[DMCA-Activists] Frankston: DIY, not just Connectivity!

[Seth Johnson]

From: David Farber <address@hidden>
Date: Wed, 4 May 2005 09:21:56 -0400
Subject: [IP] DIY, not just Connectivity!
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.728)
Reply-To: address@hidden



Begin forwarded message:

From: Bob Frankston <address@hidden>
Date: May 3, 2005 11:48:55 PM EDT
To: Dave Farber <address@hidden>
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.

-------------------------------------
Archives at:
http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/


> http://www.frankston.com/?name=DIYConnectivity


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 ?

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature