ManyMedia

At one point back in the day, I owned a nice blue Honda 400 4-cylinder motorcycle. I rode that bike everywhere, until a series of real life moments derailed my riding. Then many years accidentally but quickly passed without a bike.

Recently I’ve been a happy passenger on a series of motorcycles (Harley Softail, Honda Gold Wing, Suzuki V-Strom) driven by a couple of seriously experienced riders. The trips along winding forested roads in northern California, including one night ride up the mountains (froze my undies on that one!), a nice long ride over the hills and along the western coastline, and several rides through the local hills, brought back my inner rider. Somehow I had to get back to it.

A lot has changed since back in the day. To do this up right, I signed up for a motorcycle training course. A motorcycle rider can never be too well trained, especially in light of recently released statistics about most serious accidents involving untrained and unlicensed riders. Sure, I know that the shifting, braking, and cornering will come back, but I also know there are many things I never quite figured out. Gravel, for instance.

This is the week of my training classes at Bay Area Motorcycle Training. First I will attend a lecture and information class on Thursday night, followed by two weekend afternoons riding in “the range.” More on that later.

But first I had to go shopping! My over-ankle hiking boots will do fine for now, but I needed a decent jacket and a pair of gloves. I was surprised at the lack of women’s motorcycle wear online. Many of the sites that used to be widely linked-to are now owned by adver-marts: domains now owned for the purpose of delivering advertising to the still-ongoing stream of traffic. I ordered a couple of catalogs, and I planned trips to the local motorcycle stores.

I went in with clothing that I considered reasonable for the occasion: a t-shirt and a sweatshirt. I asked the friendly sales agent for help, since I was curious to hear what she would say as well as what bits of wisdom she might share. We located the women’s racks of jackets, and I started trying them on–first to figure out what size I was in motorcycle gear.

The first problem: too many clothes. I was advised to remove my sweatshirt for a better fit. That seemed odd, but I can follow advice. These were “fitted” jackets from Spidi (leather,$560), Revit ($300 textile, or $330 leather), Arlen Ness (heavy leather, didn’t even look at the price). Turns out I’m a 38-42, without a sweatshirt. I’ve never looked more stylish! Still, this was a purchase I had to think about.

My sales agent did mention one more helpful thing: this store offered a 10% discount for 30 days following a motorcycle training course. I wondered if this was a wide-spread practice. A 10% discount can come in handy, especially if it covers goods on sale.

My second visit to a motorcycle store was with a friend. A second opinion can be valuable, especially when it is a well-informed one. The second store was Cycle Gear, a chain with a good supply of nearly everything. The day I visited, they were short on women’s sized boots.

Cycle Gear didn’t carry the same brand name jackets as the prior store. However, they had a jacket from UK brand Frank Thomas, called Sofia, in my sweatshirted size, on sale. [link to jacket, not on sale ]

This was a decent “textile” jacket. It too was fitted and claimed as waterproof*, with inverted V-shaped zippers from the waist to hips, three snaps to variably tighten the sleeves around my wrist, and a lady-shaped fit overall. There’s a stylish silver reflective stitched design on the front and back, as well as reflective piping down the sleeves and down the front and back of the jacket, highlighting a woman’s curvish shape. Several well-placed zippers (front of shoulders, upper arms, back lower waist) zip down for ventilation. Outside zippers zip up to close — a good way to make sure stuff doesn’t accidentally fall out of your pockets.

The jacket has plastic armor in the shoulders and elbows. Interestingly, there is a conspicuous note on the inside of the jacket that points out the “Armasport Plus CE” armor, approved to EN1621-1/97 European standards, but is not considered “personal protective equipment” as defined by EC Directive (Regulations 1992, S.1.1992 / 3 139). [link] However, I’m satisfied that if I take a tumble during training, this jacket will keep me from serious scratches and bumps.

I’ve read good reviews and also concerns about overall quality (*including “problems” with waterproof jackets and gloves in the rain, inferior design and execution of stitching of Frank Thomas cycle gear [see, for example, this review and picture, and a review of FT gloves]. I hope I don’t put my jacket to the test, but if I do I will report in. And after all, I’ve gotta start somewhere. This was, under the circumstances, a very affordable jacket.

Life self-determination

The last post in this blog thread is from nearly a year and a half ago. I’m learning that life gets in the way of intent. But then it’s always a matter of priorities, isn’t it?

Life self-determination

Vudu will be depending on telco DSLs and cable modems to deliver P2P video-on-demand (VoD) “instantly”. But telcos and cable companies routinely impair P2P packets. I understand that a relatively few users account for the biggest single category of Internet traffic-namely, P2P traffic. Arguably, ISPs really do need to siphon P2P through a narrow pipe to keep traffic flowing smoothly for the rest of the user base. I could easily see where this might be true. If BitTorrent worked faster, more people would use it and that might really slow down Web traffic for everybody else.

So I’m not saying that telcos and cable companies are completely evil. But considering that the duopoly seems to have the legal right to impair any packets they choose; and considering that both cable franchises and Baby Bells are trying to promote their own VoD services; it seems to me that the duopoly has the means, motive, and opportunity to legally kill off Vudu.

Of course, another possibility might be for Vudu to cut the broadband ISPs in on the deal. If they do, so much for the cost advantages of an independent Web service delivering VoD. Besides, cable and telco VoD services could use P2P themselves to cut down on server costs. In fact, Sky Anywhere (affiliated with the BSkyB satellite service) in the UK already does it, using the (much criticized) Kontiki P2P client. Ditto BBC’s trial run of its Internet Media Player. Likewise, Warner Bros. will supposedly distribute using BitTorrent. Maybe cable and telephone equipment makers just need to integrate P2P into their set top boxes, and stonewall any patents on the topic that Vudu might have.

The only missing link then would be Vudu’s idea of storing the first few minutes or so of many movies on the hard disk in your set top box. Maybe Vudu has a patent on that too? Even if they do, I’m not sure it’s that big a deal. Telco and cable servers could easily get around any such patent, using centralized servers to perform the equivalent task of buffering video before the P2P kicks in. Besides, I don’t see a huge advantage of using local storage of the opening scenes, as opposed to doing it on a server.

But if there is an advantage, maybe cable franchises and telcos could upload lots of opening scenes to your set top box’s hard disk, without worrying about whether Vudu patented that idea or not. Personally I consider the idea to be obvious. Before I ever heard of Vudu. I had a conversation with at least one other engineer about prestoring the first few minutes of many programs to reduce start-time latency of any kind of Internet video, and constantly refreshing the library of prestored opening scenes as studios release new videos.

Content, Network cable, choice, closed networks, Internet, network neutrality, open content, telecom, video on demand

I keep seeing references (like the first paragraph of http://www.thenewatlantis.com/archive/13/atkinsonweiser.htm ) to the idea that proponents of network neutrality are in favor of regulation, and opponents are against regulation. This is nonsense. If opponents are against regulation, let’s see them advocate in favor of lifting the ban against municipalities that want to require open access, and repealing laws against municipalities that want to build wireless nets.

And what do you call the rules that prevent cities from setting the terms of cable franchises? I call them regulations, and anyone who doesn’t is a lying sack of fertilizer. It’s part of the same mendacious mentality that uses the word “express lanes” when they really mean “impair my packets so yours can go faster”. If they could, they’d favor a special-interest law of physics that lets them use faster-than-light technology for their packets–and only their packets.

If existing regulatory measures were not in place, neighborhood activists could lobby their city councils in favor of net neutrality. Citizens would throw out boards of supervisors and city councils that could be seen to be in the pocket of the hated Cable Guy. Any city politician who wanted to keep their job would insist that cable franchisees must treat packets fairly. The only reason cities don’t do that is that because of a lot of regulations, cities have lost their negotiating rights.

Bottom line, I’d be fine with “express lanes” for data, if the market was competitive and not a duopoly. Actually, if there was more competition, I doubt if any ISPs would even consider impairing my packets. But as long as we have in place shelves full of regulations that protect incumbents, I say “Maximum speed 186 thousand miles per second: It’s the law”.

Network, Policy cable, closed networks, incumbents, muni networks, network neutrality, open networks, regulations

People do not use the term “network neutrality” in a consistent fashion, so no ideal definition exists. Basically, some broadband ISPs want to set network-administration policies any way they like-including prioritizing and deprioritizing of different packets, and charging extra to assign higher priorities. Some ISPs have used the term “express lanes” to describe premium-priced virtual channels that prioritize packets according to the wishes of higher-paying customers. Different advocates for express lanes describe such customers differently-as Web site operators and/or as end-users. Many customers of ISPs want traffic routed in a more democratic manner, largely based on first-come, first-served policies.

I find that the quality of the debate is very poor, with both sides engaging in intellectually dishonest tactics. The ISPs are dishonest because so-called “express lanes” only come about by impairing the progress of non-express packets; no technology exists to put packets at “warp speed”. But advocates of network neutrality also fudge the truth when they insist on democratic network policies.

In fact, when accessing a higher-paying Web site such as Amazon, users typically do enjoy faster downloading than when accessing lower-paying sites such as those of small-press publishers. Moreover, ISPs impair P2P traffic to a reduced level, but one that many users find acceptable. Many network engineers believe that a relatively small number of P2P users account for a very large percentage of Internet traffic, and that if ISPs did not impair such traffic, a few users would interfere with serving the needs of the greater Internet population.

While the most vigorous debate occurs among Internet pundits and bloggers, the most influential debate occurs in Washington D.C., where service providers AT&T, Comcast, and Verizon team up to lobby in favor of the so-called express lanes, and large customers including Microsoft and Google team up to lobby in favor of laws that will mandate so-called network neutrality. I have little doubt that the fractious debate will be with us for some time; that compromises will be struck, allowing existing services to remain more or less status-quo, while introducing out-of-band services that provide “express lanes”; that ISPs will face challenges in getting customers to pay extra; and that over the course of many decades, many parties will struggle to control strategic pathways for data, just as armies seek control of rivers and nations seek control of markets.

---

Note for future: If there was more competition, not a duopoly, perhaps traffic would have to be neutral for competitive reasons. Thus, I would like to understand what the policy justification was for overturning open access. “Municipalities are not allowed to require open access because the court upheld the FCC regulation, and the FCC justifies its policy on the basis of YYY”.” How do they justify it? Technically, it flies in the face of the 7-layer model (penalizes use of advanced technology) and the “property rights” argument alone doesn’t hold water bec. municipalities have property rights, too. I would also like to understand what the obstacle is for new facilities-based ISPs. “Startups cannot enter the market because YYY”. (Is there still a legal/regulatory mandate for exclusivity, aka monopoly for video franchises and universal-service telcos? Where does the truth lie between “too costly” and “would simply violate regulations”? Is it “too costly to comply with regulations”? What exactly would it take to start “Newco Residential Fiber Services”?)

Network, Policy Bell Telephone Co, cable, closed networks, FCC, Internet, network neutrality, open networks