On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 23:15, jamie baddeley
what thoughts do folks have on this?
The Internet we know today could not have come about without open, interoperable, global standards.
wise words.
And in a sense the Internet would not have come about without the frustration and suppressed demand that the ITU, this club of sovereign monopolies, engendered with their self-serving, sluggish and Byzantine practices. That, among other things, spurred development and uptake of a customer-centric, bottom-up, open alternative. So we have an alternative and what is the ITU's power to coerce compliance with their standards worth these days? If it is a battle between hierarchy and network, my money's on the latter, and the money isn't being made by CLNS vendors AFAIK. I'm impressed by the response of those who can temper their outrage and express it as disappointment, but you can't be disappointed when a pig grunts. The ITU recapitulates its standards, and they have failed as it will fail and the reason: "this is why a heavy-duty core will always lose...by definition, it must offer services which are of interest to only a subset of its users and yet all users are impacted by them..." /mtr (aka http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Rose) And the ITU is nothing if not heavy-duty.
jamie
Hamish. -- http://tr.im/HKM