This whole issue shows why carriers should be degraded to pure wireless internet pipe providers, and why adoption of IPv6 should be pushed against the stalling based on self-interest of wireless carriers and ISPs.
With every device having it's on IP address (not a problem with IPv6), there is no more excuse for proxy servers, gateways and other spy-ware, shackle-ware and big-brother-ware in between the user and the content provider.
All I ever wanted from any ISP, wireless or not, is a straight pipe to the internet without so-called "added value" services, which only add value to the ISPs bottom line, not to the user's internet experience.
The net should be virtual wires, nothing else, unless you specifically and intentionally give up control and make yourself vulnerable by signing up for specific "cloud" services; at which point you get what you deserve.
These proxies exist for the same reason the ISPs fight network neutrality, or want network neutrality with a slew of exceptions attached to the rule: they want to control what goes over the wire, and cripple or stop anything that might advance the universal nature of the internet and cut in their profits derived from legacy services. Best example: the sabotage of ENUM and VoIP.
Nobody should be paying more for a phone line than the cost of a simple domain name registration at this point...
[...] are approaching the sophistication of desktop PCs, many mobile carriers are continuing to play strange and undocumented tricks with subscribers' data [...]
[...] The transcoder vendors are asking the W3C to approve a new best practices guide which states that they will be allowed to insert themselves into an HTTPS connection, but if the server has set a special HTTP header they will immediately stop and allow end-to-end encryption to resume. If you’re interested in the politics WapReview have an excellent post covering them. [...]
Technologically, breaking HTTPS is needed to reformat protected content. In order to have that checkbox ticked in the comparis matrix, all vendors support the "feature".
The best way to preserve HTTPS is not to act on transcoder vendors (you would be asking them to amputate their platform), but rather to act on operators who switch the feature on: tell them to stop.
Breaking HTTPS is a major issue that goes beyond transcoding. It brings the whole issue to a new level and exposes operators to non-negligible liability (we are talking about breaking into a secure e2e communication between two parties!).
In a way, this is not different from the fact that virtually all cars are equipped with engines that can make the car go faster than whatever speed limit in whatever country. It is the responsability of the driver to respect speed limits. As far as manufacturers are concerned, they will not implement restrictions on how fast the car can go just because someone asks them, even assuming manufacturers sympathise with that position.
Of course, this would be different if states were to pass laws and regulations which force manufacturers to produce cars that won't go too fast. Here I see an analogy with W3C mandating that transcoders do not break HTTPS. This could happen if CTG was not at the mercy of vodafoneUK and transcoder vendors.
Perhaps it's worth focusing on a single vendor or operator and persuading them to make the switch, then - a single example of this might be persuasive. Are there any you could pursue this with through your Manifesto relationships, Luca?
With every device having it's on IP address (not a problem with IPv6), there is no more excuse for proxy servers, gateways and other spy-ware, shackle-ware and big-brother-ware in between the user and the content provider.
All I ever wanted from any ISP, wireless or not, is a straight pipe to the internet without so-called "added value" services, which only add value to the ISPs bottom line, not to the user's internet experience.
The net should be virtual wires, nothing else, unless you specifically and intentionally give up control and make yourself vulnerable by signing up for specific "cloud" services; at which point you get what you deserve.
These proxies exist for the same reason the ISPs fight network neutrality, or want network neutrality with a slew of exceptions attached to the rule: they want to control what goes over the wire, and cripple or stop anything that might advance the universal nature of the internet and cut in their profits derived from legacy services. Best example: the sabotage of ENUM and VoIP.
Nobody should be paying more for a phone line than the cost of a simple domain name registration at this point...
The best way to preserve HTTPS is not to act on transcoder vendors (you would be asking them to amputate their platform), but rather to act on operators who switch the feature on: tell them to stop.
Breaking HTTPS is a major issue that goes beyond transcoding. It brings the whole issue to a new level and exposes operators to non-negligible liability (we are talking about breaking into a secure e2e communication between two parties!).
In a way, this is not different from the fact that virtually all cars are equipped with engines that can make the car go faster than whatever speed limit in whatever country. It is the responsability of the driver to respect speed limits. As far as manufacturers are concerned, they will not implement restrictions on how fast the car can go just because someone asks them, even assuming manufacturers sympathise with that position.
Of course, this would be different if states were to pass laws and regulations which force manufacturers to produce cars that won't go too fast. Here I see an analogy with W3C mandating that transcoders do not break HTTPS. This could happen if CTG was not at the mercy of vodafoneUK and transcoder vendors.
Luca