Subject: RE: Is WAP mobile Internet??

From: "Parkinson, Jonathan" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 15:15:13 +0100

I disagree, WAP, Wireless Application Protocol, Its a way of transmitting
data I.E. to and from the Web. How does this not fall under the Internet
Umbrella ?

Thanks
Jon

-----Original Message-----
From: Ashutosh Agarwal [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2000 2:25 PM
To: 'Taylor, Johnny'
Cc: [email-masked]'
Subject: RE: Is WAP mobile Internet??

Hi all,
I fully agree with Lars. Even I believe WAP does not fall under the Internet
Umbrella

Ashutosh Agarwal	
e-mail : [email-masked]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change your thoughts and you change your world.
							The Buddha 
------------------------------------------------------------------------

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Taylor, Johnny [SMTP:[email-masked]]
> Sent:	Tuesday, July 04, 2000 12:15 AM
> To:	Lars-Erik Jonsson; [email-masked]
> Subject:	RE: Is WAP mobile Internet??
> 
> The Internet allows all protocols to in-operate with her. This is the
> uniqueness
> of the web. Therefore WAP falls within this area!
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lars-Erik Jonsson [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Friday, June 30, 2000 7:54 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Is WAP mobile Internet??
> 
> 
> Hi Folks!!
> 
> I would like to hear your opinions about how WAP people often say that WAP
> is
> "mobile Internet". In my opinion, WAP is NOT mobile Internet at all. The
> Internet is built on the e2e principle and based on the Internet
> Protocols,
> which WAP is not. I can not tell people that they should not use WAP (even
> if I
> have my opinions about WAP). If they believe in WAP that is their problem,
> but
> when they try to use the words WAP and Internet in the same sentence I
> think
> it
> is time to clarify a few things. I accept that WAP is there, but be honest
> about
> what it is.
> 
> Cheers!
> /Lars-Erik (expressing my PERSONAL opinions)

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 07:45:14 -0700

>data I.E. to and from the Web. How does this not fall under the Internet

Things connected to the "Internet" is able to exchange IP packets 
from other things connected to the "Internet".

"web" is one application which can run where one have access to the 
Internet, and in some cases, you can even access the data "on the 
web" by using other services, like WAP.

    Patrik Faltstrom
    Area Director, Applications Area

---

From: Randy Bush <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 08:10:10 -0700

if i have a device which can only send and receive email, am i "on the
internet?"

if i have a device that lets me send and receive messages to/from internet
users, am i "on the internet"

note that sms with a gateway satisfies the last one.

my point is not to push sms or whatever.  but that by "on the internet" i
think we mean having unincumbered availability of the common application
protocols, email, http, ftp, ssh, ...  i may not choose to use/install them
all, but the commumications technology i use (note this did not say the end
device) should not prevent me from doing so.

e.g. that one-chip web server, with no human interface, is indeed "on the
internet."  a wap phone is not internet, it's waporware <tm>!

randy

---

From: Jon Crowcroft <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 16:19:23 +0100

In message <[email-masked]>, 

 >>data I.E. to and from the Web. How does this not fall under the Internet

1 youcan't get at an arbirtrary web page
2/ you can't get at an arbitraty application written on TCP/IP or
UDP/IP

ergo its not internet, its not Internet, and its not provided by
Internet Service Providers, and this is Very Silly

WAP is quite a neat idea but its a prototype - as folks have said, SMS
is very cool - generalisations of it are cooler - native IP based ones
cooler stil coz then your application base can benefot from the
breadth and depth of stuff that people develop all around the world
for IP and the disciplines and understanding of markets that ISPs now
have......

mobile telephony service providers have a reasonable understanding of
one thing - telephony, based in years of fixed/wireline telephony -
however, this doesnt mean they haev much of a clue when it comes to
software based services that people are exponentiateding in the native
IP world......

 >>e-mail : [email-masked]

 cheers

   jon

---

From: Lloyd Wood <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 17:25:26 +0100 (BST)

On Wed, 5 Jul 2000, Randy Bush wrote:

> protocols, email, http, ftp, ssh, ...  

that's not quite enough; in the UK we're seeing cable-modem ISPs
attempt to restrict services to those applications, or to a subset of 
those applications (lotsa luck setting up an http server or using
ssh.)

being on the Internet means that you can choose to deploy and use new
Internet applications that use the Internet in new ways...

> i may not choose to use/install them

...without having to ask some telco's permission or pay more to enable
the ability. (This is distinct from charging for extreme capacity
use.)

L.

<[email-masked]>PGP<http://www.ee.surrey.ac.uk/Personal/L.Wood/>

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 14:20:17 -0400

> but that by "on the internet" i

I'd go farther than that.  Internet access includes only only the 
ability to use the common protocols, but also the uncommon ones -
indeed, any protocol that works over IP.

some folks tend to think that as long as the popular protocols 
(as measured by counts of packets with certain port numbers)
are handled this is good enough.   there are at least two fallacies
here - (1) it assumes that the Internet is static and that no
new protocols need be accomodated and (2) it assumes that there
is a relationship between the amount of bandwidth used by a protocol
and the importance of that protocol.

IMHO, one of the most important features of the Internet is its 
flexibility, and in particular, its ability to handle arbitrary 
protocols as long as they can run over IP.  

Keith

---

From: Patrik Fältström <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2000 18:22:37 -0700

>the ability. (This is distinct from charging for extreme capacity

There is nothing wrong by providers selling you one thing (accessing 
data also available on the Internet) for one sum of money, and the 
ability to have Internet access for another (higher).

What I don't like is that providers sell non-Internet connections and 
then "charge more" for the abilities you list above (and others).

I.e. if they can produce something silly which the market buys, I 
don't see anything wrong with that -- but it should NOT be called 
Internet Access.

In Sweden we have rules for how much beef there have to be 
(percentage) for something to be called "meatballs". Other things are 
called "frying balls", "lean balls" etc. The same market-driven 
regulation should be true for "Internet Access".

    Patrik