Things vs. NN

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Bob Frankston <Bob19-0501 () bobf frankston com>
> Date: January 31, 2010 7:02:47 PM EST
> To: dave () farber net
> Cc: DV Henkel-Wallace <gumby () henkel-wallace org>, 'Lauren Weinstein'  
> <lauren () vortex com>
> Subject: Things vs. NN

> In seeing the latest discussion of NN and related regulatory  
> policies I feel like I’m watching the generals fighting the last war 
> . I’m increasingly uninterested in looking backward. Neutrality is a 
>  nice principle but we need to move on rather than accept it as an g 
> oal in itself.
>
>
>
> Steve Lohr’s story on Smart Dust (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/l/steve_lohr/index.html?scp=2&sq=smart%20dust&st=c 
> se) and Science Daily story (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100120122645.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%253A+sciencedaily+%2528ScienceDaily%253A+Latest+Science+News%2529 
> ) are reminders that we should be thinking about how to connect info 
> rmation and things.
>
>
>
> If I simply want to place a sensor (or, better, use a shared sensor)  
> at my (hypothetical) summer place to see if the pipes are freezing  
> in the winter what is involved? Do I need to pay for a  cellular or  
> broadband connection just for that message? If I want to send 10  
> bits a minute to report the temperature do I need to keep have phone  
> line and dial up every minute to send those bits?
>
>
>
> Neutrality is not the issue. The very idea of needing to negotiate  
> billable paths makes connecting devices and information sufficiently  
> difficult to discourage all but the most dedicated and prevents any  
> application isn’t profitable to the path-providers.
>
>
>
> Instead of debating neutrality we should be demanding an appropriate  
> infrastructure that lets us take advantage of the abundant capacity  
> inherent in the infrastructure. We need an economic and funding  
> model that is appropriate rather than accepting the idea that our  
> vital infrastructure must be run at a profit no matter what the  
> collateral damage.
>
>
>
> It’s not really about an “Internet” – it’s about an  
> infrastructure that can facilitate new applications without having t 
> o pick winners or losers. It’s about being indifferent to the nature 
>  of the bits. This is why I try to explain why “Best Efforts” is  
> the appropriate framing.
>
>
>
> How does making applications friendly to the carriers’ old world mov 
> e us ahead?
>
>
>
> Where is the effort to find the common mechanisms to support new  
> classes of applications?



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