-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
- --On Wednesday, December 04, 2002 21:12:59 +0100 Carl Moberg
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Which is why my bank requires me to use an in-band authentication system
>> when I talk to them over IP, and do not require me to come from a
>> specific IP address. For once, the banks got it right in the big picture.
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but last I looked, HTTP was
> encapsulated in IP on all occasions.
Of course it is. That is not what I'm talking about. I am trying to make
the point that the bank does not care about the origin IP address -- as
long as the login data is correct.
And that is the correct approach for their service; the customer wants to
be able to use the service from pretty much anywhere. It is not the correct
approach if you know the two things inherent in broadband to the home,
* Where the copper pair(s) end up.
* Name and billing address of subscriber.
You then know who to bill and blame for services and abuse occuring from
that connection and you know the IP addresses (if you have any logging
worth its salt.). It works for electricity, water, garbage collection, and
POTS, and probably for more utilities. Why not for IP?
In short, you have all knowledge necessary. Making this more complicated
than it needs to be serves only two purposes:
* It looks like a modem connection, helping the warm and fuzzy feeling of
telco PHBen that have failed to adjust.
* It enables the vendors of telco-style billing solutions to survive in an
always-on world that has at best limited use for their services.
> I agree that my parallell was unclear and not very useful, but as I said
> in the reply to Jakob; the ISPs are looking to be service providers in
> contrast to infrastructure salesmen and administrators.
Something they should stop trying to. Look at Bostream -- they sell just
somewhat better bandwidth, fixed IP address, and otherwise no-fuss service,
and are able to charge more than the b0rken service from the Telco.
> You probably won't have to give up always on, but
> I suspect that you may have to pay more money for
> it in the future (at least if you're planning to buy it of
> the shelf and don't make private arrangements).
I pay much more already, because I can and am prepared to, and it makes
sense to me and my needs. So, yes, I am a fringe case.
> I completely agree on this point. I'm not really sure that you
> understand what people want. My guess is that they want
> to read email and don't care whether their data is sent over
> CAT-5, barbwire or radio. More importantly they don't care
> if they have a 512 Kbps link or 100Mbps as long as they
> don't experience latency in whatever they're doing.
> "Services, not technology"
They, as soon as they have been liberated from all the stupid login stuff,
won't look back. You are right in the bandwidth vs latency case, though.
Måns Nilsson Systems Specialist
+46 70 681 7204 KTHNOC MN1334-RIPE
We're sysadmins. To us, data is a protocol-overhead.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (OpenBSD)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----