Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : The *NEW* Frank Coluccio Technology Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: axial who wrote (10992)	8/12/2005 2:10:17 AM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Respond to of 46821

Great question, Jim. But you may have inadvertently touched on an even more fundamental question when you asked: "... are carriers obliged to handle all traffic that makes use of their resources, at their cost?" Does the carrier in question boast about being a common carrier? An information service provider? An Internet Service Provider? At the root of the problem is that the incumbents want all of the benefits of all three categories while seeking safeguards against the down sides of all three at the same time. Why should an ISP, if that's what they want to be, care what is contained within the packets that traverse its nodes and lines? For the information services provider (when different than an ISP) and for the common carrier, I ask the same? Didn't the telcos fight long and hard to be given information services provider status, which they finally achieved last week? It's when the content that is carried over their lines competes with their own vertical services at the application layer - such as when Skype of TelTel is used in lieu of the telcos' measured voice services over the PSTN - that they understandably get upset. But that's just a littel bit of the tough noogies, isn't it? The situation would be tantamount to the post office pouting to congress because the Internet's carriage of email has eaten so much of their lunch. You don't see anyone at this time complaining about having to carry email in fulfilling their roles as ISPs and information services providers, do you? So why else, besides the notion that its packets are able to travel "free" hence competing with their tariffed voice services, should incumbents be concerned with carrying Skype packets? In actuality those packets don't travel any freer than pings, adress advertisements, tracerts or emails do, since someone along the way pays for them within the ecosystem of access, transit, peering fees, ultimately leading down to the the 39.95 that cable modem users pay each month to their MSO or telco, in addition to the rates paid by enterprises for same. FAC

To: axial who wrote (10992)	8/12/2005 7:43:20 PM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 46821

Will CIOs abandon the Internet? -- Hi Jim, This recent Dave Farber interview touches on some of the points that you brought up in your last message. While he mentions the liability that businesses face with shareholders, he doesn't take if far enough by revealing that there are laws on the books that carry "criminal" consequences for officers, at a personal level, who are guilty of negligence in areas where their companies are entrusted with the public's general welfare and public funds. Nothing astoundingly new here, just some airing of common sense. -- The big question: Will CIOs abandon the Internet? By Tissie Adhistia Professor David Farber, considered by many as the grandfather of the Internet, recently delivered a talk in Singapore. He tells Tissie Adhistia that CIOs may not have a choice when it comes to use of the Internet. As the Internet poses many annoyances and threats, CIOs may rebel against using it. What is your view? I think they don't have a choice when it comes to the use of the Internet. It is part of the business fabric. It's like your telephone, it may annoy you but you can't get rid of it because you'll be out of business. So, what CIOs should be doing is putting pressure on vendors to implement the best security measures. Essentially holding their noses to the grindstone, and not agreeing to any exemptions. It is not an easy problem. It's all the cost of doing business. It's a trade-off and companies could actually say they can live with the problems because the benefits are enormous. So I don't believe that people would turn away from the Internet, as the advantages would balance off the annoyance and threats. How important is an Internet security standard and how do you see its progress? Yes it is important. In the long term, a security standard is mostly going to be motivated by insurance companies. In most companies, even if they don't have direct cyber insurance, they have insurance that covers a lot of their operations. And those insurance companies will start taking into account the risks that will be reflected in their premiums. Also in the US, there are rules that require businesses to certify that their financial data is properly protected. If they lie about it, certainly stockholders will not be pleased. So there are a lot of practices that make people pay attention to Internet security. Again, it's a trade-off. I think people will be willing to spend a reasonable amount of money on security to meet the standard. The Internet is dominated by a few major players. What is the implication given that it is supposed to be an open platform? I think it is open. I use myself four different browsers and I constantly trade them. Each has its advantages. I would use them for different purposes depending on the advantages. For example, Google is good for some things but terrible for others. People use the whole set of these browsers or search engines, and more will come out. Domination doesn't last long if they don't innovate. The Microsoft browser has survived only because it has sort of welded into the environment so it's hard to get rid of. What is the future of the Internet with the claims of Internet-enabled devices? The Internet will be everywhere and it's progressively more difficult to get away from. The Internet gives access to the world, so nations that tend to limit that will suddenly find themselves insulated from the rest of the world, and that can have a dangerous impact right now. So I think it's going to be more difficult for people to remain insulated. In the long run, it will cause grief to a lot of businesses but also a lot of happiness. Companies often stretch the truth. What is the critical thing CIOs must bear in mind when keeping up with the Internet? I think they have to understand what's real and what's not from what they're being told, because companies often stretch the truth. CIOs should ask hard questions and constantly demand hard answers, and use it as they go. If they're not technically competent themselves to ask questions, they will need to have staff who are. CIOs also have to answer to CEOs on the business process, that it is always secure. As CEOs are the ones accountable for the security of the business, CIOs who cannot give that assurance won't be CIOs for very long. ==== David Farber, a career professor of computer science and public policy, School of Computer Science at Carnegie Mellon University in the US, has been involved with networking for over 45 years. He received the John Scott Award in 1996 for inventions that have contributed to humanity (previous recipients include Madam Curie, Thomas Edison and The Wright Brothers). His talk in Singapore was organised by the School of Information Systems of Singapore Management University and supported by the Infocomm Development Authority of Singapore and the Singapore Computer Society. misweb.com