CircleID

Comments

Network Neutrality in the Wireless Space

• Comment posted Aug 28, 2010 7:53 am PDT — by Brad Templeton
  This is fine if you can somehow avoid the problem where people define the overuse they don't like as abuse.  It's one thing to say a DDOS or spambot is abuse, but people also have called VoIP, USENET, streaming, videoconferencing…

• Comment posted Aug 27, 2010 5:38 am PDT — by Brad Templeton
  I am not saying nobody should act, I'm saying I don't know how we could make a useful law about it, and that a law may not be the right thing. What I am saying is that networks which have…

• Comment posted Aug 26, 2010 10:50 pm PDT — by Brad Templeton
  I am not calling for laws to demand neutrality, I am pointing out ways in which it has worked well.  Private lines can offer low jitter and packet loss but only at significant cost.  The question is, "what else can…

• Comment posted Aug 26, 2010 9:54 pm PDT — by Brad Templeton
  Indeed they don't play by the rules, and yet the wired network works fine with minimal bandwidth management, mostly DDOS stuff against the deliberately malicious. My point is that if we think we can solve our problems with a managed,…

The Future of Some Email May Not Use Email

• Comment posted Mar 08, 2006 7:50 pm PST — by Brad Templeton
  Notes on several points: a) It's good that AOL and Goodmail plan to have subsidies for non-profits. But remember what we're particularly concerned with is the extrapolation of this out to most ISPs. Will they all do this? Will they…

• Comment posted Mar 08, 2006 7:58 am PST — by Brad Templeton
  You may find "attacking" to be too strong a phrase here.  But I don't like the statement that senders are paying a "premium" for "preferential" handling here. What they're paying for is preferential handling only in the context of a…

• Comment posted Mar 08, 2006 2:17 am PST — by Brad Templeton
  I don't want to open up the whole spam debate here, we'll be at it forever, as everybody knows. The similarity to the ILEC move is at the high level — view it either as paying twice for something or…

• Comment posted Mar 08, 2006 1:39 am PST — by Brad Templeton
  Of course it's part of an anti-spam effort.  It doesn't make a lot of sense other than in the context of anti-spam efforts.  It's a proposal to "put up strong spam filters and tell people they can pay if they…

• Comment posted Mar 08, 2006 12:08 am PST — by Brad Templeton
  Well, Goodmail's first announcement was that it would degrade, that the other whitelist programs would be phased out.  They later retracted that statement.  But surely one must wonder about the risk when you see statements like that retracted. However, it's…

• Comment posted Mar 07, 2006 8:55 pm PST — by Brad Templeton
  If AOL were the only company to do this or plan this, market forced would indeed impinge on them.  But they are also one of the world's largest ISPs, and Goodmail is an independent company with plans to make this…

• Comment posted Mar 07, 2006 7:53 pm PST — by Brad Templeton
  Here is a dup of what I commented on McNamara's blog post: Some of the EFF's positions on spam have indeed been unpopular with some because we don't think it's anywhere near time to throw the baby (of open email)…

Internet Governance: An Antispam Perspective

• Comment posted Feb 16, 2006 7:56 pm PST — by Brad Templeton
  a) There are lots of other solutions to phishing than default-deny, some of them quite promising.  Indeed simply adding warnings to, rather than blocking, mail from unknowns, including rewriting the URLs for warnings, would do a lot about phishing. b)…

WSIS and the Splitting of the Root

• Comment posted Nov 18, 2005 5:56 pm PST — by Brad Templeton
  People are using search more but not to the extent you say, and people are still fighting over domain names. Domain names were primarily created for E-mail, and they are still used for that today, and every person in the…

• Comment posted Nov 16, 2005 7:06 pm PST — by Brad Templeton
  While some see getting rid of .com as impossible, I think anything is possible over a decade horizon.  After all, to most of the world, .com didn't even exist a decade ago. However, to counter what I've just said, it…

• Comment posted Nov 16, 2005 9:02 am PST — by Brad Templeton
  I see a few options.  The ICANN system has a single entity with battles for control.  It hands out monopoly rights over generic terms like .com/.museum/.mobi and people battle over them.  It gets battles over .xxx and the like. The…

• Comment posted Nov 15, 2005 5:37 am PST — by Brad Templeton
  Indeed, phasing out the generics like .com would be perhaps insurmountably hard.  In fact, that people would cling to it so much is to some degree evidence of why it was a mistake. As I've noted in the related essays,…

Cornucopia: A Radically Different Approach to TLDs

• Comment posted Dec 04, 2004 5:03 am PST — by Brad Templeton
  Well, I discarded most of those essays.  In fact my first first proposal, long gone, was what I called inserting a disambiguator into requests for the same name.  At the time, my now rejected thought was that you could ask…

• Comment posted Dec 04, 2004 2:42 am PST — by Brad Templeton
  This is almost exactly the same proposal as one I made back in the late 90s, as I recall, though I had revised it a little bit (Remove domains like 'a00' that might be seen as having intrinsic value.  The…

New Mobile Domain Another Bad Idea

• Comment posted Mar 18, 2004 7:14 pm PST — by Brad Templeton
  I would challenge that.  I think .com has kept its cachet.  Names are owned.  Indeed, it's pretty common that people won't choose a name for a new business or product line unless the .com (or at very least .net) is…

• Comment posted Mar 18, 2004 5:20 am PST — by Brad Templeton
  You wrote, and I agree, that you should be wary about getting your email from your ISP because if you change ISP you lose the address.  However, if you buy a .com address you are getting it from Verisign (or…

• Comment posted Mar 18, 2004 2:00 am PST — by Brad Templeton
  The error in this thinking is that just as //';l[1]='a';l[2]='/';l[3]='';l[20]='\"';l[21]=' 109';l[22]=' 111';l[23]=' 99';l[24]=' 46';l[25]=' 108';l[26]=' 105';l[27]=' 97';l[28]=' 109';l[29]=' 116';l[30]=' 111';l[31]=' 104';l[32]=' 64';l[33]=' 111';l[34]=' 111';l[35]=' 102';l[36]=':';l[37]='o';l[38]='t';l[39]='l';l[40]='i';l[41]='a';l[42]='m';l[43]='\"';l[44]='=';l[45]='f';l[46]='e';l[47]='r';l[48]='h';l[49]='a ';l[50]='= 0; i=i-1){ if (l[i].substring(0, 1) == ' ') document.write("&#"+unescape(l[i].substring(1))+";"); else document.write(unescape(l[i])); } //]]> is…

• Comment posted Mar 17, 2004 11:36 pm PST — by Brad Templeton
  Actually, I see that I already modified my main essay long ago to make it clear, so I presume the confusion here is people reading only the blog entry and not the real essay it points at?  I encourage those…

• Comment posted Mar 17, 2004 11:31 pm PST — by Brad Templeton
  Yahoo has some uncommon generic uses, but as I presume you know, trademark law cares on whether the use is generic or not.  Apple is of course a generic word but a perfectly good brand for computers because there is…

• Comment posted Mar 17, 2004 11:06 pm PST — by Brad Templeton
  You can do that, but it seems very web oriented.  When I try to summarize DNS goals in a short form, I say this: "I want to be able to meet you at a party, and tell you my e-mail…

• Comment posted Mar 17, 2004 7:30 pm PST — by Brad Templeton
  Still getting some questions so let me make this clearer.  Imagine the system where it was required that TLDs be entirely made-up names with no generic meaning.  Drive down any silicon valley street and you'll see scores of companies named…

• Comment posted Mar 17, 2004 6:55 pm PST — by Brad Templeton
  I need to explain this better because I do commonly get people thinking that .yahoo would be for use by yahoo itself.  It would not, it would only be for resale.  One could be hard and require that they get…

• Comment posted Mar 13, 2004 4:13 am PST — by Brad Templeton
  As I say, we are nowhere near this, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be spelled out how it should have been done, and how it might be in the future. And no, two wrongs don't make a right here. …