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

[Tom Poe]

John Lange wrote:
> 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:  Interesting points.  On the matter of the $50 per house model, I 
mentioned it as an example of how low-cost a decentralized approach is, 
today.  There is good reason this model isn't widely adopted.  My 
personal experience was just a few months ago, when I approached mayor 
Jim Erbs, mayor of Charles City, Iowa, where I live.  I proposed a 
community initiative that would use a local broadband infrastructure 
based on open-mesh.com technology.  The proposal identified a need to 
have every child be able to connect to the local school network from 
their homes to gain a true 21st century education.  I received a letter 
from our mayor, indicating the city would not support such an 
initiative.  I pushed back, and was told that the executives at Qwest, 
our regional telephone provider, would not permit it to happen.  I sent 
the proposal to our state governor, Chester Culver, suggesting it might 
be a template that could roll across the state and provide every student 
in Iowa to connect to the state's fiber network from their homes to 
receive a true 21st century education.  He sent a letter cautioning me 
not to do anything illegal.

In December, the U.S. FCC, opened the "white spaces" in our television 
frequencies to allow open-mesh.com technology to be applied, which 
would, for the same price, offer far greater range and efficiency for 
such a model.  The model is cheap, and it's decentralized.  
Unfortunately, the gatekeepers are the telco/cableco monopolies, and 
it's time we realize the issues are best resolved in favor of the 
people, not the corporate thugs.

What's really frustrating, is the huge amounts of taxpayer dollars being 
funneled to these corporate gatekeepers, when, if that same money was 
reallocated, as in Australia, our broadband infrastructure would look a 
lot different.
Tom