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

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Bob Frankston <Bob2-19-0501 () bobf frankston com>
Date: June 22, 2006 2:20:11 PM EDT
To: dave () farber net, ip () v2 listbox com
Cc: "'Jock Gill'" <jg45 () mac com>, dpreed () reed com, Gerry Faulhaber  
<gerry-faulhaber () mchsi com>
Subject: RE: [IP] Hub & Spoke or P2P Mesh? That is the question.

There is a very different option which is consistent with a  
marketplace dynamic. Jock, you seem to be confusing the anti- 
marketplace of the Regulatorium with a marketplace where the  
incentives are in alignment. The key, as I’m wont to emphasize, is  
not presuming the answer, it’s in preventing preventing alternatives.  
If we have pure infrastructure then we enable far more alternatives  
than if we mandate a particular high speed infrastructure.

The goal is to maximize opportunity not to maximize some arbitrary  
factor in the short term. Given then we can consider:

Infrastructure at various scales – private, community, region etc.  
It’s just wire and metal (and wireless).
Use of the infrastructure for various networks built upon it. This is  
akin to having a lot of local Ethernets and using IP protocols at the  
app level to gain wider routing.
Don’t worry about speed. The vital applications don’t need speed and  
we have today’s TV already. Speed is easy and you’ll get it but only  
if you don’t make it a requirement and sacrifice the future for a  
dollop of broadband. Capacity is a more interesting measure.
You don’t want static IP addresses – that’s like putting a concrete  
base on your cordless phone. Look at Skype as an example – it creates  
its own stable addresses without tying them to the accidental  
topology of the network. You get P2P meshing as an accidental byproduct.
Where I do agree is that local traffic tends to be local and peering  
is a business relic not a technology.
Note that I put wireless in parenthesis because, though I see it as a  
major part of the future, I’m willing to focus on other aspects  
because connectivity is going to moot spectrum allocation far sooner  
than any explicit political agenda. After all, if you have abundant  
wireless connectivity from nearby access points why run your own  
transmitters or, worse, satellites, just to get coverage. Why use  
point to point radios when you can reach the world.

Here is where, I presume, Gerry and I agree, the marketplace is more  
powerful than Congress though Congress can do a lot of damage trying  
to help it.



-----Original 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:

1.       100 mbps architecture for stage 1

2.       1 Gbps architecture for stage 2 - within 3 years

3.       Full P2P mesh network at all levels

4.       Backhaul via I2, NLR or equivalent

5.       Local loop for local traffic

6.       exchange points, not peering points

7.       symmetrical connectivity w/ static IP addresses for true  
“end-to- end” network

8.       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





-------------------------------------
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/