Hub & Spoke or P2P Mesh? That is the question.

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Jock Gill <jg45 () mac com>
Date: June 22, 2006 11:51:34 AM EDT
To: dave () farber net
Cc: Jock Gill <jg45 () mac com>, Gerry Faulhaber <gerry- 
faulhaber () mchsi com>, Frankston Bob <bobf () frankston com>, "Reed David  
P." <Dpreed () reed com>
Subject: Hub & Spoke or P2P Mesh? That is the question.

Dave,

The conversation on Muniwireless might want to be expanded a bit.

The first issue is:  Do we want a connectivity environment that looks  
something like this:

-- 100 mbps architecture for stage 1
-- 1 Gbps architecture for stage 2 - within 3 years
-- Full P2P mesh network at all levels
-- Backhaul via I2, NLR or equivalent
-- Local loop for local traffic
--  exchange points, not peering points
-- symmetrical connectivity w/ static IP addresses for true "end-to- 
end" network
-- seamless, 7x24, always on Big Broaddband connectivity

etc.

Or do we insist on remaining locked into the 20th century Hub & Spoke  
architecture [Master/Slave] in order to preserve the "customer" model  
supported by "billing"? IE, do we want to invent the future looking  
in the rear view mirror?

If we want a true P2P mesh network model for the 21st century, then  
we need to not only allow sharing of connectivity, but to actively  
encourage it.  This suggests that we need a completely new billing  
model.  More accurately, a no billing model!

If we want option 1, P2P mesh, then it would appear that public  
entities are the best, perhaps ONLY, entities to run it.  Why?   
Because they  do not have requirements to bill every user every month  
for every bit.  We are not individually billed for police and fire  
protection, nor for street lights, nor public education and so  
forth.  Thus government, which generally DOES work,  has an proven  
and existing model for public services, such as a P2P mesh network,  
that can only work if sharing is leveraged for cooperative gain, not  
billed for private gain.

If I were a stock holder in one of today's incumbent connectivity  
providers, would I want my company to invest its scarce human and  
financial capital in  very low  margin bit hauling or in high margin  
innovative products and services delivered over commodity bits?  Do I  
want the cost of bits to be a barrier to my high margin products and  
services?

The conversation has been distorted by the recent notion that  
everything should be a market function and the false premise that  
anything a government does automatically and unfairly competes with  
the "sacred" private sector.  Rubbish.

The private sector loves externalities that allow them to shift costs  
to others.  Bit hauling should be seen as an opportunity for a  
magnificent externality that allows them to re-allocate resources to  
more profitable operations.  In this light, it is, in fact, in the  
self interest of the incumbents to work with the municipalities to  
create the very best possible bit hauling externality.  Consider: Did  
the proponents of the market object to our tax dollars building the  
Eisenhower Interstate Highway system that has allowed them to  
externalize so many transportation  costs? Or that out tax dollars  
subside airports that benefit the business traveller the most? Or  
that our tax dollar created the internet in the first place?

So the win win here is a robust P2P mesh network operated by  
municipalities that will allow the private sector to externalize low  
margin operations in order to improve their bottom lines.

Morning thoughts from a motel room in KS.

Jock



On Jun 22, 2006, at 11:10 AM, David Farber wrote:

> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: Gerry Faulhaber <gerry-faulhaber () mchsi com>
> Date: June 22, 2006 10:14:14 AM EDT
> To: dave () farber net
> Subject: Re: [IP] more on Summary for Congress of proposed NN Act  
> Proposal
>
> Sometimes I think that Bob Frankston is just way more advanced than  
> I am;-) But after wading through it all, Bob is recommending  
> "community ownership" of broadband infrastructure which is actually  
> just another form of competitive entry.  And of course I'm all for  
> competitive entry.  So, if this is such a great idea, how come it's  
> not sweeping the country?  In a sense, community ownership's  
> opportunity is right now, with all the buzz about muni WiFi.  But  
> are mayors riding to easy re-election championing community  
> broadband?  Are the peasants marching on the castle with pitchforks  
> demanding community broadband?  Even here in Philadelphia, the  
> poster child for muni WiFi, the public response has hardly been  
> overwhelming.
>
> I would certainly be in favor of it, should it actually be  
> occurring.  But if it is such a great idea, how come it is  
> relatively rare?  And, to paraphrase my earlier comment re:  
> business plans, how come Bob (or other IPer) isn't at the forefront  
> of a national coalition helping eager communities build their own  
> infrastructure?
>
> Professor Gerald R. Faulhaber
> Business and Public Policy Dept.
> Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania
> Philadelphia, PA 19104
> Professor of Law
> University of Pennsylvania Law School
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Farber" <dave () farber net>
> To: <ip () v2 listbox com>
> Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 9:16 AM
> Subject: [IP] more on Summary for Congress of proposed NN Act Proposal
>
>
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: Bob Frankston <Bob2-19-0501 () bobf frankston com>
> Date: June 21, 2006 8:21:16 PM EDT
> To: dave () farber net, ip () v2 listbox com
> Cc: "'Dana Blankenhorn'" <dana () a-clue com>, Gerry Faulhaber <gerry-
> faulhaber () mchsi com>
> Subject: RE: [IP] more on Summary for Congress of proposed NN Act
> Proposal
>
> The reason we don’t have facilities competition is that there really
> isn’t a separate business in facilities competition any more than
> there is a business in competitive electric distribution. Mandated
> pole access is a good idea but I expect it will quickly lead to
> viewing the bit paths as simple infrastructure.
>
> The reason we don’t ask for competitive electric distribution is that
> we don’t buy light, we buy electricity. At first people did buy light
> and you still some buildings labeled “Municipal Light Company” or
> something like that.
>
> As long as we frame the debate in terms of services and fund the
> infrastructure by selling services we have a problem. You can’t fund
> the transport if users create services themselves and you can’t sell
> bits at a price that covers the cost of the infrastructure unless you
> limit the supply because the bits have no value until they are turned
> into a service outside the network.
>
> As I note in http://www.frankston.com/?name=Opportunity the value of
> the term “network neutrality” is in giving voice to the sense that
> the carriers are not playing fair if they do something like block
> VoIP or try to get a cut of the users’ value. I do worry about being
> too specific since what is important is the marketplace dynamic not
> the particular implementation of the current Internet. We don’t even
> have to require global addresses because, as Skype has shown, we can
> program around such things.
>
> If we look back at what happened when we were able to own our own
> phones and then later the phone wires in our homes we can see that
> people do indeed pay for infrastructure when they understand the
> value. There is no reason that doesn’t extend to community
> infrastructure be it roads, sewers or bit paths.
>
> Even better when the cost is reduced because we have a shared
> infrastructure rather than having each service provider have to build
> a separate infrastructure and then watch all the value disappear as
> others use the transport but create new services outside the network.
> The carriers should indeed be angry but the solution is not to
> prevent competition – the carriers should be asking themselves why
> they have to pay for the infrastructure. They should be the first
> advocate community ownership.
>
> Of course the carriers see control of the infrastructure as giving
> them an advantage in the marketplace but the FTC should be asking
> hard questions about such tie-ins. The carriers may also believe that
> they need control because they still think in terms of scarcity and
> can’t imagine that a community would deploy enough capacity even as
> they leave many gigabits of copper fallow by carrying only an
> occasional phone call per pair.
>
> The carriers’ plight is deeper as new services aren’t using their
> infrastructure anyway – the studios (AKA, TV broadcasters) are
> already assuming a download and peer model for distribution since
> only a small amount of their content needs streaming anyway.
>
> Once we have the idea of infrastructure—the community owning the
> connectivity—and we fund the infrastructure transparently as
> infrastructure we go far far beyond network neutrality. We no longer
> have to contain the bits within billing paths and there is no reason
> not to leak it out to provide ubiquitous and extensible wireless
> coverage. This is where things get exciting because that’s a real
> tipping point – once we get past the fear of abundance (as the
> carriers explicitly decry in http://www.frankston.com/?
> name=AssuringScarcity) we have no barriers against ubiquitous
> wireless coverage and, even better, anyone can extend coverage even
> to subbasements or caves or wherever. You can then have you medical
> alert bracelet call home instead of waiting for someone to read it
> and then find a phone.
>
> This why I don’t like the whole focus on broadband and am not
> convinced Korea is the right model. I sued to think minitel in France
> was a great idea but in the end it kept them off the Internet. I
> think of broadband as being like a railroad when we really want to be
> able to walk and drive where we please. It’s easy to get speed but
> coverage is more important.
>
> We can argue about the technical details of how infrastructure works
> but it would be hard to do worse than today’s misaligned incentives.
>
> For entertainment purposes you can read about viewing sidewalks in
> terms of services. Of course no one would charge for sidewalks –
> after all it’s just concrete and dirt and maybe some hops, skips and
> jumps when we go groundless for a short distance.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Farber [mailto:dave () farber net]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 10:15
> To: ip () v2 listbox com
> Subject: [IP] more on Summary for Congress of proposed NN Act Proposal
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From:   Gerry Faulhaber <gerry-faulhaber () mchsi com>
>
> Date:    June 21, 2006 10:07:41 AM EDT
>
> To:       dave () farber net
>
> Cc:       faulhaber () wharton upenn edu
>
> Subject:            Re: [IP] Summary for Congress of proposed NN Act
> Proposal
>
>
>
> [for IP]
>
> Amazingly, I find myself in agreement with Dana Blankenhorn. This
> business of restricting the use of Internet to only service that
> follows IETF/RFC protocols really is fairy dust. Does anyone think
> that customers really care about “IETF/RFC Inside”? In the few
> minutes since I read Dana’s post, I have thought of a dozen names
> that Comcast/Verizon could call it other than Internet that would
> work just fine in the marketplace. And what about all the non-
> complying systems in place today?
>
> I also wholeheartedly agree with Dana about making the market
> competitive as the only true solution to this. However, he seems to
> think that Congress must act to “take away their monopoly right of
> way.” In fact, Congress already did; the Telecom Act of 96 removed
> all local monopoly franchises, period. Even further back, there are
> FCC Pole Attachment rules requiring telephone companies to share
> their poles at specified rates. Everything is actually in place for
> competitors to enter.
>
> The question is: with all the railing against “monopoly” BB
> providers, and all the rant about how well it works in Korea, how
> come we haven’t seen competitive entry? And with all the hype about
> unlicensed wireless as the answer to the maiden’s prayer, how come we
> have almost no private entry into wireless BB (except Clearwire)?
> I’ll bet if all those great entrepreneurs spent less time writing
> outraged letters to Congress, IP, etc., and more time building a
> business plan to offer competitive BB, all our problems would be
> solved. And yet, and yet....where are the competitors? Why so much
> whining and so little market entry? Come on, guys; if it’s a great
> business for Comcast/Verizon (highly questionable, actually) then it
> should be a great business for you. Yeah, it’s you I’m talkin’ to,
> buddy.
>
> Dana has it absolutely right; what he doesn’t have (and should have)
> is a business plan. If he doesn’t have it, then why not any of those
> guys who signed on to the Internet Platform thing?
>
> Professor Gerald Faulhaber
>
> Wharton School, Univ of Pennsylvania
>
> Philadelphia, PA 10194
>
> Professor Univ of Pennsylvania Law School
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------
> You are subscribed as gerry-faulhaber () mchsi com
> To manage your subscription, go to
>  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
>
> Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting- 
> people/
>
>
> -------------------------------------
> You are subscribed as jock () jockgill com
> To manage your subscription, go to
>  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
>
> Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting- 
> people/



-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as lists-ip () insecure org
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/