[IP] DIY, not just Connectivity!
Begin forwarded message:
From: Bob Frankston <rmf31a@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: May 3, 2005 11:48:55 PM EDT
To: Dave Farber <dave@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: DIY, not just Connectivity!
http://www.frankston.com/?name=DIYConnectivity
I expect that there will be strong reactions pro or con. I’m at
http://www.pulver.com/policy today so may see others here.
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/
A connectivity infrastructure must emerge out of a more fundamental
marketplace dynamic and not as goal in itself.
We do need a connectivity infrastructure. Everyone should be able to
take advantage of the Internet. It's not just about the Web it's also
about the economy and our lives. We mustn't confuse getting what we
ask for with creating what we need. To build on a classic metaphor,
it's more important to learn how to fish than have someone serve you
a fish dinner.
The importance of the Internet lies in the dynamic process by which a
very simple design decision made in the 1970's has become the
defining infrastructure for the world. It's what happens when you
give billions of people the opportunity to create their own solutions
and share them.
The Internet has transformed society because it is a marketplace
where we can exchange ideas and solutions. What makes it so powerful
is that it is digital which allows us to regenerate solutions that
work and share them. Ideas that don't work are simply forgotten.
That's the essence of the process.
The process works very rapidly when we don't have to wait for others
and take advantage of the opportunities we have. In the early days,
even before the current Internet, we had very slow communications
lines -- the teletypes could only handle 10 cps (characters per
second) or 0.1 Kbps (kilobits per second). At the time it seemed very
fast and we found we could start sending email and start connecting
the computers to each other. We didn't even consider using those
computers for phone calls -- we just used the traditional phone system.
The phone system had a very different dynamic -- it did use computers
but those were built for one purpose -- handling phone calls. That
was necessary since the technology was barely up to the task.
We talk about computer networks and phone networks as if they are the
same. They now use essentially the same technology and seem to be
converging. But that's an illusion. It's as if we took a snapshot of
the solar system and observed two planets that seemed to be near each
other. We don't confuse them because we know they are in different
orbits.
In the time that my personal computer connection went from .01 Kpbs
to 10,000 Kpbs the phone network has gone from 64 Kbps to 64 Kbps.
The phone system has long been a challenge for computer people. In
the early days we used modems to send data over the voice system by
pretending it is a funny sounding voice. In fact, the early modems
were developed by "the phone company", ATT's Bell Labs but the
technology evolved rapidly outside the phone network as individuals
tried to solve their own problems rather than waiting for the
promised digital phone network -- ISDN.
The reason that ISDN failed is because it was valuable! The modems
took an inexpensive transport, unmeasured consumer telephony (in the
US), and created valuable services. The value went to the users, not
the transport providers permitting innovation without prejudging the
value. With ISDN the transport providers tried to capture the value
of the applications -- that's what a service-provider does. This
meant one had to prejudge the value and thus prevented discovery and
penalized those who availed themselves of ISDN's capabilities!
ISDN delivered an instance of what was needed but without any of the
marketplace dynamics. It was a dead fish. By the time that the
carriers offered ISDN with pricing more like their analog service the
game was over -- modems were as ISDN because increased computing
capabilities allowed the users to reinvent ISDN from the edge!
We see this pattern repeated again and again. The latest is the IPTV
effort. At least some carriers are putting in special provisioning so
they can (again) try to provide TV service. We also see this same
behavior when cities try to be connectivity providers but do so in
the guise of municipal Cable TV. This fixation on Television (video
streams) is actually far worse than ISDN because it reserves a class
of service as special. The basic connectivity is to be funded by
keeping a particular class of services out of the marketplace! Yet we
are at a point at which video is like voice -- just another stream on
the network. Those attempting to give us connectivity now have the
incentive to continue to assure scarcity!
The other lesson of ISDN is that we don't need to make such a deal.
We should just look at the entire telecommunications industry as a
technology scrap-heap full of useful components. Sure, there's a lot
of copper and fiber buried out there. It will soon be "ours" anyway
but only if we don't get too excited and pay for it at today's
inflated prices which make old ISDN prices seem low. We can't afford
to give up our opportunity to do it ourselves because we can and we
will. The entire telecommunications infrastructure is no value in
itself! A single strand can carry a trillion bits per second. We
don't have enough traffic to use more than a small fraction and we
won't have enough traffic as long as we only permit "valuable" services.
So, let's forget about all that copper and glass for the moment. Just
be creative. Who needs it anyway? The FCC has already noticed that
rural connectivity (AKA "Broadband") is spreading far faster than
their models had predicted and it's all taken place using 802.11.
802.11 uses frequencies which were considered worthless because they
were blocked by water vapors. With some simple protocols we were able
to create valuable services. At the same time Congress seems to think
that "spectrum" is so valuable that they can use it to balance the
budget and they are willing to forgo future opportunity by locking
down so-called intellectual property so we can't learn from it and
repurpose it!
Wi-Fi (802.11) uses the so-called "unlicensed" spectrum. Imagine the
phrase "unlicensed speech". It's telling that we assume we must first
ask permission and we must beg for solutions because we don't have
the option of doing it ourselves. Of course we don't want to do
everything ourselves but instead of preselecting winners and
appointing gatekeepers we must allow everyone to try so we can have a
large set of choices. Our experience with digital systems, as well as
speech, shows that the "bad" ideas are self-limiting and minor
compared with the benefits of having so many opportunities for
"good". We, as the marketplace, can decide what is we consider good
according to the needs at any given time and are not limited to
arbitrary prior selection.
The tendency to focus simply on the risks and difficulties leaves as
impoverished. Unless we recognize the dynamics of the marketplace,
especially a digital marketplace, we find ourselves regulating the
future until it's just the past all over again. The cooperation
necessary to support the early experimental "radio" which used simple
signaling lead us into a trap. Notice that the word radio is
ambiguous -- the same word is used for a technology and a business.
It makes us consider the Regulatorium a necessity rather than a short-
term expedience.
Wi-Fi is a powerful demonstration of why that experiment should be
put to rest. The combination of packet-based connectivity that means
we only need to send very low power signals over a short distance and
our ability to spread the energy out to the point that it's
essentially invisible shows we needn't be hobbled by our fears. The
US constitution recognizes the dangers of prior restraint and the
very first amendment prohibits such prior restraint so as to assure
opportunity for new voices. Those who argue that we must ask
permission because of the possibility that the new technologies might
interfere with the old approaches are both ignorant of technology and
of a failure to allow for the benefits of innovation. There must be a
real, not hypothetical, reason for restrictions. The onus is on those
who want to impose restraints to demonstrate that the restraints are
necessary and that there is no alternative that is less restrictive.
It is foolish and irresponsible to ask permission from those whose
only answer is "no because that's the rule".
We don't have to wait for the newer technologies, we can and should
take advantage of today's Wi-Fi because it is so readily available
and gives us a simple way to experiment with wireless connectivity.
These experiments are likely to fail if they are tied to the funding
models that subvert discovery and deny us the value of the common good.
The Internet itself is an ongoing experiment that's far from perfect.
We have a vibrant P2P community that attests to the need to work
around problems with the IP protocol and the business models. Given
what we understood in the 1970's it's very good but it's just a work
in progress.
Be most cautious when the answer is obvious. I do argue that IP
connectivity is a useful model. If we fund it as a common good or
utility our society (which is the world, not just one country) will
benefit far beyond the relatively small costs of maintaining such an
infrastructure. It's a very simple infrastructure if we normalizing
it to IP. There are technical challenges but the marketplace will
attract those who see solutions rather than those who only see the
difficulties. Some may be naively optimistic but that just creates
new opportunities for others to try their approach. We shouldn't
anoint one "true" approach when we must explore many even as we use
what is the "best" at a given moment.
There is no transition from today's telecommunications
infrastructure. We will create a new connectivity infrastructure and
use what is available. It just like using railroad rights-of-way for
bike paths rather than personal trains.
Even though there isn't a single best answer, we do know that
normalizing on IP connectivity is a powerful approach. We should
assume IP connectivity and uses what we have available as long as we
don't have to give up future opportunity. As the P2P efforts show, we
can build on IP connectivity as we discovery better approaches.
The true lesson of the Internet is in the end-to-end argument. It
gives us a real working model of how individual efforts can composite
into a valuable whole. I've only touched upon the topic and only in a
very limited arena. I feel as if I've got a whole movie and this is
just one cel. A cel? Well, to understand that we have to go back to
the days when movies were analog and on film and ?
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/