[*] isen.blog: Broadband without Internet ain't worth squat

[John Lange]

On Wed, 2009-05-06 at 15:11 -0500, Tom Poe wrote:
> Yes, I read Isenberg, and left a comment, yesterday, to remind him that 
> the issue is centralized vs. decentralized telecommunications, not the 
> Internet.

I think you are under the impression that the existing system, where the
incumbent telco and cable-co provide internet access is a centralized
model?

That is incorrect. The phone system and the cable tv systems are
centralized models. The internet (regardless how you connect to it) is a
decentralized model. The fundamental difference being, in the
centralized model, the provider decides how and what travels over the
network.

And that is exactly why there is such an uproar about throttling and
traffic shaping. It can be construed as an attempt by providers to turn
the internet into a centralized model.

> The point is, a local broadband infrastructure, combined with "white 
> spaces" networking at the lowest cost per house is a whole lot better 
> for you and I than the centralized crappoolla offered by the 
> incumbents.

I think the real point is, if this was a viable model it would already
be widespread.

What you're really complaining about is lack of competition for internet
access. In Canada, that is a direct result of our foreign ownership
restrictions.

> I hope he catches up with countries like Australia that just announced 
> recently their intention to invest hundreds of billions into broadband 
> infrastructure.

Note that "hundreds of billions" works out to a lot more than
$50/household. Don't you think that if the "white spaces" "mesh" network
at $50/household would work they would have opted for that instead?

Australia decided that rather than lift foreign ownership restrictions,
they would pay for the infrastructure using their tax dollars. Long term
this is destined to run into problems as governments are always juggling
priorities.

-- 
John Lange
http://www.johnlange.ca