From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (ipv6.swm.pp.se [IPv6:2a00:801::f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.bufferbloat.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 35D573B25E for ; Wed, 27 Jul 2016 01:38:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id BFAAAA2; Wed, 27 Jul 2016 07:38:11 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1469597891; bh=2Hujme1BG3Y7Nhlqd6knIWaBbN3DOuZB8pcP02hrimo=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=nG7pp6Jqb2XX/p965cdZ2eOnqh2RD9RNX0Sjt7miLRNdGgChs6ac7BtEhZO8OOD8S /pZ9U7LJ3Mfd2djPYRD3S8nhTtJnop62JNtDy6PVWtpqODnTKgd3auVeUmb++KUWz9 uAWl/1yPzN/zmkMn/zS6O29uTz02n8UjmZ1XNDl8= Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB7FEA1; Wed, 27 Jul 2016 07:38:11 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2016 07:38:11 +0200 (CEST) From: Mikael Abrahamsson To: dpreed@reed.com cc: "cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net" In-Reply-To: <1469568716.289512443@apps.rackspace.com> Message-ID: References: <1469568716.289512443@apps.rackspace.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14) Organization: People's Front Against WWW MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Subject: Re: [Cerowrt-devel] not exactly the most positive outcome X-BeenThere: cerowrt-devel@lists.bufferbloat.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: Development issues regarding the cerowrt test router project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2016 05:38:13 -0000 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