Month: February 2007

Aruba’s nervous breakdown

It’s come to our attention that Aruba Networks, the wireless LAN company that recently filed for an IPO, is terrified by the new architecture of the Trapeze wireless LAN system. To summarize the issues, Trapeze and Aruba both build enterprise-class wireless switches, consisting in both cases of wireless Access Points and back-end Ethernet switches. Both … Continue reading “Aruba’s nervous breakdown”

It’s come to our attention that Aruba Networks, the wireless LAN company that recently filed for an IPO, is terrified by the new architecture of the Trapeze wireless LAN system. To summarize the issues, Trapeze and Aruba both build enterprise-class wireless switches, consisting in both cases of wireless Access Points and back-end Ethernet switches. Both systems present a control point on the Ethernet side, and both switch traffic between the wire and the air.

But the new Trapeze architecture has a wrinkle that makes it much faster, more resilient, and more scalable than the Aruba system: local switching. In the Aruba system, all traffic originating on the air has to go back to a Big Ethernet switch before it can be decrypted and delivered to its final destination. But the Trapeze system, with local switching enabled, makes forwarding decisions at the edge of the wired network, not in a big switch that can become a traffic bottleneck.

Hence the Trapeze system can handle larger numbers of users with lower latency with no loss of management flexibility: you manage it as if it were a Big Fat Switch system, and it right-sizes its forwarding functions according to traffic needs, not the blinders of a mediocre group of system architects.

This has Aruba running scared, so they’re in full FUD mode as the e-mail below indicates. I’ve interspersed the Aruba message with a fisking from Trapeze.

Enjoy.

From: Alan Emory [mailto:[email protected]]
Subject: Trapeze Takes A Step Back – Selling Fat APs

We need to start with the subject of the message. Trapeze actually has taken a big step forward by combining the best of fat and thin APs in a single comprehensive solution. Aruba and Cisco force you to make a choice…one size fits all. Only Trapeze allows you to use the right tool for the right environment. It is very important to note that the customer can run the entire Trapeze system in a completely thin, centralized way if they so choose. Smart Mobile provides more flexibility in case that isn’t the right answer for your environment. Aruba? If the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Continue reading “Aruba’s nervous breakdown”

Net Neutrality is a Delusion

Scott Cleland mentions that His Eminence, Sir Timothy Berners-Lee will testify before Congressman Ed Markey’s House subcommittee on Telecommunications, the Internet, and Shameless Pandering to the Conspiracy Nuts Thursday. Markey has an ambitious agenda: In a wide-ranging conversation yesterday, Markey laid out a broad telecom agenda that could pit him against the telephone and cable … Continue reading “Net Neutrality is a Delusion”

Scott Cleland mentions that His Eminence, Sir Timothy Berners-Lee will testify before Congressman Ed Markey’s House subcommittee on Telecommunications, the Internet, and Shameless Pandering to the Conspiracy Nuts Thursday. Markey has an ambitious agenda:

In a wide-ranging conversation yesterday, Markey laid out a broad telecom agenda that could pit him against the telephone and cable companies — expressing interest in “paranoia-inducing alternatives” like municipal broadband projects and wireless carriers that could pose a competitive threat to cable and telephone companies and push them to innovate.

He stressed that network neutrality — an initiative to ensure that the Internet does not become a two-tiered system in which some companies pay fees for priority access –will likely dominate the discussion over the next two years.

Innovations such as the Web browser, search engines, and the Internet did not emerge from large established companies, and forcing firms to pay more to reach users would stifle creativity, he said.

It’s a position that puts him at odds with major industry players.

Primarily, this position puts him at odds with reality. Was the Web browser actually an innovation that didn’t come from a large established company? Well, given the creation of a web by the interconnection of hyperlinks in documents on the Internet, the browser was more a requirement than an innovation, and hyperlinks were actually first implemented in research labs funded by large enterprises, many private and some public. The first web browser that was fully-functional was produced by Microsoft, so that’s one error. The first search engine that was worth spit was Alta Vista, produced by Digital Equipment Corporation, so that’s two. And the Internet itself was produced by contractors working for the biggest enterprise of all, the United States government, so there’s error number three.

And where did the key technologies upon which the Internet was based come from? The transistor, the high speed data link, the modem, the digital modem and the Unix operating system were all produced by researchers at Bell Labs, part of the world’s most evil monopoly, so oops again. And the personal computers that made the Internet necessary were created by IBM and Intel, using technologies developed by Xerox. So where is this yarn of the virtuous little guys innovating like crazy while the dinosaurs slept really coming from? It’s nothing more than a cheap fantasy.

Now I don’t really expect politicians to be historians of technology, and to actually understand the things they regulate. But they do have people on staff who are supposed to keep them from saying stupid things, and it’s abundantly clear that Markey’s aren’t cutting it.

The hearing will be a real knee-slapper if Markey’s people can’t keep his mouth in check, and history suggests they’re bound to fail.

But we’ll see what tomorrow brings.

Antidote to Neutrino Drool

Neutrinos are touting two new drooling videos on the regulations they’re trying pass, one that makes Telcos out to be space aliens and the other that makes them out to be parasites on the networks they’ve built. And they’re getting rave reviews from the confidence men who’ve conjured the net neutrality issue out of thin … Continue reading “Antidote to Neutrino Drool”

Neutrinos are touting two new drooling videos on the regulations they’re trying pass, one that makes Telcos out to be space aliens and the other that makes them out to be parasites on the networks they’ve built. And they’re getting rave reviews from the confidence men who’ve conjured the net neutrality issue out of thin air and the million morons who’ve been taken in by them. Here’s a little bit of an antidote:

I don’t know who produced it, but it’s sharp. The fundamental question you have to ask any neutrino who claims the Internet is under attack by Telcos who want to censor blogs is simply this: “Where’s the proof? Just because politicians and professional scare artists say something will happen some day doesn’t mean a damn thing.”

The reality is that phone companies want to compete with cable to bring TV Programming into your home. They make money from Internet access as well, and they want to sell that to you too, just as they always have. The only new issue is about TV, not the Internet.

Neutrinos try to make their case using videos and songs because it can’t be made in rational, clear, verifiable prose.

Net neutrality is a con game.

Skype-Wu attack wireless networks

Tim Wu, the protege of Larry Lessig who’s been on two or three different sides of the net neutrality debate depending on which way the wind is blowing in Washington, has written a very bizarre analysis of wireless networks proposing massive new regulations. In what is either the greatest coincidence in recorded history or a … Continue reading “Skype-Wu attack wireless networks”

Tim Wu, the protege of Larry Lessig who’s been on two or three different sides of the net neutrality debate depending on which way the wind is blowing in Washington, has written a very bizarre analysis of wireless networks proposing massive new regulations. In what is either the greatest coincidence in recorded history or a demonstration of the source of Wu’s funding, Skype has passed it on to the FCC and asked them to go crazy and regulate away all the innovation we’ve seen in cell phone networks in the last ten years.

Adam Thierer of The Progress & Freedom Foundation isn’t impressed with the Skype-Wu Axis of Authoritarianism:

The fundamental question raised by the Skype-Wu proposal is whether America will continue to allow competition in wireless network architectures and business models to see which systems and plans (a) consumers truly prefer and that also (b) allow carriers to recoup fixed capital costs while (c) expanding and innovating to meet future needs. The Skype-Wu proposal would foreclose such marketplace experimentation by essentially converting cellular networks into a sort of quasi-commons and forcing private network operators to provide network access or services on someone else’s terms. That someone else, of course, is the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which will be tasked with devising rules and price regulations to ensure “fair and non-discriminatory” access / interconnection pricing.

In my opinion, when you get right down to it, this proposal is a declaration of surrender.

The key point is something I’ve said to Wu on several occasions: there is much more innovation taking place on wireless networks than on the Internet, which gives the lie to Net Neutrality claims that their regulatory scheme is pro-innovation. Wu wants to suppress the data by stifling wireless innovation, and Skype is happy to have parasitic access to any new market they can find.

A pox upon them both.

Malkin gets a scalp

Edwards’ blogger resigns, Malkin gloats: “Blogmaster” Amanda Marcotte has resigned from the Edwards’ campaign (the site is currently down). Of course, it’s all the right wing’s and Catholic activists’ fault (a blame-avoidance strategy I highlighted on The O’Reilly Factor tonight before news of Marcotte’s resignation broke) Happy happy. Well, not really. In politics as in … Continue reading “Malkin gets a scalp”

Edwards’ blogger resigns, Malkin gloats:

“Blogmaster” Amanda Marcotte has resigned from the Edwards’ campaign (the site is currently down). Of course, it’s all the right wing’s and Catholic activists’ fault (a blame-avoidance strategy I highlighted on The O’Reilly Factor tonight before news of Marcotte’s resignation broke)

Malkin gets her scalp

Happy happy.

Well, not really. In politics as in comedy and network design, timing is everything. The time to spring a story on Amanda’s bad attitude toward men would have been October, 2008, and only if Edwards had an election to lose. But when rookies like Malkin get involved it’s all about them, and all about right now.

Silly girl.

Of course, the irony in this is Malkin accusing anybody of being “offensive.” Really.

UPDATE: Conservative bloggers as a whole are gloating about this (see: James Joyner for a pile of links). I suppose I should be too since Amanada Marcotte is one of my least favorite people in the entire universe, but as Malkin is on the same list for me, I’m curbing my enthusiasm. Is the blogosphere good for anything besides taking scalps?

UPDATE2: Another scalp, and that answers the question.

Another neutrality dissenter

Venture capitalist David Cowan didn’t drink Google’s free speech Kool-Aid either: …the campaign for net neutrality has transcended logic, manuevering instead to prevail upon Congress with an emotional appeal to the voters. “If we are silent, if we don’t stand up for Internet Freedom,” warns Hollywood star Alyssa Milano, “corporations will take away our right … Continue reading “Another neutrality dissenter”

Venture capitalist David Cowan didn’t drink Google’s free speech Kool-Aid either:

…the campaign for net neutrality has transcended logic, manuevering instead to prevail upon Congress with an emotional appeal to the voters. “If we are silent, if we don’t stand up for Internet Freedom,” warns Hollywood star Alyssa Milano, “corporations will take away our right to choose!” As always, it’s easy and popular to demonize corporations.

In his letter to the public (a great PR play, and a nice pander to regulators who look for reasons to work), Eric Schmidt wrote that net neutrality will prevent broadband carriers from controlling what people say or do online. As I have blogged before, Eric is certainly a genius (I can pander, too), but this call to fear is wrong on so many levels, not to mention egregiously hypocritical. (Remember China?)

For one thing, accelerating a stream of packets, even at the mythical expense of some random packets, does not “control what people do online.” Also, ISPs are not public utilities; they are businesses whose owners–including individual investors and pension funds–have no legal obligation to amuse Eric with whatever internet sites he craves. (Should AOL and the mobile environments of AT&T and Verizon be legally forced to provide access to outside content?) Having said both those things, the market will not reward ISPs who effectively block or even slow access to the full array of web sites–there is demand for express traffic and free traffic, so both sevices should and would exist.

It would be extremely helpful if more VCs would speak out on this issue, as one of the other arguments Google uses pertains to innovation and helping all those struggling college kids in their dorm rooms trying to build the next Google.

Google’s censorship abuses

The Christian Coalition joined Google’s Save the Internet coalition after being convinced that the Internet’s lack of regulation was a danger to their free speech. The free speech argument is a red herring, of course, as the enhanced IPTV services from AT&T and Verizon that are bringing change to the Internet have nothing to do … Continue reading “Google’s censorship abuses”

The Christian Coalition joined Google’s Save the Internet coalition after being convinced that the Internet’s lack of regulation was a danger to their free speech. The free speech argument is a red herring, of course, as the enhanced IPTV services from AT&T and Verizon that are bringing change to the Internet have nothing to do with content or viewpoints. The Save the Internet movement is really a cynical ploy on Google’s part to shackle ISPs in order to extend their search hegemony into video delivery. But Save the Internet says it’s really important, so we have to trust Google to preserve free speech because we can’t trust the Telcos and ISPs.

Is this remotely believable?

We’ve seen one example of Google’s concept of free speech in China, and another regarding their own Vice-President of TV, Vincent Dureau. After he correctly observed that the Internet can’t scale to HDTV, Google called out its Public Relations shock troops to sanitize Dureau’s remarks. The Google PR team is spinning like mad, but Dureau hasn’t backed down and we applaud him for that.

And now we have another egregious free speech violation that should be of interest to Google’s followers among the Christian Coalition. Nick Gisburne is an atheist activist who posts videos on YouTube criticizing religion generally and religious texts in particular. His favorite technique is citing violent passages from the Holy Books without commentary, letting them hang themselves. This was fine with YouTube as long as Gisburne confined his criticisms to Christianity, but when he posted a video of verses from the Koran, YouTube deleted it and cancelled his account:

My YouTube accounts have been deleted

Deleted accounts are not quite part of the plan! This is now a censorship issue.

My NickGisburne and Gisburne2000 accounts were deleted because of ‘Inappropriate Content’, basically a video of material (no added commentary from me) from the Qur’an. I added nothing to that video, I was merely using material from the Muslim Holy Book, and for that I was removed from YouTube, along with all my videos, and everyone’s subscriptions to me (over 500).

I’ve seen the video in question and Gisburne’s description is correct: it consists of nothing but verses from the Koran and background music, without even a word of added commentary.

So the question, gentle reader, is this: can we trust Google to manage our Internet? I see no reason to believe that we can.

See Instapundit for a handy collection of relevant links.

Politically correct victimology

Heather Mac Donald isn’t the biggest fan of Harvard’s new figurehead: The feminist takeover of Harvard is imminent. The Harvard Crimson reported yesterday that the university is about to name as its new president Drew Gilpin Faust, dean of the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study. Harvard’s Corporation, which is likely to recommend Faust to the … Continue reading “Politically correct victimology”

Heather Mac Donald isn’t the biggest fan of Harvard’s new figurehead:

The feminist takeover of Harvard is imminent. The Harvard Crimson reported yesterday that the university is about to name as its new president Drew Gilpin Faust, dean of the Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study. Harvard’s Corporation, which is likely to recommend Faust to the university’s Board of Overseers for confirmation, could not have more clearly repudiated Lawrence Summers’s all-too-brief reign of meritocracy and academic honesty, or more openly signaled that Harvard will now be the leader in politically correct victimology.

Faust runs one of the most powerful incubators of feminist complaint and nonsensical academic theory in the country. You can count on the Radcliffe Institute’s fellows and invited lecturers to proclaim the “constructed” nature of knowledge, gender, and race, and to decry endemic American sexism and racism. Typical guest speakers include left-wing journalists Susan Faludi and Barbara Ehrenreich.

McDonald uses the term “feminism” in its modern sense (a special interest group seeking to marginalize men) rather than its historical sense (something about doormats and equality.) If she’s right, Harvard’s descent into mediocrity will accelerate rapidly. Not that many will notice, of course, because it hasn’t been a serious school for years now, but this sort of thing is vitally important in the Northeast for historical reasons.

My comment on this: the prevailing consensual reality in Cambridge is that Summers said “gurlz r dum”, so the natural reaction is to replace him with a president who says “gurlz rool, boyz drool.”

Linklove John Weidner.

Who is this Drew Gilpin person? A former professor of Women’s Studies and author of such penetrating books as Mothers of Invention on the plight of slave owning women in the Old South. I haven’t read it, so here’s what one Amazon reviewer said about it:

The subject of this book is a single class of women – rich, white, spoiled and utterly despicable. These women complained bitterly of how the war effected their miserable self centered lives with little concern about the effects the war had on those who fought it and what they were experiencing. The war meant little more to them than a threat to their way of life.

Ms. Faust tries to portray her subjects as victims and prisoners of their circumstances but these women were anything but. They embraced the supposed chains that bound them and had little concern for the profound and widespread pain and suffering caused for millions of others as a result of the war they so glamorized and romanticized.

This book is rather tedious if you are not a fan nor speaker of that odd language known as academia (why in the world does she include long diary and letter passages in French?) But it has some very good moments and will give the reader new insight into how truly horrid those magnolia queens really were. Not even a feminist writer sympathetic to anything in petticoats can hide that fact; as much as she tries.

So that’s your culture of victimology for you: Gilpin is wedded to the notion that women are so thoroughly oppressed, she has more sympathy for the slave owners who lost property in the Civil War than for the (human and often male) property itself. Surely Harvard can do better than this. What’s Elizabeth Fox-Genovese (“Sad as it may seem, my experience with radical, upscale feminism only reinforced my growing mistrust of individual pride”) up to these days, anyhow? Retired, probably.

How the Right Went Wrong

Thanks to Jane Galt McArdle for Jeffrey Hart’s super-flame of Bush’s “conservatism”: “Like the Whig gentry who were the Founders, I loathe populism,” Hart explains. “Most especially in the form of populist religion, i.e., the current pestiferous bible-banging evangelicals, whom I regard as organized ignorance, a menace to public health, to science, to medicine, to … Continue reading “How the Right Went Wrong”

Thanks to Jane Galt McArdle for Jeffrey Hart’s super-flame of Bush’s “conservatism”:

“Like the Whig gentry who were the Founders, I loathe populism,” Hart explains. “Most especially in the form of populist religion, i.e., the current pestiferous bible-banging evangelicals, whom I regard as organized ignorance, a menace to public health, to science, to medicine, to serious Western religion, to intellect and indeed to sanity. Evangelicalism, driven by emotion, and not creedal, is thoroughly erratic and by its nature cannot be conservative. My conservatism is aristocratic in spirit, anti-populist and rooted in the Northeast. It is Burke brought up to date. A ‘social conservative’ in my view is not a moral authoritarian Evangelical who wants to push people around, but an American gentleman, conservative in a social sense. He has gone to a good school, maybe shops at J. Press, maybe plays tennis or golf, and drinks either Bombay or Beefeater martinis, or maybe Dewar’s on the rocks, or both.”

Now that’s proper conservatism. I can’t comment on the Dewars, but Bombay Sapphire is without peer, and the critique of evangelicalism is right on the money. By all means, read the whole thing, especially Hart’s clarifications at the end.