[9837] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
re: Internet "PayPhones"
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Marc Horowitz)
Sat Jan 22 16:28:57 1994
To: walkerl@med.ge.com (Larry Walker)
Cc: com-priv@psi.com
In-Reply-To: [9832] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Date: Sat, 22 Jan 94 16:28:20 EST
From: Marc Horowitz <marc@MIT.EDU>
>> > 2. Modular connectors at actual Pay Phones.
The newest line of AT&T pay phones, the Public Phone 2000, has a
modular jack. The only place I've ever seen these is in airports, so
you wouldn't find one on the street, but hopefully, if they get used,
this will change.
>> Now this is an idea I've also toyed with since wandering the streets of
>> Amsterdam last year looking for a phone connection.
Hmm. When I was in Amsterdam, it was for IETF. I didn't have IP from
my hotel room, but I did have IP from the conference center. But I
see your argument. :-)
>> It got me thinking how silly it is to struggle with access codes to a US
>> long-distance provider, bounce 1/3 of the way around the world on the
>> Public Switched Phone Network, into a corporate 800 number, do a PPP login,
>> and then go via IP packets the last 8' to my POP mailserver!?!
Yup.
>> How much more sane to have public phone terminals that would allow me to
>> plug right in and dial a local phone number to a PPP login on a local
>> router, and go Internet around the world to my email server!
Stop thinking analog. Consider a hypothetical ISDN payphone. You
plug your laptop in (what media? I'm not sure. UTP ethernet maybe?),
set up a packet connection directly from the phone to your favorite
ISDN/Internet gateway, and run IP over that packet link. This would
require some clever engineering, and some even cleverer software if
this is to be user-transparent, but all the protocols you need already
exist. It would just require the telco to support ISDN from the
street corner.
>> I think the real challange is how to utilize the convenience and
>> sensible-network-usage traits of public IP services while addressing
>> the very real security issues of direct connection to the global IP
>> network.
If you have real security issues (which the internet certainly
raises!), then use real security. Firewalls are, IMHO, a simple
solution to a *very* complex problem. If people used protocols with
real, cryptographic security, then being directly connected to the
internet wouldn't be such a terrible issue. Unfortunately, most
vendors and users are not willing to take the steps to become truly
secure.
>> Do you really want your desktop PC sitting "unprotected" on the Internet
>> while you are traveling with a notebook PC that needs to get files from
>> home?
Absolutely not. But my desktop machine (a Unix box, not a PC) is not
"unprotected". Even though it's sitting on the Internet, with no
packet filtering whatsoever.
>> If you are already doing this, please share with the rest of us the
>> nitty-gritty details of how you address the security issue...
When I travel, I carry a laptop with SLIP/PPP, Kerberized versions of
rlogin and rcp, and an AFS client. Admittedly, this is not a simple
turnkey solution, requiring quite a bit of custom work on the client
and server end, but it alleviates my security concerns wherever I
happen to be. If people who were interested in being secure were to
make their desires known to their vendors, I'm sure packaged solutions
would start appearing.
Marc
