• United States
by Readers

Letters to the editor: “Licensing woes still dog Microsoft”

May 08, 20066 mins
Data CenterMicrosoftRegulation

Also: VON speakers debate ‘Net neutrality; tips for setting Windows domain accounts; Xenophobia’s bad for security business; more

Options available

Regarding “Licensing woes still dog Microsoft”: There are at least two solutions to the Microsoft licensing mess: Apple and Linux. Like any other adjucated monopoly, Microsoft will only change its behavior when it loses market share.

Richard Radcliffe


Kondor Waffenamt

Apple Valley, Calif.

Innovation lives

Regarding “VON speakers debate ‘Net neutrality”: The innovative spirit that gave us the Internet was from the Department of Defense (ARPAnet) and the U.S. federal government (funding for the ARPA to Internet transformation was actually procured via a Senate committee chaired by Al Gore). If folks want a common carrier environment (non-profit) for all, then the Internet needs must go back to the government. That a tiered Internet will stifle innovation is nonsense; there has always been a cost to doing any business.

Basic Internet service will continue to be available for basic, same as today, content delivery. The services that require the Internet to emulate a real-time environment, VoIP and video on demand, will cost more.

Sorry, but low to non-profit common carriage has, and will continue to be, brought to you by the government and government-regulated monopolies.

Stephen Wyman

Network specialist

Texas Department of Transportation

Austin, Texas

Playing both ends

Regarding “Carrier CEOs: We won’t block ‘Net”: I think the quote, “They say, ‘Go ahead and build more lanes but let the construction crew pay for it,'” is an excuse for trying to get everyone to give them money, both from the consumers and the content providers. They want to get paid on both ends, which just isn’t the model on which the Internet was born. Their customers will pay for their access to the Internet, not the “construction crew,” or their company, like they claim. If what they charge customers isn’t enough to cover the expenses of building and running their network over some period of time, than maybe they need to cut their costs to build and maintain their network, or figure out how to make it make economic sense, instead of trying to get money on both ends, the consumer and the content providers.

Michael Fiumano

Reston, Va.

Mastering domains

Regarding “Tips for setting up Windows domain accounts”: Since, by default, domain admins have local admin rights over computers within the domain, I don’t understand why a new group should need to be created. If the issue is a security concern, the password(s) of the designated “Installation Domain Admin” account could be changed in AD at any time.

However, there is another consideration: many programs do not create icons for their use in the “All Users” Documents and Settings profile. Instead, they only appear in the profile of the user logged on at the time of installation. As each program is installed, a note of their behavior in this regard needs to be made and appropriate action taken so that the regular user of the computer will be able to access it.

Jon Chorney

Systems administrator

Master, Sidlow & Associates

Wilmington, Del.

Historical perspective

Regarding Kevin Tolly’s column, “OASIS in document desert?”: I would argue that it is vitally important that file formats be standardized. Organizations that are keepers of historical records of our local and national history should be able to present to future generations information that is created today as is. It is one thing to convert text to a readable format, but quite another to convert and be able to present a file that was created using rich media techniques and therefore be able to capture the true intent of the content. Sadly, there has been a reluctance to create electronic records of historical information because of this very problem.

Gregory Liacos

Director of information technology

Historic New England


No trading security

Mike Rothman’s column, “Xenophobia’s bad for security business” is typical of the open-border crowd that sees no evil. I agree the U.K. and even France are allies and we should honor each other’s democratic and capital markets. But when it comes to communist countries where officials have talked of “the U.S. not wanting to trade Los Angeles for Taipei” in reference to Taiwan’s sovereignty, where Tienemen Square was about surviving, when George W. Bush’s first 100 days in office were spent dealing with China holding the U.S. Air Force crew members of our surveillance plane after a Chinese fighter jet crashed into it in international airspace, that’s a different story. Americans don’t want to trade our security for a quick buck, so deal with it.

Don Kuchenski

Alhambra, Calif.

Universal view

Regarding Kendall Sears’ letter to the editor opining that the idea of the United Nations controlling the Internet is “madness”: All too often one’s opinion on how the U.N. handles some global affairs automatically paints a negative picture regarding that organization’s potential to oversee other tasks. I believe it makes more sense to come to an opinion based on how the U.N. has handled the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), which would be more closely related to the issue of Internet governance.

Regarding Larre Shiller’s letter in that same issue about the need for a national broadband policy: when one is discussing universal service/universal access issues on a general level, it’s often easy to interchange the terms, but when viewing the issue from a global perspective, care must be taken, as the terms have somewhat different meanings.

In the simplest of terms, universal service refers to the ability to obtain service directly to your residence (both from the service being available but also from a cost perspective). Universal access, however, commonly refers to a service being accessible at least within a reasonable distance from a person’s residence. For basic telephony service, this would equate to having telephone service directly in a residence compared with having access to a telephone at a neighbor’s home, a payphone, a telephone at a library or school, and so on. With the Schools & Libraries Program being a part of the U.S. Universal Service Fund (USF), it does combine somewhat the definitions of universal service and universal access, but the remainder of the program pertains almost exclusively to the specific concept of universal service. However, from a global perspective, quite often the concept of providing information and communications technology service universally in many nations begins with plans to provide universal access to services, and then moves into the phase of providing universal service.

Randal Hayes

Voice services manager

University of Northern Iowa

Cedar Falls, Iowa