On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Carl Moberg wrote:
> >same could apply to pstn phone lines, but noone requires a pin code before
> >dialing either. if this is a question about liablity, then perhaps the
> >subscriber contract should be changed to reflect reality.
> No, it's simply a question of authentication, authorization and
> accounting (AAA). The weak form of AAA used for voice over POTS may be
> sufficient in that specific case, but my bank sure still want a PIN in
> order to give me information on my account balance.
pstn telco <--> isp
bank <--> bank
the connection itself is not authenticated. yes, you need authentication
on media shared by several users (such as public wlan hotspots) but not
for dsl access. the isp knows there the copper terminates.
> Well, I partly agree. Some users want a simple always on service, most
> users don't really care if they have to type their username and
> password, especially not if that means that they may get cheaper access.
> No user wants to pay for the full weight of always on.
how could the telia dsl access be cheaper with authentication? most users
are already working around it anyway and the customers are not billed for
how long they use the services, it is already always on.
however, the access would be cheaper if telia didn't have to buy the
equipment doing the authentication ...
> Why is it that we don't have a lot more
> *DSL/Ethernet/Barbwire-to-the-home operators in Sweden.
with the risk of finger pointing, I believe the largest reason is spelled
> PANA is one shot at it, yes, there are others solutions already in use
> with paying customers (e.g. http://www.weca.net/) that aim and shoot for
> a subset of the PANA problem domain.
if pana succeeds, the other will most probably die - this has been the
case for most other non-ietf protocols.