Interesting People mailing list archives
Hope for Wireless Cities. (revised for clarity)
From: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 07:15:09 -0700
________________________________________ From: ken () new-isp net [ken () new-isp net] Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 6:24 AM To: David Farber Cc: ip Subject: Hope for Wireless Cities. (revised for clarity) At the risk of wearing out the welcome on a subject that is dear to me... On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 6:21 PM, David Farber <dave () farber net> wrote:
IMO, Frankston has identified the crucial, vital principle in this debate. The telco model is a sophists' trap which easily ensnares the sincere pragmatist. We tend to gravitate toward it because it's all we can know through experience, to date. We tend to think of it as an "existence-proof", but in fact, that is all it is and a poor one in terms of what is possible in the realm of "becoming." This threat to the liberty of the Internet is what people are feeling, and the
vitality > and essence of Frankston's position is well made as a contra-telco
future. To argue that competition can be effected by working within or around the telco business model, or using that model on the telcos as a competitive threat, as Ken does, seems to me be a non sequitur. That is going nowhere, as my experience also verifies.
A century of uninterrupted telecommunication would beg to differ with you. While no one here is defending the telco business model as perfect, the reality is that is has served us well, albeit expensively, and it should be pointed out that you and I are communicating through this medium in this discussion.
So who decides what "becomes" of the Internet? Isn't Frankston talking about a new Internet? I think so. This is the disconnection in this debate; a misunderstanding of the ideal, reality and action.
A new Internet? That would be a fantastic thing - assuming it is an improvement over the current one. Until that time, I am quite satisfied with the one we have, even with all of its faults. I disagree that the disconnect in this discussion is due to "a misunderstanding of the ideal, reality and action" but rather I believe it is a difference in the fourth dimension. I am framing my concept in terms of now, as in 2008, you are talking about some yet undetermined date, sometime in a vague future, one that may never occur. There is a dramatic difference, I am addressing an overwhelming problem for society now, one that is becoming worse on a daily basis while you are willing to allow this to continue.
My answer to this conundrum is "stealth radio", which will enable "all that is available bandwidth access" for _everyone_ at the network edge on a "shared basis" across the entire radio spectrum.
A stealth radio? One hat will depend on the adoption of countless people in order to form this network? And at what point do you anticipate the that the FCC will catch on to this plan? More to the point, how long with this "deployment" take?
As you may surmise, I don't waste time thinking about how to finesse regulatory corruption. The Beltway is a waste of time, money and effort unless you can buy Congress in the process. This is part of the sophistry that we experience as "part of the process" and in my view, a fool's errand. This model also addresses myriad issues in the
network > neutrality debate as well as ownership and use of the public commons. If you wish to ignore and abandon the system, this is a choice you can make, but I doubt the system will fade quietly away and allow you to do so.
Ken, before you start asking "pragmatic questions" about how the broth is to be prepared and cooked, I will just respond in advance that there is a group of people with the requisite expertise and Will, who are
able > to build a stealth radio, manufacture it and distribute it, who have > > thought about the problems. I am sorry, I believe in eating on a regular basis and while you have brought up the analogy of broth, I see a more apt comparison as being candy, tastes great but there is little or no nutritive value and while candy is pleasant its use to the body is negligible.
But we can't possible have thought of everything, can we? The rest can be figured out as we go along since the effort is nontrivial and will take time. Perhaps the telco model looks attractive because of its certainty. But the only thing that is certain is that following that model is a recipe for failure.
Charles, I wish you luck and urge you to continue forward, heck, I look forward to seeing your concept replace what I hope to build - someday, sometime, if it ever happens. I deal with the problems of today, this world, this society, right now. Let me know when you can meet me here, dinner in on me.
Regarding the backbone issues, again I think Frankston's arguments lead to thinking of potential solutions. The duopoly squeeze play (edge to backbone) is relentless. One must address both the edge and the backbone to be successful. I see the backbone issues as less of a problem than access, but it is definitely a problem.
Sure, please let me know when I can connect to this infrastructure, I am very interested.
In that regard, another group of "Willing individuals" could contribute by building an IPv6 backbone. Stealth radio + IPv6 backbone = New Internet.
I look forward to seeing this.
It is the moving toward the "becoming" and realization of Frankston's ideal that will effect substantive change of control of the Internet (the default option here is a new Internet, as I understand him), in any model, especially the telco model. Today, it is easy for the duopoly to hit the "distribution system" at Will to exercise control, and there are myriad forms of this ability for control: political, technical, social, etc. Above all one must avoid the DC Beltway and a corrupt process that defends hegemony of the Internet. Instead, use technology and the creativity of people at the network edge; provide a means, they will do the rest.
Charles, I believe in dreams, they are the stuff that great things are built on. I also believe that problems cannot live in a realm of conceptual bliss while the problem worsens. You see a problem and wish to cure it, I see a problem and wish to alleviate it. From my perspective, I do not believe one pat is right and the other wrong, I choose to follow one solution while you choose another. Good luck in your quest. 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
Current thread:
- Hope for Wireless Cities. (revised for clarity) David Farber (Mar 31)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- Re: Hope for Wireless Cities. (revised for clarity) David Farber (Mar 31)
- Re: Hope for Wireless Cities. (revised for clarity) David Farber (Mar 31)