, 2004 08:03 AM
I think Skype is neat. Sure, if you're worried about someone tapping into the call setup, don't use it. Simple as that. For the general user who doesn't want anything else, Skype Just Works. Now, if they could only support IAX2 and SIP..
Posted by: John at March 27, 2004 08:03 AM
Freshtel have tried the same arrangement with a proprietary extension to IAX2. It is purported to work with standard clients, but doesn't. Bzzt.
Wanders off, singing: "Hi-de-ho, hi-de-hi, gonna get me a piece of the sky ..."
Posted by: Rob at March 27, 2004 08:03 AM
which is all you can really know about usa visa a stranger when you meet them (aside from usa visa maybe cues you get about where you see them green card lottery at, and inferences based on how they're dressed, green card etc., but those are only generalizations accept credit card
Posted by: Merchant Account at March 27, 2004 08:03 AM
We're hoping to address some of the issues that effect VOIP by using open systems (SIP/IAX) and existing call routing technology (Asterisk/SER) and enum.164 ( http://e164.org )...
Rather then being continuosly connected, enum.164 allows you to simply setup a gateway and receive them. Solving the supernode issue.
Posted by: Duane at March 27, 2004 08:03 AM
I think Skype is neat. Sure, if you're worried about someone tapping into the call setup, don't use it. Simple as that. For the general user who doesn't want anything else, Skype Just Works. Now, if they could only support IAX2 and SIP..
Posted by: John at March 27, 2004 08:03 AM
Freshtel have tried the same arrangement with a proprietary extension to IAX2. It is purported to work with standard clients, but doesn't. Bzzt.
Wanders off, singing: "Hi-de-ho, hi-de-hi, gonna get me a piece of the sky ..."
Posted by: Rob at March 27, 2004 08:03 AM
which is all you can really know about usa visa a stranger when you meet them (aside from usa visa maybe cues you get about where you see them green card lottery at, and inferences based on how they're dressed, green card etc., but those are only generalizations accept credit card
Posted by: Merchant Account at March 27, 2004 08:03 AM
Wednesday, April 27, 2005
Separation of connectivity from applications
Separation of connectivity from applications, that is what is not (on purpose) clear.
Skype is nothing else than an application using a common connectivity: customers' owned (or leased if you prefer) infrastructures.
That is the main difference with the usual Monopolist telephone system.
In the old system we used infrastructures that belonged to the Telecoms, and hardware's (telephones) that could belong to them or to the customer.
Thus the need to pay a "service", that is a "toll" to use their lines.
From this point of view you can clearly see how artificious and devious is the need to build a "Network in the Network".
VoIP is not a service and we do not need Skype service.
As we certainly better not need their application.
An OS, like an application, is worth if it is open, that is, if you can use it with any computer or any OS.
An application is worth nothing, and it is even dangerous, if you can use it just with one OS and in a certain environment.
That, if Universally spread, will create a Monopoly.
And a Monopoly is dangerous, as we can clearly see.
Besides, technology evolves rapidly and we need hardware and software that can easily adapt to progress, not proprietay tools that you can upgrade if and how and when...
Does everybody really want to take the risk of building a new monopoly and being obliged to pay for what is already free?
Patrizia
Skype is nothing else than an application using a common connectivity: customers' owned (or leased if you prefer) infrastructures.
That is the main difference with the usual Monopolist telephone system.
In the old system we used infrastructures that belonged to the Telecoms, and hardware's (telephones) that could belong to them or to the customer.
Thus the need to pay a "service", that is a "toll" to use their lines.
From this point of view you can clearly see how artificious and devious is the need to build a "Network in the Network".
VoIP is not a service and we do not need Skype service.
As we certainly better not need their application.
An OS, like an application, is worth if it is open, that is, if you can use it with any computer or any OS.
An application is worth nothing, and it is even dangerous, if you can use it just with one OS and in a certain environment.
That, if Universally spread, will create a Monopoly.
And a Monopoly is dangerous, as we can clearly see.
Besides, technology evolves rapidly and we need hardware and software that can easily adapt to progress, not proprietay tools that you can upgrade if and how and when...
Does everybody really want to take the risk of building a new monopoly and being obliged to pay for what is already free?
Patrizia
Tuesday, April 26, 2005
Tell me the future and I'll make you a rich man
In my case it would be a rich woman, but that is not so important.
The "rich" is much more(important).
Sometimes I ask myself: what will this be in a few years?
How will we behave, what will we like, how will life be?
What will be the future of VoIP in a few years?
Sometimes we are not able to see the future, because too much in the present.
It looks like what is so great and successful today is not going to change.
But then: Everything must change, in order to be always the same....
Sometimes, quite often I find the answer in history.
Do you want to know the future? Look at the past.
Just today I was asking myself:
If somebody, today, put an Ad on the Internet, somewhere where billions could see it, and the ad said:
I offer a FREE SOFTWARE for faxing, you download it and it is free for the members belonging to my network.
If you want to fax somebody who doesn't belong to the Network you have to pay for "Faxing out" and if somebody from the outside of the Network wants to Fax you, he has to pay to "Faxing in".
I think everybody would laugh and pity who thinks "to have invented the hot water".
But then, if you just use the word Skype instead of Fax, you can have a good perspective of "What the future of VoIPing" will be in a few years...
The "rich" is much more(important).
Sometimes I ask myself: what will this be in a few years?
How will we behave, what will we like, how will life be?
What will be the future of VoIP in a few years?
Sometimes we are not able to see the future, because too much in the present.
It looks like what is so great and successful today is not going to change.
But then: Everything must change, in order to be always the same....
Sometimes, quite often I find the answer in history.
Do you want to know the future? Look at the past.
Just today I was asking myself:
If somebody, today, put an Ad on the Internet, somewhere where billions could see it, and the ad said:
I offer a FREE SOFTWARE for faxing, you download it and it is free for the members belonging to my network.
If you want to fax somebody who doesn't belong to the Network you have to pay for "Faxing out" and if somebody from the outside of the Network wants to Fax you, he has to pay to "Faxing in".
I think everybody would laugh and pity who thinks "to have invented the hot water".
But then, if you just use the word Skype instead of Fax, you can have a good perspective of "What the future of VoIPing" will be in a few years...
Hackers hate Monopolies
There are two major issues for a computer owner, and since every computer owner is a worker, there are two major issues concerning the workers.
One is the no ending ever increasing burden of fighting spam, the other is even more challenging and is fighting for security.
Who in his short life of a relationship with a computer has not faced the terrible, devastating experience of loosing his hardisk after a virus attack?
And with it may be the most precious part of his job and many email addresses and relative contacts.
Security has become the most important task of an OS.
And this is well known by those who produce antivirus and firewalls.
And then, one day this new software comes.
"You can call the world for free....easy to install... PASSES THROUGH ALL ROUTERS AND FIREWALLS...
And they had 100.000.000 downloads...
But he Hackers hate monopolies and love new challenges...
One is the no ending ever increasing burden of fighting spam, the other is even more challenging and is fighting for security.
Who in his short life of a relationship with a computer has not faced the terrible, devastating experience of loosing his hardisk after a virus attack?
And with it may be the most precious part of his job and many email addresses and relative contacts.
Security has become the most important task of an OS.
And this is well known by those who produce antivirus and firewalls.
And then, one day this new software comes.
"You can call the world for free....easy to install... PASSES THROUGH ALL ROUTERS AND FIREWALLS...
And they had 100.000.000 downloads...
But he Hackers hate monopolies and love new challenges...
Monday, April 25, 2005
Every European country has its own plug.
"But Skype’s computers are only lightly involved in making users visible to each other and facilitating the connection; they are not all involved in the actual transmission of voice, that computing power all comes from the users own computers. Since these calls are computer to computer and don’t touch the traditional phone network, they don’t pass the toll booths of the phone companies which control last mile phone connections."
Skype's computers are involved just to address the call, as any computer of any VoIP provider.
That itself proves the fact that building as they say "A Network in the Network" is completely useless for the user, but highly remunerative for the provider.
Skype had undoubtedly the merit of having introduced to the mass market the technology of VoIp, which was not so new.
They just arrived at the right moment with the right product.
In principle, I do not understand why they were so successful, where others, who came much sooner than them, were not.
Perhaps was the quality of voice, most probably the fame of Kazaa.
When you already have a huge number of customers for one service is not difficult to keep them and upgrade the number offering something that looks "similar".
What people do not understand, because they are brought to not understand, is the fact that Skype doesn't offer more than others, in one way it offers even less, but, as I said many times, it is not the way something is, it is the way it is "packaged" that sometimes makes the product.
And that is what marketing people are well aware of.
To sell something sometimes it is easier if you know the psychology of your customer more than his needs.
The society of today, the economic society of today, CREATES more than FILLING needs.
It is a proof of it the enormous quantity of useless gadgets created to fill useless needs.
Ours sometimes is the society of the "Must have" of the "Must achieve" more than the "Simple being".
And it creates unsatisfied, useless people in order to produce more useless products.
As a matter of fact, it is probably the need of our economy to produce similar tools for similar uses.
In Europe we have at least 30 different types of electric plugs, at least three or four for every European country.
And that is not because they have different uses or qualities, in principle all of them do the same job in the same way.
But the few millimetres more or less make one plug unusable into another socket.
And that creates a huge market where there would be a very limited one.
The life of a plug is relatively long, so long that you wouldn't buy another for a certain time.
But then, they have to create the need for you to buy a new one.
That is why if you go from Cuneo to Menton which is a few kilometers away, you need to buy a new set of plugs if you want to shave or use your hair dryer.
Then if you happen to go to visit Geneva or Lugano the same problem arises.
And if you dare to push yourself as far as to Zurich, there you probably find something more similar to the German plugs than to the French or Italian.
And if they bothered to do all this for a simple, cheap and stupid stuff like a plug, would they loose the chance to do the same for a VoIP device or Network?
Skype's computers are involved just to address the call, as any computer of any VoIP provider.
That itself proves the fact that building as they say "A Network in the Network" is completely useless for the user, but highly remunerative for the provider.
Skype had undoubtedly the merit of having introduced to the mass market the technology of VoIp, which was not so new.
They just arrived at the right moment with the right product.
In principle, I do not understand why they were so successful, where others, who came much sooner than them, were not.
Perhaps was the quality of voice, most probably the fame of Kazaa.
When you already have a huge number of customers for one service is not difficult to keep them and upgrade the number offering something that looks "similar".
What people do not understand, because they are brought to not understand, is the fact that Skype doesn't offer more than others, in one way it offers even less, but, as I said many times, it is not the way something is, it is the way it is "packaged" that sometimes makes the product.
And that is what marketing people are well aware of.
To sell something sometimes it is easier if you know the psychology of your customer more than his needs.
The society of today, the economic society of today, CREATES more than FILLING needs.
It is a proof of it the enormous quantity of useless gadgets created to fill useless needs.
Ours sometimes is the society of the "Must have" of the "Must achieve" more than the "Simple being".
And it creates unsatisfied, useless people in order to produce more useless products.
As a matter of fact, it is probably the need of our economy to produce similar tools for similar uses.
In Europe we have at least 30 different types of electric plugs, at least three or four for every European country.
And that is not because they have different uses or qualities, in principle all of them do the same job in the same way.
But the few millimetres more or less make one plug unusable into another socket.
And that creates a huge market where there would be a very limited one.
The life of a plug is relatively long, so long that you wouldn't buy another for a certain time.
But then, they have to create the need for you to buy a new one.
That is why if you go from Cuneo to Menton which is a few kilometers away, you need to buy a new set of plugs if you want to shave or use your hair dryer.
Then if you happen to go to visit Geneva or Lugano the same problem arises.
And if you dare to push yourself as far as to Zurich, there you probably find something more similar to the German plugs than to the French or Italian.
And if they bothered to do all this for a simple, cheap and stupid stuff like a plug, would they loose the chance to do the same for a VoIP device or Network?
Saturday, April 23, 2005
Who puts the rules?
In a most decentralized world, where you would expect chaos to be the universal language, surprisingly, you find few patterns everybody follows.
Take for example web design.
You have millions of flash websites, wonderfully looking, wonderfully designed, but those account for a very small traffic.
On the other hand, simple structured websites, where usability is the priority, get most of the traffic.
Even in design you find a common line.
In a way it is like fashion.
Once it was the "Designers" who made the fashion, now the designers look at what (young) people wear to design a collection.
The Internet is the world "of mouth" and in the specific kind of websites is the "world of sight".
It is the world where copyrights last a few seconds, the necessary time to make an electronic copy, where they are merely a "suggestion" that nobody follows.
"You are free to copy, just write it was me who invented it", at least I will have a free commercial out of a bad action...
What will be the future of VoIP?
VoIP is the creature of the Internet, the one that has the job to make the "talking society" and will follow the parents' step.
A decentralized, independent network with common, standard patterns..
Take for example web design.
You have millions of flash websites, wonderfully looking, wonderfully designed, but those account for a very small traffic.
On the other hand, simple structured websites, where usability is the priority, get most of the traffic.
Even in design you find a common line.
In a way it is like fashion.
Once it was the "Designers" who made the fashion, now the designers look at what (young) people wear to design a collection.
The Internet is the world "of mouth" and in the specific kind of websites is the "world of sight".
It is the world where copyrights last a few seconds, the necessary time to make an electronic copy, where they are merely a "suggestion" that nobody follows.
"You are free to copy, just write it was me who invented it", at least I will have a free commercial out of a bad action...
What will be the future of VoIP?
VoIP is the creature of the Internet, the one that has the job to make the "talking society" and will follow the parents' step.
A decentralized, independent network with common, standard patterns..
It is not important where they go, it is important that "We go together"
They say there is nobody who hears less than the one who doesn't want to.
The same applies to the capability of seeing.
You can be as blind as you please and still say a lot and look like you know a lot.
I like to read and sniff around and sometimes I see things I wouldn't like to read.
But that is, the market is driven by a few and those few need to be talked about and if possibly in the best way.
We, as human beings, need to believe in something and to belong to something.
Once, when families still existed, one belonged to his family, then to his country then to his nation.
In a world where the borders are not so clear anymore and one tends to feel a citizen of the world, he still has the need to belong to something.
Being that a religion or a belief or a group.
May be that gives strength and power, or at least a feeling of.
That is why we see so many followers of a certain religion, people who could die for it and of course people who easily take advantage out of this feeling.
I think that a good protestant is much better than a bad catholic and has more chances to go to Heaven (if it exists) than the ones who feed the Vatican and the Church.
Of a different opinion is obviously the Catholic Church.
I guess you do not need to pay to have something you have for free, unless they convince you of it.
Being it the "collective unconscious" or just a need coming directly from the need of survival, we all tend to follow some sort of an ideal, a group, it is not important where they go, the important is that "we go together".
And that is evident when we see millions of people buying the same things (a portable phone for example) or looking at the same program on TV, or worshipping a football player.
That in my opinion could be one of the explanations of the million downloads of Skype.
I don't think that suddenly millions have the need to call VoIP, long distance calls.
But millions, as belonging to the P2P family, felt the need to belong to this new "Mass Symbol" that was the P2P voice exchange.
Indicative of it was the use of "Skype me".
The big mistake would be to consider this as "The Future of VoIP".
But undoubtedly I must admit Skype had an important role: to widespread the notion of VoIP.
Thanks to it millions asked themselves: What is VoIP?
The same applies to the capability of seeing.
You can be as blind as you please and still say a lot and look like you know a lot.
I like to read and sniff around and sometimes I see things I wouldn't like to read.
But that is, the market is driven by a few and those few need to be talked about and if possibly in the best way.
We, as human beings, need to believe in something and to belong to something.
Once, when families still existed, one belonged to his family, then to his country then to his nation.
In a world where the borders are not so clear anymore and one tends to feel a citizen of the world, he still has the need to belong to something.
Being that a religion or a belief or a group.
May be that gives strength and power, or at least a feeling of.
That is why we see so many followers of a certain religion, people who could die for it and of course people who easily take advantage out of this feeling.
I think that a good protestant is much better than a bad catholic and has more chances to go to Heaven (if it exists) than the ones who feed the Vatican and the Church.
Of a different opinion is obviously the Catholic Church.
I guess you do not need to pay to have something you have for free, unless they convince you of it.
Being it the "collective unconscious" or just a need coming directly from the need of survival, we all tend to follow some sort of an ideal, a group, it is not important where they go, the important is that "we go together".
And that is evident when we see millions of people buying the same things (a portable phone for example) or looking at the same program on TV, or worshipping a football player.
That in my opinion could be one of the explanations of the million downloads of Skype.
I don't think that suddenly millions have the need to call VoIP, long distance calls.
But millions, as belonging to the P2P family, felt the need to belong to this new "Mass Symbol" that was the P2P voice exchange.
Indicative of it was the use of "Skype me".
The big mistake would be to consider this as "The Future of VoIP".
But undoubtedly I must admit Skype had an important role: to widespread the notion of VoIP.
Thanks to it millions asked themselves: What is VoIP?
VOIP is a product, not a service
"It took one hundred years between the time that fax was invented and people started asking “what’s your
fax number?” rather than “do you have a fax machine?” It took that long because of Metcalfe’s Law.
Fax machines can only talk to other fax machines and so there had to be lots of small networks set up
before there was any value in buying a single fax machine."
It didn't take one hundred years for the Fax machine to be widespread, it took very little.
There is an extremely well written article about it from Clay Shirky
"Zap Mail" have a look, I really love it
You could see in it also a very good forecast of the Future of VoIP.
As he says, what they didn't understand was that faxing was not a service, it was a product.
Exactly what VoIP is.
In spite of all the efforts to make it a service, like the old telephone system, VoIp is a product, it is an IP phone, and the infrastructures are already there, the Network is already there, it is called "Internet" and nobody should pay a further fee to have access to it.
The moment everybody will realize it (and believe me Metcalfe's law doesn't cover the sudden boom and the power of "Mouth to mouth") there won't be any more the need of a "service" to connect to the PSTN.
Clay Shirky has a great vision of the Market because he has a great vision of the human behaviour.
No computer, no mathematical law is able for the moment
(may be it will be someday, I do not want to put bounds to the artificial intelligence)to come to the same conclusions as a human brain, and also to understand the unpredictable of the human brain and consequently of the human behaviour...
But history tends to reapeat itself, because histroy is made by humans, and humans always repeat themselves..
Patrizia
fax number?” rather than “do you have a fax machine?” It took that long because of Metcalfe’s Law.
Fax machines can only talk to other fax machines and so there had to be lots of small networks set up
before there was any value in buying a single fax machine."
It didn't take one hundred years for the Fax machine to be widespread, it took very little.
There is an extremely well written article about it from Clay Shirky
"Zap Mail" have a look, I really love it
You could see in it also a very good forecast of the Future of VoIP.
As he says, what they didn't understand was that faxing was not a service, it was a product.
Exactly what VoIP is.
In spite of all the efforts to make it a service, like the old telephone system, VoIp is a product, it is an IP phone, and the infrastructures are already there, the Network is already there, it is called "Internet" and nobody should pay a further fee to have access to it.
The moment everybody will realize it (and believe me Metcalfe's law doesn't cover the sudden boom and the power of "Mouth to mouth") there won't be any more the need of a "service" to connect to the PSTN.
Clay Shirky has a great vision of the Market because he has a great vision of the human behaviour.
No computer, no mathematical law is able for the moment
(may be it will be someday, I do not want to put bounds to the artificial intelligence)to come to the same conclusions as a human brain, and also to understand the unpredictable of the human brain and consequently of the human behaviour...
But history tends to reapeat itself, because histroy is made by humans, and humans always repeat themselves..
Patrizia
Friday, April 22, 2005
Emailing and VoIP
"btw email vs. VoIP:
The battle of the PSTN mindset vs. the VoIP mindset reminds me a lot of the battle between the X.400 and the SMTP email standard of the late 80's. There is a lot to be learned from that one."
This is partially incorrect.
The comparison should be email against snail mail.
But there was and there is no fight.
It would be the same if the Telephone Voice business would be in the hands of the Government.
That is if they feared to loose revenues from emailing.
This is not the case.
On the contrary the Mail system's employees welcome emailing since it means less traffic and instead of meaning less revenues, it just means less work to do.
Let's imagine a scenario in which the Telecom's were in the hands of our government and the service didn't bring revenues, but mostly losses.
A service which should be paid by the tax payers independently from the fact that it works or not.
Well in this case, VoIP would be very much welcome!
Patrizia
The battle of the PSTN mindset vs. the VoIP mindset reminds me a lot of the battle between the X.400 and the SMTP email standard of the late 80's. There is a lot to be learned from that one."
This is partially incorrect.
The comparison should be email against snail mail.
But there was and there is no fight.
It would be the same if the Telephone Voice business would be in the hands of the Government.
That is if they feared to loose revenues from emailing.
This is not the case.
On the contrary the Mail system's employees welcome emailing since it means less traffic and instead of meaning less revenues, it just means less work to do.
Let's imagine a scenario in which the Telecom's were in the hands of our government and the service didn't bring revenues, but mostly losses.
A service which should be paid by the tax payers independently from the fact that it works or not.
Well in this case, VoIP would be very much welcome!
Patrizia
Wednesday, April 20, 2005
Bill Gates and the Telecoms
Sometimes we tend to over evaluate the big names.
We think" Since they are successful they must be great!"
This luckily is not always the case.
In point of fact, they are still humans and as humans they are bound to make as many mistakes as anybody else.
The problem is: the bigger you are the bigger your mistakes will be.
This stated I come to the point.
What was the biggest mistake of the Monopolistic Telecoms?
The same as Bill Gate's.
They under evaluated the power of the Internet and of VoIp and of course of everything that will come ever after.
Leasing the DSL lines at a flat cheap fee they signed their death sentence.
Using the data line as voice line will allow everybody to have unlimited calls around the world.
No "milking cow" for the Telcos.
No more easy revenues...
And very soon the other "milking cow" the "cellular phone business" will find its natural competitor in the healthier, cheaper and more efficient competitor:
"WI-FI"
We think" Since they are successful they must be great!"
This luckily is not always the case.
In point of fact, they are still humans and as humans they are bound to make as many mistakes as anybody else.
The problem is: the bigger you are the bigger your mistakes will be.
This stated I come to the point.
What was the biggest mistake of the Monopolistic Telecoms?
The same as Bill Gate's.
They under evaluated the power of the Internet and of VoIp and of course of everything that will come ever after.
Leasing the DSL lines at a flat cheap fee they signed their death sentence.
Using the data line as voice line will allow everybody to have unlimited calls around the world.
No "milking cow" for the Telcos.
No more easy revenues...
And very soon the other "milking cow" the "cellular phone business" will find its natural competitor in the healthier, cheaper and more efficient competitor:
"WI-FI"
The Telco's "Milking Cow"
We must consider the matter on the right point of view.
There are two lines, one is the Internet line and the other the telephone.
It doesn't matter if they belong to the same provider.
The data line is offered as DSL to transport data packages and follows certain rules.
The telephone line is offered to transport voice and follows other rules.
The voice line has been since long the "milking cow" of the various telco monopolies, they own the lines, the infrastructure (I am talking about Italy, but I guess more or less it applies to other countries) and they put the rules.
That is, you pay this and that.
Lately there is a small competition, but it is limited since the companies which lease the lines first do not own them, second they are few and do not want a war that would mean a huge lowering on prices (and revenues, no milking cow anymore)
The big mistake of the monopolies was to under evaluate the power VoIP will have as competitor to the voice line.
Because it is some years that we know about VoIP ( and the big monopolies are using it since long) but not so long that the hardware have become cheap and the quality of voice is astonishing (especially with H323).
The big mistake brought them to offer the data line at a cheap, flat rate.
That is the user leases the infrastructures at a good price and can use them also for "Voice".
No legislation could ever forbid something which is legal.
If I am allowed to send packages of sounds, for example Mp3, I can with every right to send my own sounds...whose copyrights belong to me.
This stated, it is clear that companies offering VoIP calls can have very good pricing.
Because most of the travel is already paid by the user (the Internet line) and on the service provider there are only the charges of the "last mile")
That could also be done by the Telco's, but then, where would finish the "milking" of the cow?
The future looks extremely bright.
But what nobody sees is that we are slowly passing from one monopoly to the other.
It is true, it is wonderful Skype Ip to Ip is free, but if you want to call an IP number on Skype's network, YOU MUST BELONG to the Network.
If you belong to the Vonage family you can call somebody on the Skype family, but you HAVE TO USE A TERMINATION, that is, you must at the end pay what they now call the "Roaming".
Yes, it is cheaper, it has another name, but it is still the same business model as before.
Do we really want this?
Do we really want many proprietary Networks or wouldn't we prefer a real FREE market, where everybody can call everybody, because everybody is using a STANDARD CODEC which not only is understood by his gatekeeper, but also by another gatekeeper using the standard codecs.
People should be aware when they buy a Hardware that they will be able to use it JUST with that provider and will be chained for life (or at least for the life of the hardware) to that.
This is a most important issue that nobody wants to discuss.
Because it is not convenient.
When you want to change a system YOU MUST PROPOSE something different.
Not only a CHEAPER copy of the existing one.
Patrizia
From a Real World on IP
http://www.worldonip.com
There are two lines, one is the Internet line and the other the telephone.
It doesn't matter if they belong to the same provider.
The data line is offered as DSL to transport data packages and follows certain rules.
The telephone line is offered to transport voice and follows other rules.
The voice line has been since long the "milking cow" of the various telco monopolies, they own the lines, the infrastructure (I am talking about Italy, but I guess more or less it applies to other countries) and they put the rules.
That is, you pay this and that.
Lately there is a small competition, but it is limited since the companies which lease the lines first do not own them, second they are few and do not want a war that would mean a huge lowering on prices (and revenues, no milking cow anymore)
The big mistake of the monopolies was to under evaluate the power VoIP will have as competitor to the voice line.
Because it is some years that we know about VoIP ( and the big monopolies are using it since long) but not so long that the hardware have become cheap and the quality of voice is astonishing (especially with H323).
The big mistake brought them to offer the data line at a cheap, flat rate.
That is the user leases the infrastructures at a good price and can use them also for "Voice".
No legislation could ever forbid something which is legal.
If I am allowed to send packages of sounds, for example Mp3, I can with every right to send my own sounds...whose copyrights belong to me.
This stated, it is clear that companies offering VoIP calls can have very good pricing.
Because most of the travel is already paid by the user (the Internet line) and on the service provider there are only the charges of the "last mile")
That could also be done by the Telco's, but then, where would finish the "milking" of the cow?
The future looks extremely bright.
But what nobody sees is that we are slowly passing from one monopoly to the other.
It is true, it is wonderful Skype Ip to Ip is free, but if you want to call an IP number on Skype's network, YOU MUST BELONG to the Network.
If you belong to the Vonage family you can call somebody on the Skype family, but you HAVE TO USE A TERMINATION, that is, you must at the end pay what they now call the "Roaming".
Yes, it is cheaper, it has another name, but it is still the same business model as before.
Do we really want this?
Do we really want many proprietary Networks or wouldn't we prefer a real FREE market, where everybody can call everybody, because everybody is using a STANDARD CODEC which not only is understood by his gatekeeper, but also by another gatekeeper using the standard codecs.
People should be aware when they buy a Hardware that they will be able to use it JUST with that provider and will be chained for life (or at least for the life of the hardware) to that.
This is a most important issue that nobody wants to discuss.
Because it is not convenient.
When you want to change a system YOU MUST PROPOSE something different.
Not only a CHEAPER copy of the existing one.
Patrizia
From a Real World on IP
http://www.worldonip.com
Monday, April 18, 2005
"Niklas Zennstr"m made a name for himself
"Niklas Zennstr"m made a name for himself as cofounder of the Kazaa peer-to-peer (P-to-P) file sharing service. The entrepreneurial Swede has already made his latest venture, the Skype P-to-P voice service well-known on the Internet, but hopes to make it a household brand.
In recent weeks, the chief executive officer (CEO) of Luxembourg-based Skype Technologies SA has signed a string of deals with wireless handset manufacturers. Carrier Devices, for instance, has agreed to install proprietary Skype VOIP (voice over Internet Protocol) software in its i-mate branded Pocket PC phones with Wi-Fi capability. Motorola is also on board to integrate Skype software into a number of its new wireless devices. Another big-name manufacturer on the list is Siemens, which has launched a dongle that runs Skype on Siemens' DECT phones.
The company also recently launched the beta of its Skype-in service, which gives users a "real-world" phone number on which to receive Skype calls. "
Didn't IBM begin to deliver computers with MSDOS and later Windows in them?
After almost 25 years we begin to see it was not such a good idea...
In recent weeks, the chief executive officer (CEO) of Luxembourg-based Skype Technologies SA has signed a string of deals with wireless handset manufacturers. Carrier Devices, for instance, has agreed to install proprietary Skype VOIP (voice over Internet Protocol) software in its i-mate branded Pocket PC phones with Wi-Fi capability. Motorola is also on board to integrate Skype software into a number of its new wireless devices. Another big-name manufacturer on the list is Siemens, which has launched a dongle that runs Skype on Siemens' DECT phones.
The company also recently launched the beta of its Skype-in service, which gives users a "real-world" phone number on which to receive Skype calls. "
Didn't IBM begin to deliver computers with MSDOS and later Windows in them?
After almost 25 years we begin to see it was not such a good idea...
What price freedom?
What price freedom?
A reader contacted me with the question: what do you reckon Skype is worth?
James Enck
Let's wait till the first good hacker comes in...and we will estimate the price.
But I can make a rough esteem:
Let's say out of 100 millions just 0,5% use Skype.
That makes 500.000 people.
Let's calculate 1 computer for every user, that makes 500.000 computers.
Let's say some are lucky and save in some miraculous way their precious tool, let's just consider 300.000
Among these, let's calculate 50% of Do It Yourself IT experts, who can repair their damages.
We still have 150.000 computers gone.
It could also have a good side.
Viewed on the side of the ones who will sell 150.000 new computers...
A reader contacted me with the question: what do you reckon Skype is worth?
James Enck
Let's wait till the first good hacker comes in...and we will estimate the price.
But I can make a rough esteem:
Let's say out of 100 millions just 0,5% use Skype.
That makes 500.000 people.
Let's calculate 1 computer for every user, that makes 500.000 computers.
Let's say some are lucky and save in some miraculous way their precious tool, let's just consider 300.000
Among these, let's calculate 50% of Do It Yourself IT experts, who can repair their damages.
We still have 150.000 computers gone.
It could also have a good side.
Viewed on the side of the ones who will sell 150.000 new computers...
It's hard not to getting the feeling ...
"It's hard not to getting the feeling the VOIP market is beginning to fragment into different segments ..."
because it not only is, but always was.
VoIP is not only saving money, it should be saving 99%.
In principle the infrastructure IS already there, that is THE INTERNET and the customers should just use it.
But what is happening?
A miriades of Providers are trying to make as many customers as possible, chaining them to a proprietary system, some do not even say what codec.
They allure them with "free IP to IP" then sell more or less expensive "in and out".
In principle what they say is "Let's fight the Telco's monopoly", but the result is nothing else than a (cheaper) monopoly.
And it is cheaper, because the leasing of the infrastructures is already paid by the customer.
And they do not say that theirs is a close Network and the way out is through the PSTN, the "termination".
It is true, you just pay the local call, because you already pay the Internet trip to another provider.
I do not say VoIP is not a great thing, I say it is the greatest after the invention of the Computer and the Internet.
What I say is that, since the customer already pays the Internet access, he should just pay the additional use of the local gateway, which should use a standard codec which should make the VoIP Network an open Network and not another series of small and big monopolies.
I tell you what THE ONLY FUTURE of VoIP can be.
The use of the Internet for sending voice packets. This and nothing else.
Skype is already leasing its system to a company in Taiwan, soon it will be somebody else.
History repeats itself.
The big monopolies leasing the switches and the lines to emerging Telco companies.
It just has another name and lower pricing...
because it not only is, but always was.
VoIP is not only saving money, it should be saving 99%.
In principle the infrastructure IS already there, that is THE INTERNET and the customers should just use it.
But what is happening?
A miriades of Providers are trying to make as many customers as possible, chaining them to a proprietary system, some do not even say what codec.
They allure them with "free IP to IP" then sell more or less expensive "in and out".
In principle what they say is "Let's fight the Telco's monopoly", but the result is nothing else than a (cheaper) monopoly.
And it is cheaper, because the leasing of the infrastructures is already paid by the customer.
And they do not say that theirs is a close Network and the way out is through the PSTN, the "termination".
It is true, you just pay the local call, because you already pay the Internet trip to another provider.
I do not say VoIP is not a great thing, I say it is the greatest after the invention of the Computer and the Internet.
What I say is that, since the customer already pays the Internet access, he should just pay the additional use of the local gateway, which should use a standard codec which should make the VoIP Network an open Network and not another series of small and big monopolies.
I tell you what THE ONLY FUTURE of VoIP can be.
The use of the Internet for sending voice packets. This and nothing else.
Skype is already leasing its system to a company in Taiwan, soon it will be somebody else.
History repeats itself.
The big monopolies leasing the switches and the lines to emerging Telco companies.
It just has another name and lower pricing...
Saturday, April 16, 2005
All what is written below...
All what is written below assumes that most religious people understand what religion is and what they believe without discussing.
But it is very likely in my opinion that they believe "because they told them so" or "because it is the tradition of their country" or, as my mother says "Sometimes I believe there is nothing, but you never know..."
But it is very likely in my opinion that they believe "because they told them so" or "because it is the tradition of their country" or, as my mother says "Sometimes I believe there is nothing, but you never know..."
Friday, April 15, 2005
Content
It is important to have a nice voice of course, like having a nice face or a nice body.
It is like a nice package.
It is the way you present the stuff that makes it.
But not always and not anything.
If there is no content you can wrap it in the nicest ways, you just have a nice package.
And that is for DSL and more for Fiber Optics.
Speed is nice, but if you do not have content to transport, it is just a waste...
May be that is why it was and still it is so widespread.
The moment Napster invented the P2P, he made the fortune of the fast lines.
Because he could provide VERY GOOD CONTENT...
But what is Fiber Optic worth, if we use it (not) to look at our TV?
It is like a nice package.
It is the way you present the stuff that makes it.
But not always and not anything.
If there is no content you can wrap it in the nicest ways, you just have a nice package.
And that is for DSL and more for Fiber Optics.
Speed is nice, but if you do not have content to transport, it is just a waste...
May be that is why it was and still it is so widespread.
The moment Napster invented the P2P, he made the fortune of the fast lines.
Because he could provide VERY GOOD CONTENT...
But what is Fiber Optic worth, if we use it (not) to look at our TV?
Wednesday, April 13, 2005
The "Chineses" and us.
Basically it could be said we are the same.
We both are human, even if born in a different place with a different history, with different uses and way of living.
What we have in abundance and they don't is the taxes.
What they have in abundance and we don't is an empty belly.
Both circumstances make the cost of the work different, very high here, very low there.
That makes the products' prices very different.
And that is why we buy from them and they sell to us.
All measures done to change this relationship should mainly consider the above statements.
Otherwise if we do not acknowledge our mistakes we are condemned to repeat them.
We both are human, even if born in a different place with a different history, with different uses and way of living.
What we have in abundance and they don't is the taxes.
What they have in abundance and we don't is an empty belly.
Both circumstances make the cost of the work different, very high here, very low there.
That makes the products' prices very different.
And that is why we buy from them and they sell to us.
All measures done to change this relationship should mainly consider the above statements.
Otherwise if we do not acknowledge our mistakes we are condemned to repeat them.
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
The London-Brighton trains
Daily Telegraph: [In the UK,] Southern Railway and T-Mobile will unveil details [this] week of the world's first train wireless broadband service. The T-Mobile HotSpot service will allow up to 8,000 daily commuters on the London to Brighton route to access the internet. It will be launched in the summer.
Links:
Daily Telegraph
Southern Railway
T-Mobile
I always thought Italy was going to have a winning award for the antiquity of the carriage trains, till I travelled from London to Brighton.
They even still have those nice old style doors that open in every compartment and make the train looking so "Shelockholmish".
Reading about the "Hot Spots" on the London-Brighton trains looks to me like putting a lipstick on a gorilla's mouth and believing that he is going to look attractive.
Links:
Daily Telegraph
Southern Railway
T-Mobile
I always thought Italy was going to have a winning award for the antiquity of the carriage trains, till I travelled from London to Brighton.
They even still have those nice old style doors that open in every compartment and make the train looking so "Shelockholmish".
Reading about the "Hot Spots" on the London-Brighton trains looks to me like putting a lipstick on a gorilla's mouth and believing that he is going to look attractive.
The Telecoms do not know the Value, but certainly know the price...
Bread with butter: Euro 0.80
Bread with Margarine: Euro 0.60
Bread without butter: Euro 0.40
Bread without margarine: Euro 0.20
It sounds ridiculous, but it is just like:
Telephone call with VoIP: Euro 1/min. (Telecom)
VoIP call: Euro 0.02/min (VoIP provider)
Telephone call without VoIP: Euro 1.50/min
VoIP call without termination: Euro 0.00/min
Sometimes what you buy is the same, the only difference is the price.
It looks like the Telecoms do not know the Value, but know the Price.
Bread with Margarine: Euro 0.60
Bread without butter: Euro 0.40
Bread without margarine: Euro 0.20
It sounds ridiculous, but it is just like:
Telephone call with VoIP: Euro 1/min. (Telecom)
VoIP call: Euro 0.02/min (VoIP provider)
Telephone call without VoIP: Euro 1.50/min
VoIP call without termination: Euro 0.00/min
Sometimes what you buy is the same, the only difference is the price.
It looks like the Telecoms do not know the Value, but know the Price.
Sunday, April 10, 2005
Money can't buy back your youth when you're old...
Money can't buy back your youth when you're old...
And also cannot buy life when you're dead.
That is good, otherwise we would kill each other in order to live forever....
And also cannot buy life when you're dead.
That is good, otherwise we would kill each other in order to live forever....
Where is Europe going?
"For two thousand years or more man has been subject to a systematic effort to transform him in an unselfish animal.
Parental discipline, religious denunciation of selfish behaviour and philosophic exaltation of the life of reason have all left man overtly docile, but secretly in his unconscious unconvinced.
In spite of two thousand years of higher education, based on the notion that man is essentially a soul for misterious accidental reasons, man still thinks of himself as first and foremost a body and looks for the fullfillment of his own pleasures."
"A new class emerged during the Middle Ages; the merchant. The growth
of trade and the merchant middle class went hand in hand with the
growth in towns. Town populations swelled during this period,
particularly after the Black Death. Trade routes grew, though roads
remained poor and dangerous, so most goods were transported by water."
The richness was slowly more distributed among the people, the new middle class meant also the growth of the "mass market" of "mass services" like TV or Telephone or printed media and lately the Internet.
We lived dreaming of a new society where the pleasures of the "mind" (culture, knowledge) were superior to the pleasures of the "body".
Where a growing number of people could have access to a superior culture and wisdom.
The creation of a new wealth gave birth to a society based on the need of consuming more and more in order to be able to produce more and more.
The creation of the society of "having" instead of "being".
And in order to have more and more it is not important anymore the "way", but "what", no more "how" but "how much".
Where is Europe going?
Exactly in the same direction where the rest of the World is going.
May be at a faster speed.
To sell more portable phones they have to create the need of a different model, the need to create a sick population in order to have a healthy economy.
There will never be the ideal society, because man is not idealistically ideal.
But what they could create could be a society with ideals, with goals that are not a faster car or a new phone.
Also if that means a slower economical growth, which anyway makes richer the rich and poorer the poor...
Parental discipline, religious denunciation of selfish behaviour and philosophic exaltation of the life of reason have all left man overtly docile, but secretly in his unconscious unconvinced.
In spite of two thousand years of higher education, based on the notion that man is essentially a soul for misterious accidental reasons, man still thinks of himself as first and foremost a body and looks for the fullfillment of his own pleasures."
"A new class emerged during the Middle Ages; the merchant. The growth
of trade and the merchant middle class went hand in hand with the
growth in towns. Town populations swelled during this period,
particularly after the Black Death. Trade routes grew, though roads
remained poor and dangerous, so most goods were transported by water."
The richness was slowly more distributed among the people, the new middle class meant also the growth of the "mass market" of "mass services" like TV or Telephone or printed media and lately the Internet.
We lived dreaming of a new society where the pleasures of the "mind" (culture, knowledge) were superior to the pleasures of the "body".
Where a growing number of people could have access to a superior culture and wisdom.
The creation of a new wealth gave birth to a society based on the need of consuming more and more in order to be able to produce more and more.
The creation of the society of "having" instead of "being".
And in order to have more and more it is not important anymore the "way", but "what", no more "how" but "how much".
Where is Europe going?
Exactly in the same direction where the rest of the World is going.
May be at a faster speed.
To sell more portable phones they have to create the need of a different model, the need to create a sick population in order to have a healthy economy.
There will never be the ideal society, because man is not idealistically ideal.
But what they could create could be a society with ideals, with goals that are not a faster car or a new phone.
Also if that means a slower economical growth, which anyway makes richer the rich and poorer the poor...
Saturday, April 09, 2005
Who is going to pay for freedom?
"It is written that Freedom of the Press is only for those with presses. But Freedom to Connect is potentially available to everybody; the main economic limit is the need for sustainable networks that will improve as new technology becomes available.
How can we best do this?
The revolution has already begun.
Let's all jump on the Internet's train, let's make it possible also for the people who live in a remote village in Africa, let's make it available also to the people who think they do not need it: they will, as soon as they try it.
Talking is the first need of any human being. Before even trying to eat the newborn begins to scream.
Who will build, operate and govern these networks?
Every human need created a business and a big one. Why people do not see it?
Why do we still let the Monopolies of this world pretend to be blind?
Who will decide how we use them?
People will decide.
Who will pay?
That is the interesting part.
As the intelligence is at the edges, also the bill is at the edges.
Few dollars for every end will make millions for a huge Network.
Who will gain?
Everybody who is intelligent enough...
Jon Lebkowsky
How can we best do this?
The revolution has already begun.
Let's all jump on the Internet's train, let's make it possible also for the people who live in a remote village in Africa, let's make it available also to the people who think they do not need it: they will, as soon as they try it.
Talking is the first need of any human being. Before even trying to eat the newborn begins to scream.
Who will build, operate and govern these networks?
Every human need created a business and a big one. Why people do not see it?
Why do we still let the Monopolies of this world pretend to be blind?
Who will decide how we use them?
People will decide.
Who will pay?
That is the interesting part.
As the intelligence is at the edges, also the bill is at the edges.
Few dollars for every end will make millions for a huge Network.
Who will gain?
Everybody who is intelligent enough...
Jon Lebkowsky
Friday, April 08, 2005
Intelligence
Someone has suggested that intelligence is what you use when you don't know what you do.
That's a relief to know because I was brought up to believe that intelligence was the major ingredient in everything I was not good at: Latin, physics algebra and others.
Intelligence has been given a fixed value so it is easier to grasp, in consequence we treat it as something specific rather than a convenient label.
It's fallacy to think people can be neatly ranked from ape to Einstein.
Those who compose intelligence tests can only measure skills similar to their own.
Conventional IQ tests would be useless in assessing the spatial intelligence of a Rudolf Nureyev, the musical intelligence of a Philip Glass, or the visual intelligence of an Alexander Calder.
Originally the designing of artificial intelligence programmes was based on logical deduction and rational response.
In consequence it was easier to mimic the thought process of a chess master concerned with determined patterns, than a child who imagines randomly and makes improbable analogies.
To be comparable to the real thing artificial intelligence has to accommodate subjective as well as objective processes.
And that's about the unpredictable and irrational, in other words behaving like humans.
We are overly impressed by the ability to calculate and rationalize, and inadequately impressed by the ability to see possibilities and make connections.
And connections, as Adam and Eve discovered, are what life is about.
That's a relief to know because I was brought up to believe that intelligence was the major ingredient in everything I was not good at: Latin, physics algebra and others.
Intelligence has been given a fixed value so it is easier to grasp, in consequence we treat it as something specific rather than a convenient label.
It's fallacy to think people can be neatly ranked from ape to Einstein.
Those who compose intelligence tests can only measure skills similar to their own.
Conventional IQ tests would be useless in assessing the spatial intelligence of a Rudolf Nureyev, the musical intelligence of a Philip Glass, or the visual intelligence of an Alexander Calder.
Originally the designing of artificial intelligence programmes was based on logical deduction and rational response.
In consequence it was easier to mimic the thought process of a chess master concerned with determined patterns, than a child who imagines randomly and makes improbable analogies.
To be comparable to the real thing artificial intelligence has to accommodate subjective as well as objective processes.
And that's about the unpredictable and irrational, in other words behaving like humans.
We are overly impressed by the ability to calculate and rationalize, and inadequately impressed by the ability to see possibilities and make connections.
And connections, as Adam and Eve discovered, are what life is about.
Sunday, April 03, 2005
Commenting...
Comments Revisited
Good news everyone! We've updated the way comments work. Among the many improvements are pop-up windows for comments and the ability for commenters to fill in their name and web site info—no Blogger account needed.
Bad news everyone! It is for nothing to update the way comments work.
The few who comment really couldn't care less and the many who do not comment do not care at all...
Good news everyone! We've updated the way comments work. Among the many improvements are pop-up windows for comments and the ability for commenters to fill in their name and web site info—no Blogger account needed.
Bad news everyone! It is for nothing to update the way comments work.
The few who comment really couldn't care less and the many who do not comment do not care at all...
The death of the Pope
There is no religion which does not contain some truth, none which contains the whole truth, for Religion is the light of truth as reflected in human mirrors and however pure and spotless your mirror may be, there is none which in reflecting does not deflect the rays of light that fall on it.
The true religion of the future will be the fulfilment of all the religions of the past, the true religion of humanity, that which, in the struggle of history, remains as the indestructible portion of all the so called false religions of mankind.
There never was a false God, nor was there ever really a false religion, unless you call a child a false man.
All religions had the same purpose; all were links in a chain which connects heaven and earth.
All here on earth tends toward right and true and perfection; nothing here on earth can ever be quite right, quite true, quite perfect, not even Christianity so long as it excludes all other religions, instead of loving and embracing what is good in each.
The Sacred Books are full of rubbish, but among that rubbish there are old stones which the builders of the true temple of humanity will not reject.
The present society is utterly wrong and getting worse, I mean the excessive poverty of one side and the excessive wealth on the other.
The true religion of the future will be the fulfilment of all the religions of the past, the true religion of humanity, that which, in the struggle of history, remains as the indestructible portion of all the so called false religions of mankind.
There never was a false God, nor was there ever really a false religion, unless you call a child a false man.
All religions had the same purpose; all were links in a chain which connects heaven and earth.
All here on earth tends toward right and true and perfection; nothing here on earth can ever be quite right, quite true, quite perfect, not even Christianity so long as it excludes all other religions, instead of loving and embracing what is good in each.
The Sacred Books are full of rubbish, but among that rubbish there are old stones which the builders of the true temple of humanity will not reject.
The present society is utterly wrong and getting worse, I mean the excessive poverty of one side and the excessive wealth on the other.
Saturday, April 02, 2005
The side effect of being born human
"No other mammal has babies nearly as helpless as ours. Even blind puppies walk to their first nursing. And the reflexive curling of Katy’s toes reminds me that, if she were a monkey, she’d already he able to hold onto a branch."
That is exactly the point.
Why computer's programs of today are far away from human brain.
They are built as a finished product.
It can do a lot, millions of functions, but it stops there.
The computer in human brain has a very reduced number of functions, but has what no computer's program has: the function of learning.
And not just with a logic function like a syllogysm, if A is B and B is C then A is C.
The human brain can see when A can be C and when it cannot.
For the computer program those functions are very reduced and very definitive.
A computer will never understand that A could be C in the case of a rational behaviour, but it would never be C in an irrational behaviour.
The human brain is rational enough to understand also the irrational.
And the fact we cannot walk or do anything else when we are born is done on purpose.
We ARE OBLIGED to learn, that is, WE ARE OBLIGED to use our brain in order to survive, and WE ARE OBLIGED to develop it.
That is the side effect of being born human.
(even though lately I am beginning to doubt about the humanity of many...)
That is exactly the point.
Why computer's programs of today are far away from human brain.
They are built as a finished product.
It can do a lot, millions of functions, but it stops there.
The computer in human brain has a very reduced number of functions, but has what no computer's program has: the function of learning.
And not just with a logic function like a syllogysm, if A is B and B is C then A is C.
The human brain can see when A can be C and when it cannot.
For the computer program those functions are very reduced and very definitive.
A computer will never understand that A could be C in the case of a rational behaviour, but it would never be C in an irrational behaviour.
The human brain is rational enough to understand also the irrational.
And the fact we cannot walk or do anything else when we are born is done on purpose.
We ARE OBLIGED to learn, that is, WE ARE OBLIGED to use our brain in order to survive, and WE ARE OBLIGED to develop it.
That is the side effect of being born human.
(even though lately I am beginning to doubt about the humanity of many...)
Friday, April 01, 2005
Europe's recovery
Nobody of course remembers previous crises, the past is nice because it is a collection of happy moments.
How happy we were when we were young!
At that time people didn't care for portable phones or video games.
We had more friends, we were "social", we lived life in its full potential.
We were also more intelligent, worked more and were more creative than the actual young people.
That is exactly the point: the World is going bust because we are not "on the scene" anymore....
And what the government does for promoting Europe's recovery looks practically useless.
Of course, we lack the raw material...
What to do?
May be we could start growing a new generation of "brains" made in Europe.
But that would cause problems.
First we have the need to upgrade our schools, second we would have the need to lower the taxes (but how could we feed the miriades of our politicians and co.?), third we would face the risk of loosing our identities, as French, as Germans, as Italians.
May be we would even risk to speak chinese!
I do not really know what to say...
How happy we were when we were young!
At that time people didn't care for portable phones or video games.
We had more friends, we were "social", we lived life in its full potential.
We were also more intelligent, worked more and were more creative than the actual young people.
That is exactly the point: the World is going bust because we are not "on the scene" anymore....
And what the government does for promoting Europe's recovery looks practically useless.
Of course, we lack the raw material...
What to do?
May be we could start growing a new generation of "brains" made in Europe.
But that would cause problems.
First we have the need to upgrade our schools, second we would have the need to lower the taxes (but how could we feed the miriades of our politicians and co.?), third we would face the risk of loosing our identities, as French, as Germans, as Italians.
May be we would even risk to speak chinese!
I do not really know what to say...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Stumble It!