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: Peter Ecclesine who wrote (18866)	1/12/2007 1:45:23 AM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Respond to of 46821

Hi Peter. re: "is UDP IP?" While I understand the intent behind the rhetorical nature of your question, for the benefit of lurkers I'll answer you: Yes, UDP is a basic protocol element within the Internet Protocol stack, or suite: en.wikipedia.org "Jobs prezo shows the perils of 'Open Architecture', and endless new devices to make work with the 'Open Architecture.'" I commented on this earlier, edited for venue: "It's quite ironic, when you think about it. There are vendors presently developing closed platforms for use at the user edge that are based on proprietary software, including hand held devices and personal area networks that could NOT easily be supported in a successful manner were it not for network neutrality. In other words, any vendor that espouses a proprietary "framework" at the user's edge is accommodated best by a network that is entirely transparent and devoid of toll booths, speed bumps and road hogs bearing special privileges. Unless, of course, such applications are designed to work in concert with carriers' billing and provisioning protocols like IMS, and where privileges are paid for by the vendor to the carrier in the form of a vig as part of the deal. I can't say for sure, but this may be, in part at least, what we are seeing taking place here." You asked: "When will Sprint have an iPhone working via the Bluetooth interface on Sprint cellphones?" I don't know. 2008? I don't know enough about the data link and backend needs of iPhone. Is it slated to work over Cingular's packet infrastructure sans the muck of IMS? Or, does it look for certain hooks for session control, signaling, DRM, etc., from the carrier? As far as evaluating a litigating party's intentions prior to a judgement, you can call me disinterested, or bordering on untrusting, but I think it's far too easy to feign a desire for promoting interoperability in an open architecture if there is nothing that legally binds one to do so. And to arrive at that final stage, where everyone agrees to openness, I would then ask, what other, subordinate terms are there with respect to fees and signage (whose name goes on top? sorta thing) that goes along with such an agreement? Court transcripts are great for the amount of trustworthy information they make available when compared to mere hearsay. FAC ---

To: Peter Ecclesine who wrote (18866)	1/12/2007 3:15:13 AM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 46821

I thought Dana Blankenhorn's blog post today on the iPhone matter was interesting. It is best read at his site (URL below) for the additional hyperlinked stories. I'll copy it below, as well: danablankenhorn.com Dana's writings are sound and I've come to trust what he states, but I'd still like to learn more about what he is asserting concerning the dependence of iPhones on the cellular carrier's protocols and business systems. Is there anything you've come across that clearly explains this dependence, if such exists? -- The Apple MacGuffin January 11, 2007 The_maltese_falcon Instead of calling it an iPhone, how about we call it the MacGuffin? Hitchcock explained the MacGuffin this way. A man enters a train car and puts down his bag. Another man asks what's in it. "A MacGuffin," the first man says. The MacGuffin is merely a plot device, a way to move the story forward. The Maltese Falcon was a MacGuffin, "the stuff that dreams are made of." In this case the dream is of a new, site-defined and carrier-controlled Internet. This has been the carriers' demand in the U.S. since they first introduced "Internet access" to mobile phones. Consumers have resisted this, U.S. cellular growth has plainly lagged the rest of the world, and the carriers have mainly blamed the phones. Now that excuse is gone. The Apple MacGuffin (as Cisco would have us call it) is, like all such phones, completely carrier-controlled. In this case the carrier is Cingular, soon to become AT&T. Had such an agreement not been necessary, Apple would have introduced the phone a year ago (and in fact planned to). Iphone_1 On the MacGuffin your Internet use will be completely defined by Cingular, which is signing up sites to provide basic service. It's not like a PC. There will be no such thing as network neutrality with the iPhone (sorry, uh MacGuffin). A site that does not have a specific service agreement with Cingular won't reach your iPhone, or will have its service severely degraded. That's the threat of this phone, and of cellular generally. If Americans switch their Internet use to wireless devices, to cellular networks, they lose network neutrality no matter what happens elsewhere. AT&T said in acquiring BellSouth that it saw its opportunities laying in wireless and advertising -- how much more explicit do they have to be? Yet you haven't read that, until now. Everybody's got their eyes on the MacGuffin. You should be watching the director instead. ------