<<< Date Index >>>     <<< Thread Index >>>

[IP] Hub & Spoke or P2P Mesh? That is the question.



Begin forwarded message:

From: Jock Gill <jg45@xxxxxxx>
Date: June 22, 2006 11:51:34 AM EDT
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
Cc: Jock Gill <jg45@xxxxxxx>, Gerry Faulhaber <gerry- faulhaber@xxxxxxxxx>, Frankston Bob <bobf@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Reed David P." <Dpreed@xxxxxxxx> 
Subject: Hub & Spoke or P2P Mesh? That is the question.

Dave,

The conversation on Muniwireless might want to be expanded a bit.
The first issue is: Do we want a connectivity environment that looks something like this: 

-- 100 mbps architecture for stage 1
-- 1 Gbps architecture for stage 2 - within 3 years
-- Full P2P mesh network at all levels
-- Backhaul via I2, NLR or equivalent
-- Local loop for local traffic
--  exchange points, not peering points
-- symmetrical connectivity w/ static IP addresses for true "end-to- end" network 
-- seamless, 7x24, always on Big Broaddband connectivity

etc.
Or do we insist on remaining locked into the 20th century Hub & Spoke architecture [Master/Slave] in order to preserve the "customer" model supported by "billing"? IE, do we want to invent the future looking in the rear view mirror?
If we want a true P2P mesh network model for the 21st century, then we need to not only allow sharing of connectivity, but to actively encourage it. This suggests that we need a completely new billing model. More accurately, a no billing model!
If we want option 1, P2P mesh, then it would appear that public entities are the best, perhaps ONLY, entities to run it. Why? Because they do not have requirements to bill every user every month for every bit. We are not individually billed for police and fire protection, nor for street lights, nor public education and so forth. Thus government, which generally DOES work, has an proven and existing model for public services, such as a P2P mesh network, that can only work if sharing is leveraged for cooperative gain, not billed for private gain.
If I were a stock holder in one of today's incumbent connectivity providers, would I want my company to invest its scarce human and financial capital in very low margin bit hauling or in high margin innovative products and services delivered over commodity bits? Do I want the cost of bits to be a barrier to my high margin products and services?
The conversation has been distorted by the recent notion that everything should be a market function and the false premise that anything a government does automatically and unfairly competes with the "sacred" private sector. Rubbish.
The private sector loves externalities that allow them to shift costs to others. Bit hauling should be seen as an opportunity for a magnificent externality that allows them to re-allocate resources to more profitable operations. In this light, it is, in fact, in the self interest of the incumbents to work with the municipalities to create the very best possible bit hauling externality. Consider: Did the proponents of the market object to our tax dollars building the Eisenhower Interstate Highway system that has allowed them to externalize so many transportation costs? Or that out tax dollars subside airports that benefit the business traveller the most? Or that our tax dollar created the internet in the first place?
So the win win here is a robust P2P mesh network operated by municipalities that will allow the private sector to externalize low margin operations in order to improve their bottom lines. 

Morning thoughts from a motel room in KS.

Jock



On Jun 22, 2006, at 11:10 AM, David Farber wrote:




Begin forwarded message:

From: Gerry Faulhaber <gerry-faulhaber@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: June 22, 2006 10:14:14 AM EDT
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [IP] more on Summary for Congress of proposed NN Act Proposal
Sometimes I think that Bob Frankston is just way more advanced than I am;-) But after wading through it all, Bob is recommending "community ownership" of broadband infrastructure which is actually just another form of competitive entry. And of course I'm all for competitive entry. So, if this is such a great idea, how come it's not sweeping the country? In a sense, community ownership's opportunity is right now, with all the buzz about muni WiFi. But are mayors riding to easy re-election championing community broadband? Are the peasants marching on the castle with pitchforks demanding community broadband? Even here in Philadelphia, the poster child for muni WiFi, the public response has hardly been overwhelming.
I would certainly be in favor of it, should it actually be occurring. But if it is such a great idea, how come it is relatively rare? And, to paraphrase my earlier comment re: business plans, how come Bob (or other IPer) isn't at the forefront of a national coalition helping eager communities build their own infrastructure? 

Professor Gerald R. Faulhaber
Business and Public Policy Dept.
Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, PA 19104
Professor of Law
University of Pennsylvania Law School

----- Original Message ----- From: "David Farber" <dave@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <ip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 9:16 AM
Subject: [IP] more on Summary for Congress of proposed NN Act Proposal




Begin forwarded message:

From: Bob Frankston <Bob2-19-0501@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: June 21, 2006 8:21:16 PM EDT
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx, ip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: "'Dana Blankenhorn'" <dana@xxxxxxxxxx>, Gerry Faulhaber <gerry-
faulhaber@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [IP] more on Summary for Congress of proposed NN Act
Proposal

The reason we don’t have facilities competition is that there really
isn’t a separate business in facilities competition any more than
there is a business in competitive electric distribution. Mandated
pole access is a good idea but I expect it will quickly lead to
viewing the bit paths as simple infrastructure.

The reason we don’t ask for competitive electric distribution is that
we don’t buy light, we buy electricity. At first people did buy light
and you still some buildings labeled “Municipal Light Company” or
something like that.

As long as we frame the debate in terms of services and fund the
infrastructure by selling services we have a problem. You can’t fund
the transport if users create services themselves and you can’t sell
bits at a price that covers the cost of the infrastructure unless you
limit the supply because the bits have no value until they are turned
into a service outside the network.

As I note in http://www.frankston.com/?name=Opportunity the value of
the term “network neutrality” is in giving voice to the sense that
the carriers are not playing fair if they do something like block
VoIP or try to get a cut of the users’ value. I do worry about being
too specific since what is important is the marketplace dynamic not
the particular implementation of the current Internet. We don’t even
have to require global addresses because, as Skype has shown, we can
program around such things.

If we look back at what happened when we were able to own our own
phones and then later the phone wires in our homes we can see that
people do indeed pay for infrastructure when they understand the
value. There is no reason that doesn’t extend to community
infrastructure be it roads, sewers or bit paths.

Even better when the cost is reduced because we have a shared
infrastructure rather than having each service provider have to build
a separate infrastructure and then watch all the value disappear as
others use the transport but create new services outside the network.
The carriers should indeed be angry but the solution is not to
prevent competition – the carriers should be asking themselves why
they have to pay for the infrastructure. They should be the first
advocate community ownership.

Of course the carriers see control of the infrastructure as giving
them an advantage in the marketplace but the FTC should be asking
hard questions about such tie-ins. The carriers may also believe that
they need control because they still think in terms of scarcity and
can’t imagine that a community would deploy enough capacity even as
they leave many gigabits of copper fallow by carrying only an
occasional phone call per pair.

The carriers’ plight is deeper as new services aren’t using their
infrastructure anyway – the studios (AKA, TV broadcasters) are
already assuming a download and peer model for distribution since
only a small amount of their content needs streaming anyway.

Once we have the idea of infrastructure—the community owning the
connectivity—and we fund the infrastructure transparently as
infrastructure we go far far beyond network neutrality. We no longer
have to contain the bits within billing paths and there is no reason
not to leak it out to provide ubiquitous and extensible wireless
coverage. This is where things get exciting because that’s a real
tipping point – once we get past the fear of abundance (as the
carriers explicitly decry in http://www.frankston.com/?
name=AssuringScarcity) we have no barriers against ubiquitous
wireless coverage and, even better, anyone can extend coverage even
to subbasements or caves or wherever. You can then have you medical
alert bracelet call home instead of waiting for someone to read it
and then find a phone.

This why I don’t like the whole focus on broadband and am not
convinced Korea is the right model. I sued to think minitel in France
was a great idea but in the end it kept them off the Internet. I
think of broadband as being like a railroad when we really want to be
able to walk and drive where we please. It’s easy to get speed but
coverage is more important.

We can argue about the technical details of how infrastructure works
but it would be hard to do worse than today’s misaligned incentives.

For entertainment purposes you can read about viewing sidewalks in
terms of services. Of course no one would charge for sidewalks –
after all it’s just concrete and dirt and maybe some hops, skips and
jumps when we go groundless for a short distance.



-----Original Message-----
From: David Farber [mailto:dave@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2006 10:15
To: ip@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [IP] more on Summary for Congress of proposed NN Act Proposal







Begin forwarded message:

From:   Gerry Faulhaber <gerry-faulhaber@xxxxxxxxx>

Date:    June 21, 2006 10:07:41 AM EDT

To:       dave@xxxxxxxxxx

Cc:       faulhaber@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Subject:            Re: [IP] Summary for Congress of proposed NN Act
Proposal



[for IP]

Amazingly, I find myself in agreement with Dana Blankenhorn. This
business of restricting the use of Internet to only service that
follows IETF/RFC protocols really is fairy dust. Does anyone think
that customers really care about “IETF/RFC Inside”? In the few
minutes since I read Dana’s post, I have thought of a dozen names
that Comcast/Verizon could call it other than Internet that would
work just fine in the marketplace. And what about all the non-
complying systems in place today?

I also wholeheartedly agree with Dana about making the market
competitive as the only true solution to this. However, he seems to
think that Congress must act to “take away their monopoly right of
way.” In fact, Congress already did; the Telecom Act of 96 removed
all local monopoly franchises, period. Even further back, there are
FCC Pole Attachment rules requiring telephone companies to share
their poles at specified rates. Everything is actually in place for
competitors to enter.

The question is: with all the railing against “monopoly” BB
providers, and all the rant about how well it works in Korea, how
come we haven’t seen competitive entry? And with all the hype about
unlicensed wireless as the answer to the maiden’s prayer, how come we
have almost no private entry into wireless BB (except Clearwire)?
I’ll bet if all those great entrepreneurs spent less time writing
outraged letters to Congress, IP, etc., and more time building a
business plan to offer competitive BB, all our problems would be
solved. And yet, and yet....where are the competitors? Why so much
whining and so little market entry? Come on, guys; if it’s a great
business for Comcast/Verizon (highly questionable, actually) then it
should be a great business for you. Yeah, it’s you I’m talkin’ to,
buddy.

Dana has it absolutely right; what he doesn’t have (and should have)
is a business plan. If he doesn’t have it, then why not any of those
guys who signed on to the Internet Platform thing?

Professor Gerald Faulhaber

Wharton School, Univ of Pennsylvania

Philadelphia, PA 10194

Professor Univ of Pennsylvania Law School



-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as gerry-faulhaber@xxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting- people/ 


-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as jock@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting- people/ 



-------------------------------------
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/