Re: [Cerowrt-devel] not exactly the most positive outcome

[Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>]

On Tue, 26 Jul 2016, dpreed@reed.com wrote:

> People just take for granted that having their communications controlled 
> "end-to-end" by some third party (e.g. The Phone Company) is optimal for 
> them.  After all, AT&T Bell Labs created the Internet and the WWW.

"people" (the general term) just want their Internet access to work. They 
don't want to learn how to set it up themselves, they don't want to muck 
around in boxes, and they want it to be cheap, fast and rock solid, all 
the time. They want to set it up once and work great and don't want to 
have to think about it again.

They also call the ISP and complain that the ISP service is bad when they 
stuck the ISP wifi enabled residential gateway in the back of some lower 
corner cabinet behind all the stuff, and hoped they never would have to 
see or interact with it again.

With speed increasing, 5GHz, potentially 60GHz etc, in order to deliver a 
decent service to their customers, ISPs have to get involved in their 
customers' residential wifi networks to retain and hopefully increase 
customer satisfaction.

So with that out of the way, how do we still make this as open and 
flexible as possible? Lots of startups and established vendors are 
pitching these solutions to the ISPs, most of them with their own 
proprietary extensions and non-interworking protocols. What's the open and 
flexible alternative?

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se