[wplug] The End of the Telcos?

[David J. Pryke]

Bob Supansic wrote:
> There is a provocative article in the April issue of "Linux journal"
> 
> well worth reading.  Bob Frankston, one of the two co-authors of the 
> original Visicalc spreadsheet, sees the end of the telephone and cable 
> companies.
> 
> His argument is fairly simple.  He distinguishes connectivity from 
> content.  End users are interested in content; connectivity is merely a 
> complication on the way to getting it.  Now that packet-switching 
> technology has reduced all content to more or less the same form, all 
> content can be delivered over the same wire.
> 
> And that "wire" can be made much simpler and cheaper than it is today.  
> He argues that today's networks are legacy technologies from the era 
> when phone calls, television, radio, and computer communication each 
> required their own method of distributing content.  The content 
> distributors know this and therefore scramble to control content to 
> enhance what is, from a purely technological point of view, a weak 
> position.  Thus mobile phone companies supply closed-source phones so 
> that their control of content becomes a menu of separately-chargeable 
> services.  (The interviewer quotes a British Telecom executive as saying 
> the true core competence of telephone companies is billing!)  The attack 
> on network neutrality is an attempt to create new tolls on the Internet 
> turnpike based on content.
> So, get rid of all the increasingly obsolete connectivity technology, 
> strip the "wire" down to its essentials, and the network becomes so 
> simple and cost-effective that it can be turned over to local control.  
> Just like sidewalks: they come with the house -- and you don't pay each 
> owner to use them as you walk down the street.
> 
> Of course, I would anticipate some opposition to this from some quarters.

I have read his viewpoints before, and I had formed the same opinion on my 
own prior to reading his articles. If I had the business clout and money to 
make it happen, I would love to start a business that provides a local, 
neighborhood network that interconnects anyone that wishes to participate, 
allowing those users to share anything they want across the network, say, a 
website, or an independent TV show - and then once a certain mass of 
connections is reached, negotiate with a larger provider for open Internet 
access at a peering point on this network.  All users could share/split the 
costs for the public Internet bandwidth.  The network would still be owned 
independently of the Internet access provider, and independently of any 
service provider what-so-ever.  If the group ever decides that the bandwidth 
being provided is inadequate in any way, access can be obtained via another 
provider.

This would free the end users from the current market practices.  It would 
also allow anyone to be a content-creator and provide that content at full 
network speed (1Gb and up, as time goes on.)  Once the initial costs are 
recouped, the only end-user costs would be those to keep the network running 
(power, salary for a few techs to maintain things and provide a place to 
call when trouble arises  - large-scale network repairs due to storm damage 
could be contracted out, if deemed appropriate, to pre-negotiated specialists.)

This, if you have read his stuff, is a basic re-hash of what Bob Frankston 
has said, as well.  I don't think that I could make it happen in my 
neighborhood, but I encourage anyone with the ability to make it happen, do 
so!  Pittsburgh area residents could definitely take advantage of this!

I know other places in the US are doing something like this, and I know I 
read (a while back now) a story of a town in Indiana, Tennessee, or Kentucky 
doing it this way, but now I cannot find the reference.  The only thing I 
can find is for Clarksville, TN, and I don't believe that is the one that I 
had read about.  None-the-less, if you want to read up on their (apparently 
municipal project): http://www.clarksvillede.com/FTTH.html

It appears that theirs is a municipal rollout, while I was referring to a 
totally private rollout, since I believe that would best serve the 
individuals who would buy in to the network.

In any case, what do all of you on the mailing list think about this, and 
other ideas like it?  Is anyone around PGH doing something like this?


-- 
Thanks,

David J. Pryke