Re: MIT Tech review vs the Internet

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

________________________________________
From: Bob Frankston [Bob19-0501 () bobf frankston com]
Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2008 11:04 AM
To: krulwich () yahoo com; David Farber
Subject: RE: [IP] MIT Tech review vs the Internet

I’m confused. Today we have a synthetic marketplace defined out of whole cloth by a government operated corporate 
welfare system. By decoupling the networking from the government/carrier defined/controlled paths we can have a real 
marketplace.

Basically it’s what anti-trust is about – except in this case unlike Standard Oil – the monopoly is a government 
creation.

From: Krulwich [mailto:krulwich () yahoo com]
Sent: Sunday, July 06, 2008 10:01
To: dave () farber net
Cc: Bob19-0501 () bobf frankston com
Subject: Re: [IP] MIT Tech review vs the Internet


Do we really want our future limited to whatever can be conceived of today by governments or other public service 
bodies?  If we have to choose between abundance of what we have today (which is the future proposed below) and the 
future that can be brought on by the free market (be it wimax, LTE, city-wide wifi, or something we haven't seen yet), 
I'll take the free market.



--Bruce




--- On Sun, 7/6/08, David Farber <dave () farber net> wrote:
From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Subject: [IP] MIT Tech review vs the Internet
To: "ip" <ip () v2 listbox com>
Date: Sunday, July 6, 2008, 4:01 PM

________________________________________

From: Bob Frankston [Bob19-0501 () bobf frankston com]

Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2008 8:47 PM

To: David Farber; nnsquad () nnsquad org

Cc: Dave Burstein; Bob  Metcalfe; Andrew B Lippman; Bob Buderi

Subject: MIT Tech review vs the Internet



After months of online discussions debunking the various myths about the

Internet being just like a highway or

railroad<http://www.frankston.com/public/?name=Railroad> and citing the

limitations of the Nemertes Study (http://www.frankston.com/?name=IPClog)

it’s disappointing to read Technology Review revisiting this old ground and

presenting the Internet as a series of tubes being clogged by users consuming

too much “Internet”.



Do I need to again cite Andy Lippman’s observation that networking is

something we do and not a service we have to buy. The question is not how do

ISPs recover their costs -- the question is why we keep insisting on funding

our infrastructure by charging for services instead of recognizing that the

infrastructure is not a profit center. It’s a means by which we create value

everywhere else in society. If you run the infrastructure for a profit all you

do is assure scarcity<http://www.frankston.com/?name=AssuringScarcity>.

Creating scarcity is an amazing feat considering the abundance available at

essentially no cost compared to the value.



Today’s Internet is a powerful example and implementation of the far more

general concept of creating solutions by focusing on the relationships between

end points outside the networking without having to depend on seeking

permission or buying special status from every provider along the way. TR could

be helping us understand the future rather than just reviewing past

misunderstandings.







-------------------------------------------

Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now

RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/

Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com




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