[wplug] The End of the Telcos?

[Max Putas]

I read this article, and I think it totally ignores the current
realities. Who owns the majority of the backbone for the Internet? You
guessed it--the telephone companies. To get them out of the loop would
require massive infrastructure buyout and network engineering. Sure, a
Google might have the chance given enough resources to buy up a lot of
fiber to create their own network, but you just can't automatically
hook up computers to those fibers and expect the whole thing to work.
Infrastructure and planning on a large scale is needed, especially
when it comes to LANs may be easy, but planning large-scale wired and
wireless networks  Ask any large WAN engineer. Real-life engineering
realities hit Google hard when they tried to plan a wireless network
using consumer access points, and they learned their lesson and went
with much more robust solutions. There are also massive amounts of
regulations on every level on where and how cabling can be laid/run
overhead, and maybe even more importantly, there is the possibility
that local telcos (or even cable companies) will attempt to block such
work. It has certainly happened before in planned community projects.

That said, I am hopeful for the future, and participate in many
OpenSource VoIP and networking projects, but I like to keep everything
in perspective =)

On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 10:08 AM, David J. Pryke <david-wplug at pryke.us> wrote:
>
> 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
>
>
>  _______________________________________________
>  wplug mailing list
>  wplug at wplug.org
>  http://www.wplug.org/mailman/listinfo/wplug
>



-- 
Thanks,

Max Putas