[IP] Hope for Wireless Cities. (revised for clarity)

[David Farber <dave@farber.net>]

________________________________________
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


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