OMS SafeHarbor

‘The last mile’ is a well worn phrase and the reference can have wide dispersion.  The last mile can run the gamut from explaining a runner’s finish, sharing experience on the end of life path, mapping a telecom connection from central office to the local loop, or relating that final phase of a project completion.  The implied meaning is having the end point in sight and knowing the chasm that may exist in reaching the actual end point.

From a digital delivery perspective we have made steady gains on completing that last mile.  Quality of service has increased for consumers of digital content.  We are beneficiaries of the results of Moore’s Law and of ubiquitous internet access.  But what happens when there is a connection failure or a transaction failure?  When the file requested is several GB, what is the QOS?  The payload does not arrive as planned.  The last mile, in these cases, disconnects.

As QOS and bandwidth improve we will expect near 100% connection rates.  But more than likely there will always be the element of disconnect.  We see more activity in the world of deploying Download Managers in an effort to allow increased control and knowledge over a user’s successful receipt of a requested file.  We will continue to see innovation and improvement for large file transfer success rates.  The last mile disconnect, in my opinion, will remain, but not as a technical connection issue.  The last mile is ultimately completed in the context of the first mile and the original background knowledge base of who requested what when.

Richard Bennett back off his gloom-and-doom predictions from last week.

BitTorrent net meltdown delayed: “

But is UTP the best approach?

The internet’s TCP/IP protocol doesn’t work very well. As the internet’s traffic cop, it’s supposed to prevent applications from overloading the network, but it’s at a loss when it comes to managing P2P applications. This deficiency, generally known to network engineers but denied by net neutrality advocates, has been a central issue in the net neutrality debate. BitTorrent Inc has now weighed in on the side of the TCP/IP critics.…

“

(Via The Register – Networks.)

Another article worth a read from The Register today. Salty language included, Ted Dziuba made me laugh out loud.

The data-point I take from this article? Users EXPECT hassle-free downloads of your software. Forever.

Down the Digital River, into the heart of download darkness: “

You may own the bits. But you can’t have ‘em

Fail and You Before the internet, software distribution was cumbersome. While it was relatively cheap to reproduce computer code once it was written, sending floppy disks and CD-ROMs about created friction. Now, with heavy adoption of high speed connections, you can easily buy software and download it over the tubes. Bytes are bytes, no matter the medium.…

“

(Via The Register – Software.)

Richard Bennett at The Register just published this article about the possible death of the internet due to use of peer-to-peer (P2P) technology.

I think a couple of the base assumptions are broken in his analysis, such as “application developers are gentlemanly with regard to the amount of traffic they shove onto the network” and “One rational response is to make UDP the prime candidate for packet discard”, but you can decide for yourself.

My take: you pay (and we pay) to use both TCP and UPD packets.

Bittorrent declares war on VoIP, gamers: “

The next internet meltdown

Gamers, VoIP and video conference users beware. The leading BitTorrent software authors have declared war on you – and any users wanting to wring high performance out of their networks. A key design change in the P2P application promises to make the headaches faced by ISPs so far look like a party game. So what’s happened, and why does it matter?…

“

(Via The Register – Networks.)