<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 17/Mar/20 17:38, Mike Bolitho wrote:<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CACoNLrxKf+U0-Zk9qYj86aM13GVSung8S3Lwee-FOcZ5GQgPsw@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<br>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">Totally agree
with you. Unfortunately it's not a problem with the medical
providers, it's a problem with the medical devices. Anybody
who works in the healthcare vertical will tell you just how
bad medical devices are to work with from an IT perspective.
And that is part of my original comments.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I guess that means they don't support IPv6 :-)?<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CACoNLrxKf+U0-Zk9qYj86aM13GVSung8S3Lwee-FOcZ5GQgPsw@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">I don't know
what it's going to take either. A general shift in mentality
from the vendors we use I guess. I'm not sure how you get a
bunch of medical providers to tell these companies they need
to fix their stuff. You can't exactly use your wallet to
force change either. There are only a handful of vendor
options out there so there isn't a ton of choice. It's not
like you can buy one of 50 different models of CT machines
or EHR systems.<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Ah, so equipment vendors are simply rolling out kit with an IP
stack, without a care of how the hospitals will actually operate
them on the Internet? Tick-in-the-box, type-thing :-)?<br>
<br>
Much like how gaming producers write code so that updates are whole
blobs rather than incremental changes, without a care for the
network operators/customers, because it's just easier?<br>
<br>
Or like how CPE manufacturers ship hardware with hard-coded DNS
settings to make provisioning as zero-touch as possible.<br>
<br>
Or like how...<br>
<br>
I'd say someone should spend some time sensitizing the medical
equipment OEM's about their potential impact on/by the Internet, but
something tells me they won't care, nor will the doctors/hospitals
they market to.<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CACoNLrxKf+U0-Zk9qYj86aM13GVSung8S3Lwee-FOcZ5GQgPsw@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>
<div class="gmail_default"
style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><br>
Generally speaking it's not an issue. It's just in crazy
times like these where, if congestion on the public internet
gets too crazy, that certain platforms might need to be
deemed "unnecessary". Is playing Fortnight a right? Is
streaming a movie in 4K a right? In cases like San Francisco
they have decided that leaving your home for anything other
than work or medical care is no longer a right because
you're now infringing on other's rights by potentially
getting them sick. Maybe 4K Netflix fits into that category
if you're causing problems for first responders and
hospitals trying to save lives.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
The difference between the SFO gubbermint and the ISP's that operate
around the world is one of governance scope. A city gubbermint may
be able to impose rules and laws against its citizens. Whether they
can do that to an ISP, especially an ISP that either is based out of
state or out of the country, is where the issue lies.<br>
<br>
But even before all that - if an ISP's raison d'être is to deliver
4K Netflix to its users, and they pay their good money to vendors
and providers to achieve this, who are we to tell them their
business is deemed "unnecessary"?<br>
<br>
Mark.<br>
</body>
</html>