Re: Hopes for Wireless Cities Fade as Internet Providers Pull Out

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

________________________________________
From: Bob Frankston [Bob19-0501 () bobf frankston com]
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 7:50 PM
To: ken () new-isp net
Cc: 'Dewayne Hendricks'; David Farber; dpreed () reed com
Subject: RE: [IP] Hopes for Wireless Cities Fade as Internet Providers Pull Out

I’m cc’ing Dave and Dewayne because you questions probably echo theirs and I think that this is at the heart of much of 
the policy debate. This is the local face of the IMS debate – is the value in the network or outside of it?

I feel like I’m trying, to use Henry Ford’s analogy, to explain that a car is not a faster horse. You’re right – I am 
responding to your question but not answering it. What I am doing is examining your assumptions and saying that the way 
you’re stating the problem begs the question by presuming that we can define the services in the network and by 
assuming that there is a viable business model. If you reread my response from that perspective it might make more 
sense.

You say “What I did, or more correctly tried to do, was to clearly lay out what I believe is a viable network concept, 
one backed up by a sustainable business model.”

And  “I look forward to being introduced to an entirely new methodology that will provide for our common goals of an 
unrestricted network that is capable of supplying *all* of our needs in a sustainable manner.”

That new methodology is the Internet and it provides opportunity but can’t supply all of our needs. What does it mean 
to supply *all* of our needs? Maybe that very concept is at the heart of our failure to communicate – the Internet does 
a better job than traditional telecom by doing less in the network so as to avoid prejudging our needs.

There isn’t necessarily a sustainable business model in providing networking as a service (though there can be specific 
cases just like we can have a few private roads). I call the idea networking paid for by the sales of services  the 
“muni-bell” model – emulating the traditional telecom model but this time locally. If the model isn’t working (which is 
why we feel the need to do something different) then there is no reason to assume it word work better at a smaller 
scale. If anything the reforming of the bells says that the model requires scale – though we’re running out of possible 
merger partners.

The bell model is so attractive – it’s familiar and builds on the presumption that we know what the services are that 
it’s just a matter of building it (to meet all our needs). This fails to recognize that the Internet is a dynamic 
(http://www.frankston.com/?name=InternetDynamic) and not a thing. The point of the end-to-end argument is that the 
answer is not found inside the network but in how we use the network.

Part of the confusion stems from the ambiguity in the terms “networking” and “networks”. If we apply the terms to 
social networking it’s obvious that we create our social network by networking. This is the same process that applies 
when we do networking using whatever is available. With Ethernet we cooperate in using the medium using CSMA. You can 
think of a token ring as way to form a community. They are not services – they are a kind of community.

The telecom (OK the GSM) industry acknowledges that they do not have a sustainable business model –  
http://www.frankston.com/?name=AssuringScarcity. I address the issue of municipal connectivity more directly in 
http://www.frankston.com/?name=WiFiEdge. In http://www.frankston.com/?Name=Railroads I compare a business model for 
networking to a business model for driving as if roads were a railroad – it doesn’t translate.

It’s important to distinguish between getting funding and a sustainable business model – there are a number of FTTH 
projects premised on service-based revenues but we mustn’t confuse getting funding with a viable business model – the 
mission isn’t accomplished when you get financing. The problems with funding municipal Wi-Fi may be more immediately 
obvious because we don’t have the revenue from existing TV and phone services so we have to confront the financial 
issues immediately. By making performance and coverage promises we are also saddling ourselves with high expenses up 
front rather than sharing the costs and using existing facilities and only investing as-needed. In fact if we take 
advantage of what we already have by leveraging existing copper and fiber and access points the investment is nil.

We actually have abundant capacity but we aren’t taking advantage of it for various reasons. The biggest is the bell 
model which requires that we bill for elements out of context. Also important is that we don’t use the current IP 
connectivity for much beyond browsing and some video. Instead of funding new infrastructure why aren’t we using what we 
have for city services and education and more?

One of the points of the end-to-end arguments is that have very diverse needs and we need to do less in the network 
more with the network. Reliable transport isn’t necessarily the right answer in many cases. If we do depend on the 
network for something so simple as guaranteed delivery then we are in peril because we aren’t prepared for failure 
while paying a high price as if we can really avoid failure.

The answer is not to be found in the network but in ourselves and our ability to network.





-----Original Message-----
From: ken [mailto:ken () new-isp net]
Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 06:04
To: Bob Frankston
Subject: RE: [IP] Hopes for Wireless Cities Fade as Internet Providers Pull Out



Bob,



I am at a loss to reply to your last message, quite frankly, because I cannot align anything in your reply with I 
described in my last post.



What I did, or more correctly tried to do, was to clearly lay out what I believe is a viable network concept, one 
backed up by a sustainable business model.



What I believe would be helpful is for you to clearly specify exactly what you would deploy, how it would function, 
where the money would come from to pay for the initial build out as well as the continuing operation and maintenance.



In keeping with the concept I outlined, please restrict your design to currently available components.



Once you have made this information available I believe we can all intelligently review your proposal and make a 
determination as to the viability of this idea.



I look forward to being introduced to an entirely new methodology that will provide for our common goals of an 
unrestricted network that is capable of supplying *all* of our needs in a sustainable manner.



Thank you,



Ken



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