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

[David Farber <dave@farber.net>]

________________________________________
From: Bob Frankston [bob37-2@bobf.frankston.com]
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 11:23 AM
To: David Farber; 'ip'
Cc: 'Charles Brown'; 'Miles Fidelman'; dpreed@reed.com
Subject: RE: [IP] Hope for Wireless Cities. (revised for clarity)

I appreciate Charles and Miles adding to this because there are different ways of addressing this disconnect. I’m going to try again from what I hope is another perspective. Given that this issue is central to so much policy and lives it’s worth the effort. My wont is to be philosophical/pragmatic – visiting the pragmatic details from a long term perspective. I fear being called an idealist because I learn by doing and by implementing.

There does indeed seem to be a disconnect and I’m trying to figure out how to get past it. This is not about ideals but the basic question of whether we can network among ourselves or must buy networking as a service – be it networking by exchanging bits or social networking by exchanging bits or by talking.

It is, perhaps, the idea that the bits themselves represent the entirety of our communications rather than seeing the bits as merely a means just like we use sound waves or light waves (which are different kinds of waves). With both we generally see patterns – it’s only in the strange world of telecommunications that we limit ourselves a string of bits or single frequency signaling. And then we reconstitute patterns out of that and interpret “0852299613” as a boring integer or maybe as the ISBN code for the Encyclopedia Britannica hard covered 2003 edition.

This notion that you have everyone use the same stealth radio or the same Internet protocols misses the point. All you need is two parties (or two facets of one party) to agree to an interpretation of the waves or bits to constitute your network. You can then grow it from there. Having a large number of people agree to a new protocols creates a powerful community effect (Reed’s law) but the power of the end-to-end argument is that you can start very simply and get value there.

In 1980 we would have called the current telecommunications model the best there can be because it didn’t permit competition so we had no comparison. By understanding how to create solutions at the edge despite the insistence of favors we couldn’t afford (such as isochronous reliable transport) we managed to internetworking among ourselves and we called that prototype The Internet. It’s just one method and we could create as many approaches as we want though there is a strong advantage of going with the crowd.

Today the community we call The Internet has coalesced ad even congealed around the prototype so we need to remember that it’s just one way of doing things. When we try a new approach it’s not necessarily a new Internet but if it catches on we can call it that.

This discussion started by focusing on wireless connectivity and filling a need but as I pointed out the reason why it’s difficult to get traction on these new efforts is that they are too much like the old telecom model in depending on services for funding the transport. But we already have that in cellular or people purchasing their own radio gear. Yet there is a poorly articulated sense that something is missing. It may come from a desire for faster connections in places where we don’t have a high speed wired (or fibered) infrastructure or a desire for mobility just like we can jack into at home.

We have to articulate that need and translate it into implementation. This is the pragmatic part – it’s simply infrastructure. Nothing fancy here, just hauling bits. The problem is that we seem to want something fancy like the phone companies of yore just like we remember fondly the days of the great steam railroads (and forget the smoke belching out across the plains). For the same reason we tend to think of it as expensive.

This is why I borrowed from Shakespeare in saying that the solution lies not in the networks but in ourselves. It is our ability to network and all the networks from all the telecommunications companies in all the world could not do it for us until we learned to internetwork ourselves.

To make this more clear we had X.400, the grand effort to bring the world of telecom to email. And it failed. The model has passed into history even as we wait at Grand Central Station for the Twentieth Century Limited. The solution is not another railroad nor is the solution for wireless connectivity another muni-bell selling services over its own wireless tracks.







-----Original Message-----
From: David Farber [mailto:dave@farber.net]
Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 10:15
To: ip
Subject: [IP] Hope for Wireless Cities. (revised for clarity)





________________________________________

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





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




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