Joho the Blog
An Entry from the Archives

Just wanted to thank you for caring so passionately about what the net is and what it should be allowed to become, and for making a what is happening out there not only available but also comprehensible!:)

What would it take for you to add the one.org banner to your blog to support charity? I have added it to my own and would love to see other bloggers amplify the need to stomp out poverty.

If the activism irritates you then I understand...

James McGovern
http://duckdown.blogspot.com

Great piece!

One typo, I think:

"There be more services and content because the market now has lots of bandwidth, enough to handle new types of applications."

Unless you were using some pirate syntax to emphasize your point, I think you're missing the word "will."

After reading about delamination, I feel I went from being a member of the outside to a participant in the avant garde.

Our wireless Iway service is provided by a guy (rapidly growing to company) who single-handedly is bringing reliable, open high speed service to our rural outpost.

He uses Sprint for his backbone access and is making a go of it. Even with efforts to sabotage the effort from a clownish competitor (not the phone company who doesn't seem to care).

I was confused by the term "carrier" in the screeds. What is a "carrier"? Especially when you specifically refer to ISPs as something else. Do you mean "phone company"? "Cable company"? Any means to connect to an ISP?

Is my service provider/ISP a "carrier" even though he is outside the standard communications system? If he is, there is no way to eliminate "carriers". If he isn't what is intended as the problem, the term is confusing.

Anyway, I see what we are using as the solution: open competition by independent local networks (wireless or not) connected to some kind of backbone connection.

Interesting article!
Thanks

Charlie, by "carrier" I mean "the incumbent carriers." Sorry for the lack of clarity.

Jay, thanks for the "talk like a pirate" typo alert. I'll fix it.

So, why can't we ignore the incumbents and build a parallel but connected system? Or are Sprint, etc part of the problem? I gather from my ISP/provider they have been very cooperative.

David:

I agree with everything you say - and, in our small way, we trying to do something about it without waiting for government to impose structural separation. Check out
http://www.canarie.ca/canet4/library/customer/Green_Broadband.ppt

I agree with one of your responders. Incumbent Carriers can and do mean: Telco (ILEC & RBOC), MSO and CellCo. However, what you neglected to mention is that each is unique and different in many ways and has a different agenda with ref to Net Neutrality.
3 Points:
1. What you did not address in this piece is the influence Google will have on this space, with their effort to develop a Nationwide Internet replacement network (underway)designed around their Data Centers connected via a nationwdie Fiber network. Providing Content & Applications as a replacement for and a more efficient Tier#1 source Nationwide. All the above mentioned Carriers are concerned about what this monster will do in this space-effectively bypassing all local Wired and wireless data services they provide.

2. As part of this you also need to address the impact this new 700Mhz spectrum will have on delivering symmetrical robust services (data/voiceIP/Gaming/P2P and select video)in Urban and Rural markets. This is effectively the ultimate bypass technology, and if the FCC allows the various independent providers to gain access to this spectrum (vs. Verizon Wireless)they will effectively obviate the need for any Net Neutrality issues. The spectrum will allow true Broadband in a symmetrical type service-Fixed/Portable and Mobile. The CellCo are the one most at risk because this data service will effectively sideline their on going effort to deliver wireless Narrowband Data services and force them to return to delivering hiher quality voice. Prediction: Verizon Wireless will (and has to)win this spectrum one way or another-FCC may allow them to bid and influence their win.

3. Watch closely what the Monster Google will do ref bidding on this spectrum-directly or with a partner. They spent some 1.3 Billion on You Tube so 3-5 Billion would be chump change for this nationwdie spectrum.This would give Google the last piece of a Internet replacement network with access to the Last Mile-Bypass.

Jacomo

I love the idea. But, you know:

"So, you — yes, you — are going to have to convince your local Congressperson that our economy, democracy and culture are too important to leave in the hands of companies that have demonstrated their willingness to lie to continue in their position of power."

I really did LOL. Really, you're arguing about the dismantling of political capitalism. I don't really see that happening until the nanotech revolution removes scarcity as an excuse for capitalism.

I would like to make two additional points, which are in my view more important than anything you have discussed.

1) The entire debate is about censorship and nothing else. It is not about profit. It is only about censorship.

2) Competition in (for example) telephone service means only one thing to me. It means the absolute, ironclad certainty that some day I will pick up the phone and get no dial tone. It also means the very high probability that this will happen a couple of minutes after my wife has her next stroke.