Tuesday, June 16. 2009
The Next Big Move
The first of three new 1Gbps Internet bandwidth links is now up. All three were physically connected on Friday and now we are waiting for the end and third circuit to be activated with a live IP address.
(or as I joked to Jing, for the carrier to take the clamps off the fibre to let the photons through)
With one circuit up, we are now testing the BGP setup and connectivity to the Internet with the staff IP address blocks. Then when we are happy with that, we will start announcing some server addresses and then progressively add in end user blocks over the week.
The end result is that we will replace 1.9Gbps of bandwidth in NSW with 2.4Gbps.
While such a gross move of bandwidth is not something to be done without a lot of anxiety (which no amount of preparation and contingency planning can ever completely eliminate, and probably quite rightly), there is never the less some cause to feel slightly more mellow in this case.
First, the new circuits are on a, currently, completely unused router (our backup 6500). So we have the comparative luxury of no chance of affecting any production traffic with whatever mucking around that is inevitably needed to get the circuits, IP and bgp up and running.
Second, that 6500 used to be the production border router, so it is still cabled in with known good circuits to the production LAN backbone. That means we don't need to change the topology at all, or make even any minor changes to the network as it sits.
Third, once we are happy with BGP, we can simultaneously announce address blocks on both circuit, prepending the old circuit and load test the new one with no disruption to any production traffic. And if something unexpected does happen in that regard, the fix will be only a matter of seconds to change the circuit preference.
Forth, we _can_ if absolutely necessary, extend the cut off time for the old circuits past the target date of the 20th. It would only be as a last resort if something went badly wrong (and there are no indications of that at this stage). But even with out that, with the circuits active today, we are right in the middle of the critical path schedule.
Finally, the network team have done a comprehensive job with planning, and with my 'mother hen' plan-for-the-best-but-expect-the-worst hovering, it is hard to see what possible problems we have not allowed for.
Which maybe is what bothers me. Where is Saffron when you need her.
(or as I joked to Jing, for the carrier to take the clamps off the fibre to let the photons through)
With one circuit up, we are now testing the BGP setup and connectivity to the Internet with the staff IP address blocks. Then when we are happy with that, we will start announcing some server addresses and then progressively add in end user blocks over the week.
The end result is that we will replace 1.9Gbps of bandwidth in NSW with 2.4Gbps.
While such a gross move of bandwidth is not something to be done without a lot of anxiety (which no amount of preparation and contingency planning can ever completely eliminate, and probably quite rightly), there is never the less some cause to feel slightly more mellow in this case.
First, the new circuits are on a, currently, completely unused router (our backup 6500). So we have the comparative luxury of no chance of affecting any production traffic with whatever mucking around that is inevitably needed to get the circuits, IP and bgp up and running.
Second, that 6500 used to be the production border router, so it is still cabled in with known good circuits to the production LAN backbone. That means we don't need to change the topology at all, or make even any minor changes to the network as it sits.
Third, once we are happy with BGP, we can simultaneously announce address blocks on both circuit, prepending the old circuit and load test the new one with no disruption to any production traffic. And if something unexpected does happen in that regard, the fix will be only a matter of seconds to change the circuit preference.
Forth, we _can_ if absolutely necessary, extend the cut off time for the old circuits past the target date of the 20th. It would only be as a last resort if something went badly wrong (and there are no indications of that at this stage). But even with out that, with the circuits active today, we are right in the middle of the critical path schedule.
Finally, the network team have done a comprehensive job with planning, and with my 'mother hen' plan-for-the-best-but-expect-the-worst hovering, it is hard to see what possible problems we have not allowed for.
Which maybe is what bothers me. Where is Saffron when you need her.
Friday, May 29. 2009
As an experiment I have been using twitter to keep interested parties up to date on an event of some possible impact.
I am struggling though to see what the claimed press hype on the Twitter home page is all about. Of course I can't comment on it's use as a 'social network' tool - which is something I have only a very vague idea of.
Twitter seems to be most useful (commercially) a way to get a short message to many interested parties, at no cost. However, I find the 140 character per message limit a little, well, limiting. I think a well managed forum probably beats it there.
Also, no pictures. I wanted to put some before and after shots of the new computer room as work progressed, which I could certainly have done in a blog.
It seems to me that if you cut Facebook back to the bone, then that is really what Twitter is. So why not just use Facebook, which does everything Twitter does, and has far more features?
Still, Wired, Newsweek the New York Times, and other journalists that wax so positive about it can't all be wrong, can they? I must be missing the point somewhere.
I am struggling though to see what the claimed press hype on the Twitter home page is all about. Of course I can't comment on it's use as a 'social network' tool - which is something I have only a very vague idea of.
Twitter seems to be most useful (commercially) a way to get a short message to many interested parties, at no cost. However, I find the 140 character per message limit a little, well, limiting. I think a well managed forum probably beats it there.
Also, no pictures. I wanted to put some before and after shots of the new computer room as work progressed, which I could certainly have done in a blog.
It seems to me that if you cut Facebook back to the bone, then that is really what Twitter is. So why not just use Facebook, which does everything Twitter does, and has far more features?
Still, Wired, Newsweek the New York Times, and other journalists that wax so positive about it can't all be wrong, can they? I must be missing the point somewhere.
Thursday, May 28. 2009
The Big Move
We are in the process of moving offices from the place we have occupied for the last five years to the new office in Walker Street.
I am going to test out 'twitter' as a way of keeping everyone up to date.
Anyone interested can follow our move blow by blow here:
https://twitter.com/SteveWaddington
I am going to test out 'twitter' as a way of keeping everyone up to date.
Anyone interested can follow our move blow by blow here:
https://twitter.com/SteveWaddington
Monday, May 25. 2009
UC, er I mean VoIP, or UC... whatever
We all must have Unified Communications and our workforce must be Mobile Enabled, and so went a new bevy of buzz words at Interop. No one is mentioning 'three play' or 'quad play' (never called four play for some reason) anymore, so I suppose that is a plus.
Having had a think about what I say last week, and what we currently have, there is actually nothing we are missing from our product line up that doesn't meet or exceed the 'best of the best' solutions on offer at Interop. Well, actually there is. One big thing - A nice and slick user interface.
What we need is a web based client that will integrate all VoIP services to the PC or mobile device.
While all the controls are there now in the user faculties section, I think we just need to bring them together into a smoother 'control panel' type interface.
The best one I saw at Interop was by Shoretel. Who had another 'interesting' thing to say. Towing the super safe 'don't sue us' line that all American VoIP manufacturers seem to have adopted, they also were adamant that VoIP services should/must not be used where:
- latency is greater that 150ms
- jitter is greater than 15ms
- packet loss is greater than 0.5%
Well, as you can see from an earlier post, my disappointing experience at the LAX Qantas flight lounge was:
Jitter in the 200-300ms range, almost 1/3 of packets lost and latency 4-5 times the 'must not exceed' value.
I called home in my last test of wifi VoIP for the trip on that connection. The quality wasn't great I have to say, lag was very noticeable and the tone was a tinny. But - the call completed, I spoke with my wife for about 10 minutes and the kids (who are far less tolerant of low quality voice) for a minute or so each. There was no noticeable echo and the speech on both sides remained legible throughout.
So there you go. VoIP is usable in the real world, on links that are about as bad as they can be. No matter what the American manufactures want to tell you.
Having had a think about what I say last week, and what we currently have, there is actually nothing we are missing from our product line up that doesn't meet or exceed the 'best of the best' solutions on offer at Interop. Well, actually there is. One big thing - A nice and slick user interface.
What we need is a web based client that will integrate all VoIP services to the PC or mobile device.
While all the controls are there now in the user faculties section, I think we just need to bring them together into a smoother 'control panel' type interface.
The best one I saw at Interop was by Shoretel. Who had another 'interesting' thing to say. Towing the super safe 'don't sue us' line that all American VoIP manufacturers seem to have adopted, they also were adamant that VoIP services should/must not be used where:
- latency is greater that 150ms
- jitter is greater than 15ms
- packet loss is greater than 0.5%
Well, as you can see from an earlier post, my disappointing experience at the LAX Qantas flight lounge was:
Ping statistics for 220.233.0.1:
Packets: Sent = 47, Received = 34, Lost = 13 (27% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 289ms, Maximum = 693ms, Average = 450ms
Jitter in the 200-300ms range, almost 1/3 of packets lost and latency 4-5 times the 'must not exceed' value.
I called home in my last test of wifi VoIP for the trip on that connection. The quality wasn't great I have to say, lag was very noticeable and the tone was a tinny. But - the call completed, I spoke with my wife for about 10 minutes and the kids (who are far less tolerant of low quality voice) for a minute or so each. There was no noticeable echo and the speech on both sides remained legible throughout.
So there you go. VoIP is usable in the real world, on links that are about as bad as they can be. No matter what the American manufactures want to tell you.
Sunday, May 24. 2009
Interop Best of Show
Just a few quick highlights from Interop while I sort my notes and get the many ideas the show sparked into some sort of order.
What I can say though, is that I can see a clear path from here to how we can make the Exetel network substantially more extensible.
More of that later.
The best booth was by far the Xirrus display with their boxing ring and live boxing show, where prize fighters duked it out to determine the advantages of matrixed wifi over wired LAN's. Great technology too, by the look of it. Xirrus supplied wifi for the whole conference with 18 nodes covering the whole 5.5 million square feet.
Cloud computing featured heavily. 'So just what is cloud computing?' I asked one of the reps at a vendor stand. He rolled his eyes and suppressed a groan, either at the stupidity of my question, or my non USA accent, or both, but answered it anyway. So at least now I know what cloud computing is.
The biggest technology, championed by every major, and most minor, vendors however, was 'virtualization'. Now that I know something about, having followed VMWare with interest from their very early days, and trialled it on servers as early as circa 1999-2000.
Looking at how hard IBM, Dell, Cisco and every other hardware and OS vendor are flogging it, it is a technology if not come of age, then about to very, very soon.
Also of interest is that everyone (US carriers I mean), have dropped the MPLS 'Saviour of your network' crap (who needs to know, and who cares), but now, suddenly, their WAN services have become (or always been, according to the marketing) 'Virtualization Optimized' or 'Virtualization Improving'. And how would they do that exactly? Well, the details, unsurprisingly were scarce, since apart from having a network with no contention, there isn't a lot else the WAN provider can do. But it does go to show just how importantly CIO/CTO's view it, that the carriers feel compelled to use it in their marketing at every opportunity.
What a pity that so many Australian WAN suppliers have all those glossy expensive MPLS brochures still to get rid of, and their reps have just learned to spell it (but probably not what it actually means - will have to ask one next time I hear it). I guess we will still be hearing the tired old BS claims about it from their reps for a while yet, before they catch on to the international trend.
But as far as virtualization goes - it is certainly something we will be looking into very closely in the next few months. Especially as some of our older servers come up for 'retirement'.
What I can say though, is that I can see a clear path from here to how we can make the Exetel network substantially more extensible.
More of that later.
The best booth was by far the Xirrus display with their boxing ring and live boxing show, where prize fighters duked it out to determine the advantages of matrixed wifi over wired LAN's. Great technology too, by the look of it. Xirrus supplied wifi for the whole conference with 18 nodes covering the whole 5.5 million square feet.
Passions run high as Melissa Littejohn and Ashlei Fesolai battle it out over wifi vs wired LAN's.
Cloud computing featured heavily. 'So just what is cloud computing?' I asked one of the reps at a vendor stand. He rolled his eyes and suppressed a groan, either at the stupidity of my question, or my non USA accent, or both, but answered it anyway. So at least now I know what cloud computing is.
The biggest technology, championed by every major, and most minor, vendors however, was 'virtualization'. Now that I know something about, having followed VMWare with interest from their very early days, and trialled it on servers as early as circa 1999-2000.
Looking at how hard IBM, Dell, Cisco and every other hardware and OS vendor are flogging it, it is a technology if not come of age, then about to very, very soon.
Also of interest is that everyone (US carriers I mean), have dropped the MPLS 'Saviour of your network' crap (who needs to know, and who cares), but now, suddenly, their WAN services have become (or always been, according to the marketing) 'Virtualization Optimized' or 'Virtualization Improving'. And how would they do that exactly? Well, the details, unsurprisingly were scarce, since apart from having a network with no contention, there isn't a lot else the WAN provider can do. But it does go to show just how importantly CIO/CTO's view it, that the carriers feel compelled to use it in their marketing at every opportunity.
What a pity that so many Australian WAN suppliers have all those glossy expensive MPLS brochures still to get rid of, and their reps have just learned to spell it (but probably not what it actually means - will have to ask one next time I hear it). I guess we will still be hearing the tired old BS claims about it from their reps for a while yet, before they catch on to the international trend.
But as far as virtualization goes - it is certainly something we will be looking into very closely in the next few months. Especially as some of our older servers come up for 'retirement'.
Friday, May 22. 2009
Leaving Las Vegas...
... Shame and loathing in LA.
I was fortunate enough to get an FF upgrade on my flight back to Sydney to first class. Not bad I thought, since I had a four hour wait between my flight from Las Vegas till the 11pm flight from LA. The wait should be a little easier in the salubrious surrounds of the international first class lounge.
Yeah right.
Maybe the wait for the transfer bus to the Tom Bradley International Terminal, running every half hour, didn't put me in the best of moods.
"'ave a walk about while you wait, mate" said the young Aussie Qantas attendant at the transfer desk. "There's bugger all to do once you get over there"
He didn't actually say 'bugger all' but I got the idea he wanted to.
I have traipsed acreages of hallways in the last few days, and seen everything I ever wanted in the way of airport terminal shops already. So I just took one of the plastic and vinal seats, the near pinnacle of sadistic seating design, to wait the 25 minutes for the next bus.
The transfer bus slowed down long enough for most of us to get off somewhere near the back of the terminal, near the waste disposal bay, and most of those of us that made it off managed to find our way to the main terminal gates with no one to direct us and no obvious signage. Maybe that was due to some deconstruction work that seemed to be going on, tastefully masked behind tattered plastic sheets and duct tape.
After solving the puzzle of finding the way to the flight lounge - one small sign on an elevator hidden around the corner of the security staff tea room - I was greeted by a very pleasant attendant who checked my boarding pass and ushered me into the lounge.
Ah, a sigh of relief, I can relax in comfort for a while now, I thought.
My expectation didn't, and still doesn't, seem unreasonable to me. The Emirates lounge at Perth airport is first rate, so too is the NZ Airlines lounge in Auckland and the old Ansett lounges when they were still flying. The Singapore Airlines lounge is just fantastic, and the Thai airlines lounge is not to shabby either.
And all those are the business class lounges. Nor is there anything to complain about at the shared facilities lounge in Sri Lanka.
So that was what my expectation was set by. Qantas and OneWorld, first tier airlines. LAX, a major international airport. First class lounge - going to be nice.
No.
It is crap.
One small step up from the abysmal dives American domestic carriers call business and first lounges - where you are wedged shoulder to shoulder to use your one complimentary beverage voucher (and still have to tip anyway).
But still crowded. The drinks _are_ free, and at least getting them yourself means you are saved the dilemma of tipping. Though they are nothing special - $20 a bottle Wolf Blass, some Nappa Valley Merlot that tastes like cordial. Usual mix of spirits and some run of the mill international beers.
Nor is the food much better. A very small 'help yourself' area with a few overcooked and dried out selections. Some cheese and biscuits, still fresh from their plastic wrappings and a 'make it your bloody self' espresso machine.
Ok, well those LV buffet's take a bit of getting over, and I wasn't that hungry anyway. I'll just use the restroom. Ugh, maybe not. The lounge has a capacity of maybe 100 and there were about 70 people there. The mens room had two urinals and one stall. I mean COME ON! The one thing I can say that is positive about American airports is that, most of the time, the toilets are clean. Not so in the first class lounge though it seems. Maybe we filthy foreigners don't rate having clean restrooms (or maybe they are that way to show the Americans traveling on a non-domestic carrier how much better off they are with their own).
I'll just sit and catch up with some email then. The first trick is to find a seat where I can plug my laptop in - no mean feat, since there are no work areas as such (maybe frequent first class travelers don't lower themselves to that sort of thing). After a bit of a wait, I snagged a seat near a pillar with a power point that someone had just left.
As I sat down, one of the (two) lounge attendants gave the micro table in front of me a cursory wipe with a cloth, helpfully smearing the remains of whatever the last three people had left into a flatter surface I could at least now balance my laptop on.
Wow, wifi is actually free! For a moment their I thought I would have to buy access. Hurrah, I can now download my email.
Qantas, you are a class act. In a country where bandwidth retails for $2 per Mbps, you use a dial up connection for your flight lounge. Good on ya, mate.
Are Qantas tickets cheap? Sure, mine was an FF upgrade. But you look at business and first class ticket rates for any airline between Australia and the US, and the Qantas prices are either the highest or nearly there. Usually always 30-40% more than Singapore, Malaysia or one of the Japanese carriers.
I feel embarrassed to be an Australian if this is the best we can do, and I feel bad for my country that our national carrier cheapskates premium travel so much. Why would anyone, paying for a premium ticket class, not choose Singapore Airlines, JAL, or even travel the other way via Emirates or one of those other superb airlines?
Oh, and now the lounge is full and I must share my micro table and one power outlet with a fellow suffering traveler. Camaraderie in the trenches an all that.
What a disappointment.
I was fortunate enough to get an FF upgrade on my flight back to Sydney to first class. Not bad I thought, since I had a four hour wait between my flight from Las Vegas till the 11pm flight from LA. The wait should be a little easier in the salubrious surrounds of the international first class lounge.
Yeah right.
Maybe the wait for the transfer bus to the Tom Bradley International Terminal, running every half hour, didn't put me in the best of moods.
"'ave a walk about while you wait, mate" said the young Aussie Qantas attendant at the transfer desk. "There's bugger all to do once you get over there"
He didn't actually say 'bugger all' but I got the idea he wanted to.
I have traipsed acreages of hallways in the last few days, and seen everything I ever wanted in the way of airport terminal shops already. So I just took one of the plastic and vinal seats, the near pinnacle of sadistic seating design, to wait the 25 minutes for the next bus.
The transfer bus slowed down long enough for most of us to get off somewhere near the back of the terminal, near the waste disposal bay, and most of those of us that made it off managed to find our way to the main terminal gates with no one to direct us and no obvious signage. Maybe that was due to some deconstruction work that seemed to be going on, tastefully masked behind tattered plastic sheets and duct tape.
After solving the puzzle of finding the way to the flight lounge - one small sign on an elevator hidden around the corner of the security staff tea room - I was greeted by a very pleasant attendant who checked my boarding pass and ushered me into the lounge.
Ah, a sigh of relief, I can relax in comfort for a while now, I thought.
My expectation didn't, and still doesn't, seem unreasonable to me. The Emirates lounge at Perth airport is first rate, so too is the NZ Airlines lounge in Auckland and the old Ansett lounges when they were still flying. The Singapore Airlines lounge is just fantastic, and the Thai airlines lounge is not to shabby either.
And all those are the business class lounges. Nor is there anything to complain about at the shared facilities lounge in Sri Lanka.
So that was what my expectation was set by. Qantas and OneWorld, first tier airlines. LAX, a major international airport. First class lounge - going to be nice.
No.
It is crap.
One small step up from the abysmal dives American domestic carriers call business and first lounges - where you are wedged shoulder to shoulder to use your one complimentary beverage voucher (and still have to tip anyway).
But still crowded. The drinks _are_ free, and at least getting them yourself means you are saved the dilemma of tipping. Though they are nothing special - $20 a bottle Wolf Blass, some Nappa Valley Merlot that tastes like cordial. Usual mix of spirits and some run of the mill international beers.
Nor is the food much better. A very small 'help yourself' area with a few overcooked and dried out selections. Some cheese and biscuits, still fresh from their plastic wrappings and a 'make it your bloody self' espresso machine.
Ok, well those LV buffet's take a bit of getting over, and I wasn't that hungry anyway. I'll just use the restroom. Ugh, maybe not. The lounge has a capacity of maybe 100 and there were about 70 people there. The mens room had two urinals and one stall. I mean COME ON! The one thing I can say that is positive about American airports is that, most of the time, the toilets are clean. Not so in the first class lounge though it seems. Maybe we filthy foreigners don't rate having clean restrooms (or maybe they are that way to show the Americans traveling on a non-domestic carrier how much better off they are with their own).
I'll just sit and catch up with some email then. The first trick is to find a seat where I can plug my laptop in - no mean feat, since there are no work areas as such (maybe frequent first class travelers don't lower themselves to that sort of thing). After a bit of a wait, I snagged a seat near a pillar with a power point that someone had just left.
As I sat down, one of the (two) lounge attendants gave the micro table in front of me a cursory wipe with a cloth, helpfully smearing the remains of whatever the last three people had left into a flatter surface I could at least now balance my laptop on.
Wow, wifi is actually free! For a moment their I thought I would have to buy access. Hurrah, I can now download my email.
Connection to server lost.
pop3.exetel.com.au host not found
C:\Windows\system32>ping -n 50 220.233.0.1
Pinging 220.233.0.1 with 32 bytes of data:
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Reply from 220.233.0.1: bytes=32 time=365ms TTL=52
Reply from 220.233.0.1: bytes=32 time=357ms TTL=52
Reply from 220.233.0.1: bytes=32 time=446ms TTL=52
Reply from 220.233.0.1: bytes=32 time=511ms TTL=52
Reply from 220.233.0.1: bytes=32 time=389ms TTL=52
Reply from 220.233.0.1: bytes=32 time=416ms TTL=52
Reply from 220.233.0.1: bytes=32 time=531ms TTL=52
Reply from 220.233.0.1: bytes=32 time=461ms TTL=52
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Reply from 220.233.0.1: bytes=32 time=370ms TTL=52
Request timed out.
Reply from 220.233.0.1: bytes=32 time=364ms TTL=52
Reply from 220.233.0.1: bytes=32 time=571ms TTL=52
Request timed out.
Reply from 220.233.0.1: bytes=32 time=459ms TTL=52
Request timed out.
Reply from 220.233.0.1: bytes=32 time=365ms TTL=52
Reply from 220.233.0.1: bytes=32 time=554ms TTL=52
Reply from 220.233.0.1: bytes=32 time=503ms TTL=52
Request timed out.
Reply from 220.233.0.1: bytes=32 time=693ms TTL=52
Reply from 220.233.0.1: bytes=32 time=514ms TTL=52
Reply from 220.233.0.1: bytes=32 time=452ms TTL=52
Reply from 220.233.0.1: bytes=32 time=537ms TTL=52
Request timed out.
Reply from 220.233.0.1: bytes=32 time=490ms TTL=52
Reply from 220.233.0.1: bytes=32 time=403ms TTL=52
Reply from 220.233.0.1: bytes=32 time=289ms TTL=52
Reply from 220.233.0.1: bytes=32 time=490ms TTL=52
Reply from 220.233.0.1: bytes=32 time=355ms TTL=52
Request timed out.
Reply from 220.233.0.1: bytes=32 time=476ms TTL=52
Reply from 220.233.0.1: bytes=32 time=369ms TTL=52
Reply from 220.233.0.1: bytes=32 time=526ms TTL=52
Reply from 220.233.0.1: bytes=32 time=524ms TTL=52
Reply from 220.233.0.1: bytes=32 time=423ms TTL=52
Reply from 220.233.0.1: bytes=32 time=448ms TTL=52
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Request timed out.
Reply from 220.233.0.1: bytes=32 time=337ms TTL=52
Reply from 220.233.0.1: bytes=32 time=338ms TTL=52
Reply from 220.233.0.1: bytes=32 time=570ms TTL=52
Reply from 220.233.0.1: bytes=32 time=412ms TTL=52
Ping statistics for 220.233.0.1:
Packets: Sent = 47, Received = 34, Lost = 13 (27% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 289ms, Maximum = 693ms, Average = 450ms
Qantas, you are a class act. In a country where bandwidth retails for $2 per Mbps, you use a dial up connection for your flight lounge. Good on ya, mate.
Are Qantas tickets cheap? Sure, mine was an FF upgrade. But you look at business and first class ticket rates for any airline between Australia and the US, and the Qantas prices are either the highest or nearly there. Usually always 30-40% more than Singapore, Malaysia or one of the Japanese carriers.
I feel embarrassed to be an Australian if this is the best we can do, and I feel bad for my country that our national carrier cheapskates premium travel so much. Why would anyone, paying for a premium ticket class, not choose Singapore Airlines, JAL, or even travel the other way via Emirates or one of those other superb airlines?
Oh, and now the lounge is full and I must share my micro table and one power outlet with a fellow suffering traveler. Camaraderie in the trenches an all that.
What a disappointment.
Monday, May 18. 2009
Travel to the US and VoIP
On my way to Interop in Las Vegas I have had the chance to try out our new VoIP client for the Nokia N96, and how our new Asterisk based PABX would handle the latency.
First stop off was Auckland Airport. The bad thing about the free airport wifi is it still requires registration via a captive portal before you can get external Internet access. That is just fine for a VoIP client on a laptop, but a pain on an N96, since the wifi network has to be connected first before the VoIP app is activated. Took about six goes, but I got there eventually.
Called home in Perth, no problems, pretty much a MoS 3.6 call. Dropped out after about 10 minutes though, but no big deal, my plane was boarding anyway.
Next stop was LAX, and the wifi at the LAX Hilton. The phone found the wifi network and the VoIP client registered straight away. I started dialing with +61, but then remembered I was getting Sydney 'dial tone', so just needed my 089xxxx number.
No problems with that call at all either, slightly better than the NZ one, maybe less contention on the local network. I gave it a MoS of 3.8. The call also dropped out after 10 minutes, but that was because the hotel only provides 10 minutes free, before it diverts you to an active portal to register and pay.
Then it was on to Las Vegas, and the free wifi network at Interop. The latency of the Interop LAN, just to its WAN boarder was 110ms, and another 60ms to LA - due to every vendor and his dog flooding the network to demonstrate their high speed WAN applications, and other deliberately flooding it to demonstrate the effectiveness of their QoS (look, see how crap the network is, and with a flick of the virtual switch, now it is better). Unfortunately my phone wasn't registered with any QoS network vendor, so I just had to accept the latency, packet loss and jitter hit.
It was just on 8am Perth time when I called, and the voice quality was just fine, but there was a lag of maybe a full second. Again the call dropped out after 10 minutes - maybe someone is trying o tell me something - but when I reconnected the lag was much less, in fact not even noticeable. So I suspect some vendors intelligent traffic management system noticed my VoIP packets struggling, got hold of the data stream and did something with it that caused the drop out and then significant improvement.
Anyway, the first call I rate at MoS 3.2 and the second MoS 4.
Now, on to the conference.....
First stop off was Auckland Airport. The bad thing about the free airport wifi is it still requires registration via a captive portal before you can get external Internet access. That is just fine for a VoIP client on a laptop, but a pain on an N96, since the wifi network has to be connected first before the VoIP app is activated. Took about six goes, but I got there eventually.
Called home in Perth, no problems, pretty much a MoS 3.6 call. Dropped out after about 10 minutes though, but no big deal, my plane was boarding anyway.
Next stop was LAX, and the wifi at the LAX Hilton. The phone found the wifi network and the VoIP client registered straight away. I started dialing with +61, but then remembered I was getting Sydney 'dial tone', so just needed my 089xxxx number.
No problems with that call at all either, slightly better than the NZ one, maybe less contention on the local network. I gave it a MoS of 3.8. The call also dropped out after 10 minutes, but that was because the hotel only provides 10 minutes free, before it diverts you to an active portal to register and pay.
Then it was on to Las Vegas, and the free wifi network at Interop. The latency of the Interop LAN, just to its WAN boarder was 110ms, and another 60ms to LA - due to every vendor and his dog flooding the network to demonstrate their high speed WAN applications, and other deliberately flooding it to demonstrate the effectiveness of their QoS (look, see how crap the network is, and with a flick of the virtual switch, now it is better). Unfortunately my phone wasn't registered with any QoS network vendor, so I just had to accept the latency, packet loss and jitter hit.
It was just on 8am Perth time when I called, and the voice quality was just fine, but there was a lag of maybe a full second. Again the call dropped out after 10 minutes - maybe someone is trying o tell me something - but when I reconnected the lag was much less, in fact not even noticeable. So I suspect some vendors intelligent traffic management system noticed my VoIP packets struggling, got hold of the data stream and did something with it that caused the drop out and then significant improvement.
Anyway, the first call I rate at MoS 3.2 and the second MoS 4.
Now, on to the conference.....
Friday, May 15. 2009
Sales Engineer Training Course
I was determined that the next training course I ran would be 'virtual'. I must be four years ago now since I last ran a course for engineers, and in that one I used email lists and shared network drives to disseminate all the information to the attendees.
It was an experiment for me to see just what would be possible in terms of conducting a structured course completely on line with attendees able to be anywhere in the world.
There is no doubt in my mind that that can be done. But. Time has slipped by, and I am taking the 'lazy' way out and getting our engineers and some sales people into the office tomorrow for a 3 hour course.
This is the agenda:
A packed schedule to be sure - but when I am the main presenter, it needs to busy to overcome my otherwise boring personality. Dammit Jim, I'm an engineer, not an entertainer.
Anyway, all our people are bright, so I sure they will handle it.
I am expecting it to be a productive use of a morning. There are always three results that should be aimed for in any course with your own company:
1. the obvious one - effectively importing knowledge to individuals
2. the presenter finding our what the individuals know/can learn
3. each person gaining better understanding of their colleagues
Which I find that taking what any sensible trainer would consider a two day course and compressing it by a factor of 4 will best achieve. Because my experience has always been that the most is learned when the pressure is greatest and the time is shortest.
It was an experiment for me to see just what would be possible in terms of conducting a structured course completely on line with attendees able to be anywhere in the world.
There is no doubt in my mind that that can be done. But. Time has slipped by, and I am taking the 'lazy' way out and getting our engineers and some sales people into the office tomorrow for a 3 hour course.
This is the agenda:
9:30 - 9:35 Introduction
- course objectives - 2 deliverables an one practical exercise
- scoring
9:35 - 9:45 Sales Cycle
9:45 - 9:55 Engineering Cycle
9:55 - 10:25 workshop: design a sales/engineering process
10:25 - 10:30 Team 1 presentation
10:30 - 10:35 Team 2 presentation
10:35 - 10:36 team/individual scoring
10:36 - 10:45 Experience with bad engineering habits
10:45 - 10:50 Experience with bad sales habits
10:50 - 11:00 Productive dialog and meetings will solve most if not all problems
11:00 - 11:15 workshop: teams conduct a sales engineering meeting for a hypothetical sale
11:15 - 11:20 team 2 minutes presentation
11:20 - 11:25 team 1 minutes presentation
11:25 - 11:26 team/individual scoring
11:26 - 11:45 Providing and exchanging clear and concise information
11:45 - 11:55 example sales calls to an interested buyer, per team
11:55 - 12:19 workshop: each team to produce costed solutions
12:19 - 12:24 team 1 presentation
12:24 - 12:29 team 2 presentation
12:29 - 12:30 team/individual scoring
12:30 END - Lunch
A packed schedule to be sure - but when I am the main presenter, it needs to busy to overcome my otherwise boring personality. Dammit Jim, I'm an engineer, not an entertainer.
Anyway, all our people are bright, so I sure they will handle it.
I am expecting it to be a productive use of a morning. There are always three results that should be aimed for in any course with your own company:
1. the obvious one - effectively importing knowledge to individuals
2. the presenter finding our what the individuals know/can learn
3. each person gaining better understanding of their colleagues
Which I find that taking what any sensible trainer would consider a two day course and compressing it by a factor of 4 will best achieve. Because my experience has always been that the most is learned when the pressure is greatest and the time is shortest.
Thursday, May 14. 2009
A very convenient Scandal
Is there anything a government likes more than some sort of scandal to distract everyone from contravention policies and budgets? Sex or sport scandals are best, and combining both is a double bonanza.
I have to say I have been a long time watcher of 4 Corners, and I can't recall ever seeing a more sensational or less balanced piece.
The timing couldn't have been arrange better if the Prime Ministers own media department had coordinated it.
I have to say I have been a long time watcher of 4 Corners, and I can't recall ever seeing a more sensational or less balanced piece.
The timing couldn't have been arrange better if the Prime Ministers own media department had coordinated it.
Wednesday, May 13. 2009
Filter Trial Sales Disaster...
.. for Exetel ill wishers and competitor stooges.
I waited two weeks to make sure I could get comparable figures from last month, and that any 'fall out' would be fully apparent.
And the results are (drum roll) - an eight percent increase in ADSLx sales since we ran the trial.
It is very unlikely to be a result caused by the trial itself. Most probably it is a combination of normal and seasonal variance.
I am so sorry - not - to shatter the ego's of the rabid mob (four is a mob, right?) baying for Exetel to collapse because of our filter trial.
Oh well. In the words of Lennon and McCartney "life goes on, brah!"
I waited two weeks to make sure I could get comparable figures from last month, and that any 'fall out' would be fully apparent.
And the results are (drum roll) - an eight percent increase in ADSLx sales since we ran the trial.
It is very unlikely to be a result caused by the trial itself. Most probably it is a combination of normal and seasonal variance.
I am so sorry - not - to shatter the ego's of the rabid mob (four is a mob, right?) baying for Exetel to collapse because of our filter trial.
Oh well. In the words of Lennon and McCartney "life goes on, brah!"
Friday, May 8. 2009
A Very Convenient Recession
Just read this: http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2008/s2564238.htm
So what is the score now? Thanks to the stimulus packages, no Australian child now needs to live without a plasma TV and an XBOX. Some retrial staff have a reprieve on their redundancy, and a medium sized warehouse in China has cleared some of its stockpile.
Well, that is certainly a better way to justify a huge budget deficit that spending on needless luxuries like health care.
How convenient though that the GFC can be used as an excuse for broken electoral promises, just as it can for large corporations to justify work force reductions without too much union protest.
It doesn't seem to be in anyones (any one that matters that is) interest for a recovery just yet.
Monday, May 4. 2009
Filters and Blacklisting
With all the vehement who-har over our recent filter trial last week you would think those same people would go apoplectic with protest over an even more uncontrolled, unaudited and secretive form of censorship that is far more widespread. Yet have you heard any voice raised, ever, about the many private organization blacklists that infest the Internet?
No. Well, not from the crazies to get so mad about a child pornography filter list anyway.
In fact, I wonder if it is any coincidence that Exetel DNS servers now appear on two of these blacklists? - I doubt it.
Perhaps the cries of 'We hate censorship and we hate you' really mean 'We hate not being the ones who control censorship and we hate you enough to censor you which we will do using our own clandestine methods'.
Blacklists have been around since at least the mid 90's, originally as an attempt by the Internet 'community' to control poorly configured and compromised servers. Later being used most often for spam. They work by publishing a list of server IP addresses that sysadmin can get (or set up an automated process to get), that they load onto their own server to prevent email or other traffic being received from or sent to the blacklisted server.
The idea is (or was) that if all sysadmins use the blacklist, then the 'bad' servers would find themselves isolated from the rest of the Internet, and the sysadmin controlling them would have to take some action to fix them up.
It was always up to each individual sysadmin to decide to use blacklists or not, and which ones, because there are many. Most claim to be reputable and to operate ethically (however that can be defined). And it is arguable that they may indeed have in theory some beneficial effect.
In practice however, I can tell you, they cause far more problems than they resolve. Consider the answers to these two questions:
* Who sets up the blacklists? There is no central authority or governance. They are created by individuals or groups based on their own desires and beliefs
* Who decides what it blacklisted and why? Often the list creators publish the criteria for blacklist entry. But who can say if that is followed or how entries are actually made. Methods range from anyone being able to nominate an IP address to supposed 'honey pot' captures of spam. Actual checking is time consuming, and since often blacklists are provided 'free' it is unlikely sufficient checking is done in all cases, and possible no checking is ever done.
It used to be that all such blacklists were free, and run by volunteers. I think that was the point that blacklists had the most credibility - at least there was no monetary gain for the maintainers (putting aside personal grudges they may have had that might cause an entry to appear on a list).
Although now that I think about it, I do recall having a heated phone call with one such 'do gooder' operator of a list a few years ago, who threatened that he would 'black hole you (the ISP I was working for) into oblivion' if we did not comply with his wishes to block a particular customer server he believed was the cause of some spam. I kid you not, he was insisting that I illegally block a paying customer on his say so, and threatening to severely impact the operation of the company I worked for and jeopardize the livelihood of the 20 or so people who worked their.
'How can you say you will do that?' I asked him
'Because I hate spam and I will do anything to stop it' was his shouted reply
The sad thing was, the actually had some power to do that. Not has much as he obviously liked to think, but enough to make a reasonable impact on the business so that his threat could not be taken lightly. Who gave him that power? Who regulated it? Who ensured it was no abused? No one, he was a self appointed vigilantly who relied on the fact that many sysadmins were ignorant enough and slack enough to think that his blacklist was a good idea.
So there you go. Blacklists are ineffective at best, and cyber terrorism at worst.
The latest block lists are now run on a much more commercial basis. The unfortunate that appears on the list must pay an 'administration, not for profit' fee to be removed, and anyone wanting to find out the reason for the block must also pay some sort of fee.
We have moved from cyber terrorism to extortion.
But where are all you freedom of the Internet proponents now? Where have you been for the last 15 years while this travesty against free speech has been carried on in its many iterations?
I would make a bet that in many cases the same self appointed guardians of Internet freedom are the maintainers of, or at the very least contributors to, the various blacklists.
Anyway, enough about those wankers.
How do the sysadmins get away with using blacklists in the first place?
If a sysadmin or IT manager went to their MD and said 'I am going to put in place a list that will block access to parts of the Internet. I don't know who compiled the list, I don't know what criteria they use, but it will prevent some legitimate emails getting through, and black hole access to other legitimate sites that our staff might need to access. Why am I doing it? Well, there MAY be spam coming from the an address on the list, but I can't be sure and have no way of making sure'. How long do you think they would stay in that job?
I can only imagine that what actually happens is something like, the sysadmin puts the list in place without telling anyone because (being lazy and ingorant) thinks it is a good idea. Email or sites are blocked, the users or management ask why, and get told 'That site is blacklisted for spam (or whatever first plausible reason that pops into the sysadmins mind).
No further questions are asked, because, of course who wants to waste time with a half hour explanation of technical gobbledygook that no one understands. Or perhaps, who wants to look ignorant by asking why? He/She is a sysadmin, they must know what their doing, right?
Well here's a tip; If your sysadmin tells you that some email or site is blocked because of an external blacklist they have unilaterally decided to subscribe to (or failed to remove), sack them. Any doubts you had about their competence are well founded, and the unease you have always felt about them being responsible for a vital part of your business is vindicated. Sack them now before they do any more damage, then go home early because you have probably made the most significant contribution to your profitability for the year.
No. Well, not from the crazies to get so mad about a child pornography filter list anyway.
In fact, I wonder if it is any coincidence that Exetel DNS servers now appear on two of these blacklists? - I doubt it.
Perhaps the cries of 'We hate censorship and we hate you' really mean 'We hate not being the ones who control censorship and we hate you enough to censor you which we will do using our own clandestine methods'.
Blacklists have been around since at least the mid 90's, originally as an attempt by the Internet 'community' to control poorly configured and compromised servers. Later being used most often for spam. They work by publishing a list of server IP addresses that sysadmin can get (or set up an automated process to get), that they load onto their own server to prevent email or other traffic being received from or sent to the blacklisted server.
The idea is (or was) that if all sysadmins use the blacklist, then the 'bad' servers would find themselves isolated from the rest of the Internet, and the sysadmin controlling them would have to take some action to fix them up.
It was always up to each individual sysadmin to decide to use blacklists or not, and which ones, because there are many. Most claim to be reputable and to operate ethically (however that can be defined). And it is arguable that they may indeed have in theory some beneficial effect.
In practice however, I can tell you, they cause far more problems than they resolve. Consider the answers to these two questions:
* Who sets up the blacklists? There is no central authority or governance. They are created by individuals or groups based on their own desires and beliefs
* Who decides what it blacklisted and why? Often the list creators publish the criteria for blacklist entry. But who can say if that is followed or how entries are actually made. Methods range from anyone being able to nominate an IP address to supposed 'honey pot' captures of spam. Actual checking is time consuming, and since often blacklists are provided 'free' it is unlikely sufficient checking is done in all cases, and possible no checking is ever done.
It used to be that all such blacklists were free, and run by volunteers. I think that was the point that blacklists had the most credibility - at least there was no monetary gain for the maintainers (putting aside personal grudges they may have had that might cause an entry to appear on a list).
Although now that I think about it, I do recall having a heated phone call with one such 'do gooder' operator of a list a few years ago, who threatened that he would 'black hole you (the ISP I was working for) into oblivion' if we did not comply with his wishes to block a particular customer server he believed was the cause of some spam. I kid you not, he was insisting that I illegally block a paying customer on his say so, and threatening to severely impact the operation of the company I worked for and jeopardize the livelihood of the 20 or so people who worked their.
'How can you say you will do that?' I asked him
'Because I hate spam and I will do anything to stop it' was his shouted reply
The sad thing was, the actually had some power to do that. Not has much as he obviously liked to think, but enough to make a reasonable impact on the business so that his threat could not be taken lightly. Who gave him that power? Who regulated it? Who ensured it was no abused? No one, he was a self appointed vigilantly who relied on the fact that many sysadmins were ignorant enough and slack enough to think that his blacklist was a good idea.
So there you go. Blacklists are ineffective at best, and cyber terrorism at worst.
The latest block lists are now run on a much more commercial basis. The unfortunate that appears on the list must pay an 'administration, not for profit' fee to be removed, and anyone wanting to find out the reason for the block must also pay some sort of fee.
We have moved from cyber terrorism to extortion.
But where are all you freedom of the Internet proponents now? Where have you been for the last 15 years while this travesty against free speech has been carried on in its many iterations?
I would make a bet that in many cases the same self appointed guardians of Internet freedom are the maintainers of, or at the very least contributors to, the various blacklists.
Anyway, enough about those wankers.
How do the sysadmins get away with using blacklists in the first place?
If a sysadmin or IT manager went to their MD and said 'I am going to put in place a list that will block access to parts of the Internet. I don't know who compiled the list, I don't know what criteria they use, but it will prevent some legitimate emails getting through, and black hole access to other legitimate sites that our staff might need to access. Why am I doing it? Well, there MAY be spam coming from the an address on the list, but I can't be sure and have no way of making sure'. How long do you think they would stay in that job?
I can only imagine that what actually happens is something like, the sysadmin puts the list in place without telling anyone because (being lazy and ingorant) thinks it is a good idea. Email or sites are blocked, the users or management ask why, and get told 'That site is blacklisted for spam (or whatever first plausible reason that pops into the sysadmins mind).
No further questions are asked, because, of course who wants to waste time with a half hour explanation of technical gobbledygook that no one understands. Or perhaps, who wants to look ignorant by asking why? He/She is a sysadmin, they must know what their doing, right?
Well here's a tip; If your sysadmin tells you that some email or site is blocked because of an external blacklist they have unilaterally decided to subscribe to (or failed to remove), sack them. Any doubts you had about their competence are well founded, and the unease you have always felt about them being responsible for a vital part of your business is vindicated. Sack them now before they do any more damage, then go home early because you have probably made the most significant contribution to your profitability for the year.
Thursday, April 30. 2009
Filter trial causes traffic slow down...
... in the Sydney Harbour Tunnel!
Which is a humorous comparison some people have made on the Exetel forum to some of the 'false negative' reports received about the filter trial.
An analysis and blind test results are here: http://forum.exetel.com.au/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=31857&p=243700#p243700
To coin a phrase, 'The Harbour Tunnel Effect' could be used whenever one event is held responsible for another event that happens at the same time, but is completely unrelated to it.
Which is a humorous comparison some people have made on the Exetel forum to some of the 'false negative' reports received about the filter trial.
An analysis and blind test results are here: http://forum.exetel.com.au/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=31857&p=243700#p243700
To coin a phrase, 'The Harbour Tunnel Effect' could be used whenever one event is held responsible for another event that happens at the same time, but is completely unrelated to it.
Wednesday, April 29. 2009
Why run a filter trial...
... that isn't even the preferred filter method?
I'm glad you asked.
I will preface my explanation by saying that 'we' all know no content filter is ever going to be able to filter anything someone really wants to access. While any filter system is a crazy idea, if we HAVE to have one, would it be preferable to have one that is a) far less effective at stopping anything, and far more complicated and expensive, or b) one that is as effective as possible, and comparatively simple and inexpensive?
Hmmm, let me think about that. For me, I would go for 'b'. But in case it isn't clear, let me put it in end user terms; would you rather a) pay $2 per month extra for your Internet in exchange for the minor inconvenience of perhaps not being able to access some sites without a work-around, or b) pay 50 cents a year extra for your Internet in exchange for the minor inconvenience of perhaps not being able to access some sites without a work-around?
(NONE AT ALL. EXETEL IS THE GREAT SATAN FOR EVEN MENTIONING IT. RAGE SPIT FOAM. Yes, thank you all you crazies, as always, you have served your purpose.)
My guess is you would say 'b' too.
Why then is an opt in/out filter system, option 'a', the 'preferred' solution? It can only be because of the very negative public opinion the work 'mandatory' evokes.` 'Optional' on the other hand, to someone who doesn't know otherwise, sound much more palatable.
I wont re-hash my argument of why optional filtering makes no sense (or rather, even less sense). Lets just take it as a given that someone with no other knowledge or information is going to prefer something bad that is 'optional' to something bad that is 'mandatory'.
So much so in fact, that I believe that if content filtering were to be made non-optional then the labour government, ever concerned over public opinion (as demonstrated by the plastic bag back down), would have to scrap the project.
When you are well briefed on the technology, the implications, options and costs (as I like to think I am, but no more than anyone with a technical background), and work though the political arguments presented, it becomes clear that there can be no POSSIBLE reason for opt in filtering being preferred other than it is the only way the scheme could possibly get through.
There are two 'battles' to be fought. The obvious one is whether the content filter itself. But disagree as much as you want, the fact is slightly more than half of you voted for this government who therefore has a mandate to fulfill its promise.
The less obvious one, and the one everyone has been successful distracted from, is the type of filtering system, which brings us back to option a) or b).
With official trials focusing on opt in/out filter systems, what evidence is there that anything else is better/cheaper? What debate is there about alternatives? And what can make the 'general public' (who with no other input will think 'optional' is better than 'mandatory') aware of the difference?
I guess someone should run a trial that will do that.
I'm glad you asked.
I will preface my explanation by saying that 'we' all know no content filter is ever going to be able to filter anything someone really wants to access. While any filter system is a crazy idea, if we HAVE to have one, would it be preferable to have one that is a) far less effective at stopping anything, and far more complicated and expensive, or b) one that is as effective as possible, and comparatively simple and inexpensive?
Hmmm, let me think about that. For me, I would go for 'b'. But in case it isn't clear, let me put it in end user terms; would you rather a) pay $2 per month extra for your Internet in exchange for the minor inconvenience of perhaps not being able to access some sites without a work-around, or b) pay 50 cents a year extra for your Internet in exchange for the minor inconvenience of perhaps not being able to access some sites without a work-around?
(NONE AT ALL. EXETEL IS THE GREAT SATAN FOR EVEN MENTIONING IT. RAGE SPIT FOAM. Yes, thank you all you crazies, as always, you have served your purpose.)
My guess is you would say 'b' too.
Why then is an opt in/out filter system, option 'a', the 'preferred' solution? It can only be because of the very negative public opinion the work 'mandatory' evokes.` 'Optional' on the other hand, to someone who doesn't know otherwise, sound much more palatable.
I wont re-hash my argument of why optional filtering makes no sense (or rather, even less sense). Lets just take it as a given that someone with no other knowledge or information is going to prefer something bad that is 'optional' to something bad that is 'mandatory'.
So much so in fact, that I believe that if content filtering were to be made non-optional then the labour government, ever concerned over public opinion (as demonstrated by the plastic bag back down), would have to scrap the project.
When you are well briefed on the technology, the implications, options and costs (as I like to think I am, but no more than anyone with a technical background), and work though the political arguments presented, it becomes clear that there can be no POSSIBLE reason for opt in filtering being preferred other than it is the only way the scheme could possibly get through.
There are two 'battles' to be fought. The obvious one is whether the content filter itself. But disagree as much as you want, the fact is slightly more than half of you voted for this government who therefore has a mandate to fulfill its promise.
The less obvious one, and the one everyone has been successful distracted from, is the type of filtering system, which brings us back to option a) or b).
With official trials focusing on opt in/out filter systems, what evidence is there that anything else is better/cheaper? What debate is there about alternatives? And what can make the 'general public' (who with no other input will think 'optional' is better than 'mandatory') aware of the difference?
I guess someone should run a trial that will do that.
Tuesday, April 28. 2009
Content Filtering - Opt In/Opt Out
It doesn't make sense. For the sake of argument, just put aside the difficulties of allowing every end user to opt in or out of a content filter and consider what possible reason there could be to do such a thing?
If the government is serious about content filtering, for the strongly alluded purpose of preventing child porn and other illegal content, then how can there be an option that allows people not to use the filter? Its like legislating against drunk driving but allowing the driver an option to stop for an RBT. Or, 'I'm sorry Mrs Jones, we would like to take your husbands murderer to jail, but he has opted out of a trial'.
There is no doubt murderers, drunk drivers and other criminals would opt not to be caught if they could. So who do you think would choose to opt out of a filter system that blocked illegal content?
If a government imposes a content filter system, then is also must have the backbone to make it mandatory, otherwise it is nothing more than senseless grandstanding of weak willed leadership to make it look like they are doing something to fulfill an empty election promise (and wasting lots of money in the process).
Oh... damn.
I guess we will end up with an opt in filter system then.
If the government is serious about content filtering, for the strongly alluded purpose of preventing child porn and other illegal content, then how can there be an option that allows people not to use the filter? Its like legislating against drunk driving but allowing the driver an option to stop for an RBT. Or, 'I'm sorry Mrs Jones, we would like to take your husbands murderer to jail, but he has opted out of a trial'.
There is no doubt murderers, drunk drivers and other criminals would opt not to be caught if they could. So who do you think would choose to opt out of a filter system that blocked illegal content?
If a government imposes a content filter system, then is also must have the backbone to make it mandatory, otherwise it is nothing more than senseless grandstanding of weak willed leadership to make it look like they are doing something to fulfill an empty election promise (and wasting lots of money in the process).
Oh... damn.
I guess we will end up with an opt in filter system then.
(Page 1 of 13, totaling 181 entries)
next page »
