3 ms·

Please explain what these "special pipes" are connected to? Oh right they would have to to connect to "special routers" that didn't run IP at all. Special route

Please explain what these "special pipes" are connected to? Oh right they would have to to connect to "special routers" that didn't run IP at all. Special routers that these companies would have design and produce themselves. And convince carriers to put in their networks. Do you think these telcos, who have an almost adversarial towards these "over the top" services are going to build out a parallel network and commit cap ex to accommodate these companies new proprietary non-IP protocol networking devices? "Special contracts"? What does that even mean? The dustbin of history is filled with proprietary network protocols - DECnet, IBM's SNA, Xeros XNS, Banyan Vines, Novell Netware Apple Talk. There's a good reason the world converged on TCP/IP. Seriously your assertion is completely absurd.

coldtea 8y ago
>Do you think these telcos, who have an almost adversarial towards these "over the top" services are going to build out a parallel network and commit cap ex to accommodate these companies new proprietary non-IP protocol networking devices? Telcos can (and sometimes are) part of nice profitable conglomerates with those "over the top" services. Inversely, other times those "over the top" services try to be their own telcos (e.g. AOL and TW/Cable, on one hand, and Google and it's Fiber or FB and its "balloon internet"). It's not unfathomable than one or the other will succeed at some point. Here's some food for thought: https://www.wired.co.uk/article/google-project-loon-balloon-facebook-aquila-internet-africa https://www.wired.co.uk/article/google-project-loon-balloon-... >"Special contracts"? What does that even mean? Carriers have had special deals with companies like Facebook, (and of course with their own owned content delivery subsidiaries), since forever... >There's a good reason the world converged on TCP/IP. Yeah, and there's a even better reason why the first that can create a proprietary pipe and lock its users in even more will get off of it pronto. You don't want to be tied to commodity resources and technology if you can avoid it. We already have companies like Google who control both the half mobile OS space and half of the web's traffic (search, mail, video) and who venture into pushing their own protocols (AMP, SPDY, the "Google Wave Federation Protocol") and connectivity. In fact, if you had paid attention, you'd seen that Google already has not just plans, but it's own implementation, to replace TCP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QUIC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QUIC Probably they didn't get the memo about how "completely absurd" my assertion is...
- bogomipz 8y ago
  >"In fact, if you had paid attention, you'd seen that Google already has not just plans, but it's own implementation, to replace TCP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QUIC" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QUIC" What you have just demonstrated is that you don't understand networking or networking terminology. "TCP/IP" is used to refer to the entire suite of protocols.[1] Part of that suite iS UDP. The U in QUIC is for UDP. QUIC uses UDP. And both UDP and QUIC are IETF standards.[1]. There is nothing proprietary about an an open standard is there? And what protocols use QUIC? HTTP and TLS also IETF standards. Oh and QUIC falls back to TCP too. And the decision to put QUIC on top of UDP rather than on top of IP was due to problems with middle boxes(see SCTP.) Is had nothing to do with trying to create a "proprietary pipe." >"Carriers have had special deals with companies like Facebook, (and of course with their own owned content delivery subsidiaries), since forever.." Yeah that special deal is called "zero rating" and it's where FB gives a ton of cash to the incumbent PTT in developing countries. Any carrier is happy to do this for you if you pay them enough cash. This has nothing to do with a carrier operating special networking gear for FB. FB builds and operates their own CDN and previously used Akami which is not owned by a carrier. [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1180 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1180 [2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/quic/about/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/quic/about/
bewo001 8y ago
There are examples for this, eg carrier IPTV. 3GPP IMS had the grand vision of telco-controlled Internet Multimedia System (IMS), an Internet modeled after the phone network. It runs over separate lines or at least separate layer 2 sessions. An application would use a signaling protocol (SIP etc) to request access to "multimedia" services like gaming, the telco would reserve bandwidth and guarantee that the service could be accessed with assured quality (and billed, of course). While IMS uses internet tech, it has a completely different philosophy. I'm not aware of any IMS network that went beyond doing telephony, though.
- bogomipz 8y ago
  Are you listing these as failures then? IPTV would be little more than a niche presence globally no?
  - bewo001 8y ago
    Those systems are not complete failures, but the underlying philosophy has certainly failed. People don't prefer the ISP's QoS-guaranteed IPTV product over Netflix or Youtube, which was the IPTV systems vendors' promise.

coldtea 8y ago

>Do you think these telcos, who have an almost adversarial towards these "over the top" services are going to build out a parallel network and commit cap ex to accommodate these companies new proprietary non-IP protocol networking devices? Telcos can (and sometimes are) part of nice profitable conglomerates with those "over the top" services. Inversely, other times those "over the top" services try to be their own telcos (e.g. AOL and TW/Cable, on one hand, and Google and it's Fiber or FB and its "balloon internet"). It's not unfathomable than one or the other will succeed at some point. Here's some food for thought: https://www.wired.co.uk/article/google-project-loon-balloon-facebook-aquila-internet-africa https://www.wired.co.uk/article/google-project-loon-balloon-... >"Special contracts"? What does that even mean? Carriers have had special deals with companies like Facebook, (and of course with their own owned content delivery subsidiaries), since forever... >There's a good reason the world converged on TCP/IP. Yeah, and there's a even better reason why the first that can create a proprietary pipe and lock its users in even more will get off of it pronto. You don't want to be tied to commodity resources and technology if you can avoid it. We already have companies like Google who control both the half mobile OS space and half of the web's traffic (search, mail, video) and who venture into pushing their own protocols (AMP, SPDY, the "Google Wave Federation Protocol") and connectivity. In fact, if you had paid attention, you'd seen that Google already has not just plans, but it's own implementation, to replace TCP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QUIC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QUIC Probably they didn't get the memo about how "completely absurd" my assertion is...

bogomipz 8y ago
>"In fact, if you had paid attention, you'd seen that Google already has not just plans, but it's own implementation, to replace TCP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QUIC" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QUIC" What you have just demonstrated is that you don't understand networking or networking terminology. "TCP/IP" is used to refer to the entire suite of protocols.[1] Part of that suite iS UDP. The U in QUIC is for UDP. QUIC uses UDP. And both UDP and QUIC are IETF standards.[1]. There is nothing proprietary about an an open standard is there? And what protocols use QUIC? HTTP and TLS also IETF standards. Oh and QUIC falls back to TCP too. And the decision to put QUIC on top of UDP rather than on top of IP was due to problems with middle boxes(see SCTP.) Is had nothing to do with trying to create a "proprietary pipe." >"Carriers have had special deals with companies like Facebook, (and of course with their own owned content delivery subsidiaries), since forever.." Yeah that special deal is called "zero rating" and it's where FB gives a ton of cash to the incumbent PTT in developing countries. Any carrier is happy to do this for you if you pay them enough cash. This has nothing to do with a carrier operating special networking gear for FB. FB builds and operates their own CDN and previously used Akami which is not owned by a carrier. [1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1180 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1180 [2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/quic/about/ https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/quic/about/

bewo001 8y ago

There are examples for this, eg carrier IPTV. 3GPP IMS had the grand vision of telco-controlled Internet Multimedia System (IMS), an Internet modeled after the phone network. It runs over separate lines or at least separate layer 2 sessions. An application would use a signaling protocol (SIP etc) to request access to "multimedia" services like gaming, the telco would reserve bandwidth and guarantee that the service could be accessed with assured quality (and billed, of course). While IMS uses internet tech, it has a completely different philosophy. I'm not aware of any IMS network that went beyond doing telephony, though.

bogomipz 8y ago
Are you listing these as failures then? IPTV would be little more than a niche presence globally no?
- bewo001 8y ago
  Those systems are not complete failures, but the underlying philosophy has certainly failed. People don't prefer the ISP's QoS-guaranteed IPTV product over Netflix or Youtube, which was the IPTV systems vendors' promise.