DIY, not just Connectivity!

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Bob Frankston <rmf31a () bobf frankston com>
Date: May 3, 2005 11:48:55 PM EDT
To: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>
Subject: DIY, not just Connectivity!


http://www.frankston.com/?name=DIYConnectivity



I expect that there will be strong reactions pro or con. I’m at  
http://www.pulver.com/policy today so may see others here.

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

A connectivity infrastructure must emerge out of a more fundamental  
marketplace dynamic and not as goal in itself.

We do need a connectivity infrastructure. Everyone should be able to  
take advantage of the Internet. It's not just about the Web it's also  
about the economy and our lives. We mustn't confuse getting what we  
ask for with creating what we need. To build on a classic metaphor,  
it's more important to learn how to fish than have someone serve you  
a fish dinner.

The importance of the Internet lies in the dynamic process by which a  
very simple design decision made in the 1970's has become the  
defining infrastructure for the world. It's what happens when you  
give billions of people the opportunity to create their own solutions  
and share them.

The Internet has transformed society because it is a marketplace  
where we can exchange ideas and solutions. What makes it so powerful  
is that it is digital which allows us to regenerate solutions that  
work and share them. Ideas that don't work are simply forgotten.  
That's the essence of the process.

The process works very rapidly when we don't have to wait for others  
and take advantage of the opportunities we have. In the early days,  
even before the current Internet, we had very slow communications  
lines -- the teletypes could only handle 10 cps (characters per  
second) or 0.1 Kbps (kilobits per second). At the time it seemed very  
fast and we found we could start sending email and start connecting  
the computers to each other. We didn't even consider using those  
computers for phone calls -- we just used the traditional phone system.

The phone system had a very different dynamic -- it did use computers  
but those were built for one purpose -- handling phone calls. That  
was necessary since the technology was barely up to the task.

We talk about computer networks and phone networks as if they are the  
same. They now use essentially the same technology and seem to be  
converging. But that's an illusion. It's as if we took a snapshot of  
the solar system and observed two planets that seemed to be near each  
other. We don't confuse them because we know they are in different  
orbits.

In the time that my personal computer connection went from .01 Kpbs  
to 10,000 Kpbs the phone network has gone from 64 Kbps to 64 Kbps.

The phone system has long been a challenge for computer people. In  
the early days we used modems to send data over the voice system by  
pretending it is a funny sounding voice. In fact, the early modems  
were developed by "the phone company", ATT's Bell Labs but the  
technology evolved rapidly outside the phone network as individuals  
tried to solve their own problems rather than waiting for the  
promised digital phone network -- ISDN.

The reason that ISDN failed is because it was valuable! The modems  
took an inexpensive transport, unmeasured consumer telephony (in the  
US), and created valuable services. The value went to the users, not  
the transport providers permitting innovation without prejudging the  
value. With ISDN the transport providers tried to capture the value  
of the applications -- that's what a service-provider does. This  
meant one had to prejudge the value and thus prevented discovery and  
penalized those who availed themselves of ISDN's capabilities!

ISDN delivered an instance of what was needed but without any of the  
marketplace dynamics. It was a dead fish. By the time that the  
carriers offered ISDN with pricing more like their analog service the  
game was over -- modems were as ISDN because increased computing  
capabilities allowed the users to reinvent ISDN from the edge!

We see this pattern repeated again and again. The latest is the IPTV  
effort. At least some carriers are putting in special provisioning so  
they can (again) try to provide TV service. We also see this same  
behavior when cities try to be connectivity providers but do so in  
the guise of municipal Cable TV. This fixation on Television (video  
streams) is actually far worse than ISDN because it reserves a class  
of service as special. The basic connectivity is to be funded by  
keeping a particular class of services out of the marketplace! Yet we  
are at a point at which video is like voice -- just another stream on  
the network. Those attempting to give us connectivity now have the  
incentive to continue to assure scarcity!

The other lesson of ISDN is that we don't need to make such a deal.  
We should just look at the entire telecommunications industry as a  
technology scrap-heap full of useful components. Sure, there's a lot  
of copper and fiber buried out there. It will soon be "ours" anyway  
but only if we don't get too excited and pay for it at today's  
inflated prices which make old ISDN prices seem low. We can't afford  
to give up our opportunity to do it ourselves because we can and we  
will. The entire telecommunications infrastructure is no value in  
itself! A single strand can carry a trillion bits per second. We  
don't have enough traffic to use more than a small fraction and we  
won't have enough traffic as long as we only permit "valuable" services.

So, let's forget about all that copper and glass for the moment. Just  
be creative. Who needs it anyway? The FCC has already noticed that  
rural connectivity (AKA "Broadband") is spreading far faster than  
their models had predicted and it's all taken place using 802.11.  
802.11 uses frequencies which were considered worthless because they  
were blocked by water vapors. With some simple protocols we were able  
to create valuable services. At the same time Congress seems to think  
that "spectrum" is so valuable that they can use it to balance the  
budget and they are willing to forgo future opportunity by locking  
down so-called intellectual property so we can't learn from it and  
repurpose it!

Wi-Fi (802.11) uses the so-called "unlicensed" spectrum. Imagine the  
phrase "unlicensed speech". It's telling that we assume we must first  
ask permission and we must beg for solutions because we don't have  
the option of doing it ourselves. Of course we don't want to do  
everything ourselves but instead of preselecting winners and  
appointing gatekeepers we must allow everyone to try so we can have a  
large set of choices. Our experience with digital systems, as well as  
speech, shows that the "bad" ideas are self-limiting and minor  
compared with the benefits of having so many opportunities for  
"good". We, as the marketplace, can decide what is we consider good  
according to the needs at any given time and are not limited to  
arbitrary prior selection.

The tendency to focus simply on the risks and difficulties leaves as  
impoverished. Unless we recognize the dynamics of the marketplace,  
especially a digital marketplace, we find ourselves regulating the  
future until it's just the past all over again. The cooperation  
necessary to support the early experimental "radio" which used simple  
signaling lead us into a trap. Notice that the word radio is  
ambiguous -- the same word is used for a technology and a business.  
It makes us consider the Regulatorium a necessity rather than a short- 
term expedience.

Wi-Fi is a powerful demonstration of why that experiment should be  
put to rest. The combination of packet-based connectivity that means  
we only need to send very low power signals over a short distance and  
our ability to spread the energy out to the point that it's  
essentially invisible shows we needn't be hobbled by our fears. The  
US constitution recognizes the dangers of prior restraint and the  
very first amendment prohibits such prior restraint so as to assure  
opportunity for new voices. Those who argue that we must ask  
permission because of the possibility that the new technologies might  
interfere with the old approaches are both ignorant of technology and  
of a failure to allow for the benefits of innovation. There must be a  
real, not hypothetical, reason for restrictions. The onus is on those  
who want to impose restraints to demonstrate that the restraints are  
necessary and that there is no alternative that is less restrictive.  
It is foolish and irresponsible to ask permission from those whose  
only answer is "no because that's the rule".

We don't have to wait for the newer technologies, we can and should  
take advantage of today's Wi-Fi because it is so readily available  
and gives us a simple way to experiment with wireless connectivity.  
These experiments are likely to fail if they are tied to the funding  
models that subvert discovery and deny us the value of the common good.

The Internet itself is an ongoing experiment that's far from perfect.  
We have a vibrant P2P community that attests to the need to work  
around problems with the IP protocol and the business models. Given  
what we understood in the 1970's it's very good but it's just a work  
in progress.

Be most cautious when the answer is obvious. I do argue that IP  
connectivity is a useful model. If we fund it as a common good or  
utility our society (which is the world, not just one country) will  
benefit far beyond the relatively small costs of maintaining such an  
infrastructure. It's a very simple infrastructure if we normalizing  
it to IP. There are technical challenges but the marketplace will  
attract those who see solutions rather than those who only see the  
difficulties. Some may be naively optimistic but that just creates  
new opportunities for others to try their approach. We shouldn't  
anoint one "true" approach when we must explore many even as we use  
what is the "best" at a given moment.

There is no transition from today's telecommunications  
infrastructure. We will create a new connectivity infrastructure and  
use what is available. It just like using railroad rights-of-way for  
bike paths rather than personal trains.

Even though there isn't a single best answer, we do know that  
normalizing on IP connectivity is a powerful approach. We should  
assume IP connectivity and uses what we have available as long as we  
don't have to give up future opportunity. As the P2P efforts show, we  
can build on IP connectivity as we discovery better approaches.

The true lesson of the Internet is in the end-to-end argument. It  
gives us a real working model of how individual efforts can composite  
into a valuable whole. I've only touched upon the topic and only in a  
very limited arena. I feel as if I've got a whole movie and this is  
just one cel. A cel? Well, to understand that we have to go back to  
the days when movies were analog and on film and ?





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