curious to know what people think about http://bb4us.net/index.html

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Bob Frankston" <Bob19-0501 () bobf frankston com>
Date: December 4, 2008 10:52:01 PM EST
To: <frank () coluccio net>, "'Karl Bode'" <Karl () dslreports com>, "'Bruce  
Kushnick'" <bruce () newnetworks com>
Cc: <oia () lists bway net>, <dave () farber net>
Subject: RE: [OIA] curious to know what people think    about   http://bb4us.net/index.html

Same old. I fear that focusing on broadband will cause us to miss the  
Internet in the same way the Minitel kept France from embracing the  
Internet. I remember how jealous I as of Minitel just like people are  
jealous of “high speed broadband” today.

The problem is not that it’s another government effort to do us good  
but that it’s premised on faux TV and not on connectivity. Why do we  
need to defer connectivity and saddle ourselves with a funding model  
that is just another debt we can never repay? And for what – more  
video content? Why do I need high speed for health and safety when a  
few BPS can save lives now?

Remember that the Internet and telecom are unrelated business – did we  
ask the railroads to build and operate the interstate highway system?

I’ve already stated my opinion that broadband is the antithesis of the  
Internet – especially “high speed broadband” which emphasis dependence  
upon a providers speed thus creating a billable service. The problem  
is this service-based funding model and the fixation on speed.

What seems to be missing is the recognition that the ability to assume  
connectivity is far more important than speed. Speed is trivially easy  
– just decouple market elements. I use DSL as the example of Moore’s  
law held hostage for twenty years. Remember that we’re talking about  
copper but telecom forces us to think pairs and all the limitations  
thereof.

We aren’t using the inherent capacity we have today in existing copper  
and fiber and radios so why do we have an agenda to have a strategy to  
petition to beg to get more of what we don’t use and not assure that  
we can be connected everywhere all the time and that we can all extend  
coverage without having to petition a carrier to convince them they  
will make money from it.

In http://frankston.com/?name=IPPikes I write about the effort to  
return to the good old days when men with pikes monetized each highway  
out of context. (For those on OIA you might also appreciate my  
problems with VZW).

What we need to do is liberate the value chain instead of redoubling  
the efforts to assure that the values stays in the infrastructure and  
does not escape.

Broadband is a business model for video distribution. We ask for more  
because we confuse it with connectivity. Remember that its predecessor  
was ISDN and that failed.

I did home networking as a response to the idea that we needed more  
ISDN – I said “NO!!” – that while ISDN was nice the problem is the  
ability to connect and not the price in itself. Admittedly ADSL (and  
Broadband) gave Microsoft the incentive to embrace home networking but  
it was about 24x7 connectivity more than speed. So there was  
collateral good but it wasn’t intrinsic good.

Instead of Federal funding what we need is liberation from telecom and  
nonexclusive community ownership of physical local facilities with all  
the RF, Fiber and radios just contributing to the commons. As local  
owners of the physical facilities encouraged to find maximum value  
(rather than metering) we’ll see price/performance improvement beyond  
our ability to imagine – as if we hadn’t seen it before whenever we’ve  
had a chance to liberate the market.

But broadband is an over-defined retro solution that can thwarts this  
dynamic.



From: oia-bounces () lists bway net [mailto:oia-bounces () lists bway net]  
On Behalf Of frank () coluccio net
Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2008 11:15
To: Karl Bode; Bruce Kushnick
Cc: oia () lists bway net
Subject: Re: [OIA] curious to know what people think about http://bb4us.net/index.html

Alllow me to muse as I try to digest some of the recent suggestions  
and observations here. Anyone who has ever been blessed with the need  
to become versed in the nuances of e-Rate (the schools and libraries  
program of the Universal Service Administration Company, or USAC),  
already knows how some of the restrictions that can impact an  
otherwise meaningful federally-funded program works, when its primary  
sponsors are the existing powers that be.

On the provider eligibility side of the equation, services must be  
procured from established service providers who qualify under the  
program. Namely, by and large, these are the same entities who collect  
USF charges from the public. On the end-user side, anything that rides  
over a dark fiber or a private RF bridge, or in any way "crosses a  
public street", must likewise be procured from an existing provider  
with a SPIN (service provider identification number under USAC). Also  
now creeping into the list of eligibility criteria are stipulations  
that a school must support certain children friendly programs spelt  
out under the program's guidelines. I'd gladly stand corrected on any  
of the above, but I think I've said quite enough, as I must now get  
back to the silica mines.

-----Original Message-----
From: Karl Bode [mailto:Karl () dslreports com]
Sent: Thursday, December 4, 2008 10:40 AM
To: 'Bruce Kushnick'
Cc: oia () lists bway net
Subject: Re: [OIA] curious to know what people think about http://bb4us.net/index.html

Was just talking to Jim Baller about it...

I admire the hell out of these folks (Baller, Drew Clark), I really do.

But I see this ending up just one way: with something that vaguely  
looks like a national broadband deployment strategy, crafted to make  
everyone feel good, but consisting of little more than huge subsidies  
and tax cuts, AT&T-lawyer crafted legal loopholes galore, and a  
heavily lobbied government, using farmed industry-provided data, who  
can't be bothered to go into the field to confirm the money winds up  
where it belongs.

They've gotten everybody to the table using some really painfully  
vague goals, so that's a start. But the only kind of national  
broadband policy AT&T, Comcast and Verizon lobbyists will sign off on  
is the kind that just throws money in their general direction with no  
accountability.

Any real plan would probably involve a revenue hit on their part. That  
means they'll need to be dragged, kicking and screaming, if the U.S.  
is going to implement a substantive telecom infrastructure policy that  
actually addresses consumer issues. In the age of taxpayer-funded AIG  
back rubs and auto-industry bailouts. who in DC is going to do that?

I'm hoping to be proven wrong. I really am. I have to believe this one  
when I see it, however.

On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 12:48 AM, Bruce Kushnick  
<bruce () newnetworks com> wrote:


A National Broadband Strategy Call to Action



http://bb4us.net/index.html



B.






_______________________________________________
Open Infrastructure Alliance
http://lists.bway.net/listinfo/oia





-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com