We act as if the Internet is a fluid that comes through pipes and that telephony is a service. We need to shift from 19th-century telecom to an infrastructure model and stop trying to pretend that each inch of fiber has to be profitable in isolation.
I go into this in more detail in https;//rmf.vc/IEEEBBToInfrastructure.
We know the current approach doesn't work so why do we keep repeating the same failed approach when a few percent of the road budget would be used to fund it all.
Technologists typically don't understand either. The powerful idea of the Internet is the complete decoupling of the relationships between endpoints and what is between.
The telecom business is based on providing valuable services. NOw that we are creating them (such as phone calls) in our apps we need to fund that infrastructure as a shared facility and not as services.
Telecom companies want to be seen as no different from other companies providing services so they too can extract value and network engineers also want to contribute.
It's as if we tried to operate roads by selling tickets like we do a railroad.
What makes this so difficult is that the idea that the value doesn't exist inside the network goes against our mental model of transporting valuable.
There is no "edge" because any more than there there is the edge of the sidewalk and roads and paths. No wonder politicans and their consituents are confused.
The value is all created outside of the network. The purpose of the infrastructure was to support content and service business. But those are all created outside the network and bits have no intrinsic value and we don't need pipes to keep all the packets in order.
The problem is not the lack of competition but the very concept of telecommunications which presumes that bits are valuable freight and tries to fund wires and radios as a profit center. This can't work because the value now lies outside the network and needs a funding model (infrastructure) that aligns incentives.
More in http://rmf.vc/BroadBandInternet?x=td or, if you want to go far deeper, http://rmf.vc/InformationVsTelecom&x=td.
The problem is very simple -- when we do services our self the defining premise of telecom -- service funding fails. And you can't make it up by selling bits because bits have no intrinsic value. The number of bits consumed has no relationship to the value and no relationships to consumption -- you aren't using up the fiber.
We need access to the basic physical facilities -- copper, fiber and radios -- to exchange bits among ourselves. As with our home networks we can expect to see capacity increase rapidly to meet the demand once we own our facilities.
More at http://rmf.vc/demystify.td and http://rmf.vc/nncc.td.
The problem is also confusing the Web with the Internet. Why do I need to click a perverse sign-in screen just to let my devices communicate even if there isn't a fee - just fear-mongering lawyers?
The issue of Neutrality is a symptom of the problem but not the problem itself. The problem is that we have a chimera called Telecom.
Easier to point to writings including First Square Mile and FTC Broadband Competition NOT. The basic problem is that telecom isn't a marketplace so you can't expect the marketplace to solve it but neither should we repeat the imposed solutions as in 1934.
Once we recognize that there is not really a telecom industry -- just transports controlled by privileged service provides the solution is obvious -- don't do that. The transport is like roads (but without the physical encumbrances) and it is not a profit center -- it's infrastructure. We must not give it all to privileged service providers who are allowed to take what they can in return for giving us a trivial amount of ?free? ?Internet? while preventing us from creating our own solutions. Assuring Scarcity demonstrates that they industry knows that they are acting to restrain trade and they do it because they would not exist if we had a real marketplace.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Bob Frankston.
Telecommunications is an industry based on a lie
We act as if the Internet is a fluid that comes through pipes and that telephony is a service. We need to shift from 19th-century telecom to an infrastructure model and stop trying to pretend that each inch of fiber has to be profitable in isolation.
I go into this in more detail in https;//rmf.vc/IEEEBBToInfrastructure.
We know the current approach doesn't work so why do we keep repeating the same failed approach when a few percent of the road budget would be used to fund it all.
The problem is far deeper
Technologists typically don't understand either. The powerful idea of the Internet is the complete decoupling of the relationships between endpoints and what is between.
The telecom business is based on providing valuable services. NOw that we are creating them (such as phone calls) in our apps we need to fund that infrastructure as a shared facility and not as services.
Telecom companies want to be seen as no different from other companies providing services so they too can extract value and network engineers also want to contribute.
It's as if we tried to operate roads by selling tickets like we do a railroad.
What makes this so difficult is that the idea that the value doesn't exist inside the network goes against our mental model of transporting valuable.
There is no "edge" because any more than there there is the edge of the sidewalk and roads and paths. No wonder politicans and their consituents are confused.
And your point is?
It's a big world and 12 years (not 8) is a mere blip.
Of course broadband is a fictional business
The value is all created outside of the network. The purpose of the infrastructure was to support content and service business. But those are all created outside the network and bits have no intrinsic value and we don't need pipes to keep all the packets in order.
This is why I wrote https://rmf.vc/IEEEBBToInfrastructure
The concept of telecommunications
The problem is not the lack of competition but the very concept of telecommunications which presumes that bits are valuable freight and tries to fund wires and radios as a profit center. This can't work because the value now lies outside the network and needs a funding model (infrastructure) that aligns incentives.
More in http://rmf.vc/BroadBandInternet?x=td or, if you want to go far deeper, http://rmf.vc/InformationVsTelecom&x=td.
It is indeed about a 19th century business model
The problem is very simple -- when we do services our self the defining premise of telecom -- service funding fails. And you can't make it up by selling bits because bits have no intrinsic value. The number of bits consumed has no relationship to the value and no relationships to consumption -- you aren't using up the fiber.
We need access to the basic physical facilities -- copper, fiber and radios -- to exchange bits among ourselves. As with our home networks we can expect to see capacity increase rapidly to meet the demand once we own our facilities.
More at http://rmf.vc/demystify.td and http://rmf.vc/nncc.td.
More Broadband is not the same as more Internet
No surprise then that it's a boondoggle. Broadband Internet?
The problem isn't simply the fee
The problem is also confusing the Web with the Internet. Why do I need to click a perverse sign-in screen just to let my devices communicate even if there isn't a fee - just fear-mongering lawyers?
We can do better than relying on bubbles
Opportunity for Innovation (http://frankston.com/?name=OFI)
It's about antitrust not NN
The issue of Neutrality is a symptom of the problem but not the problem itself. The problem is that we have a chimera called Telecom.
Easier to point to writings including First Square Mile and FTC Broadband Competition NOT. The basic problem is that telecom isn't a marketplace so you can't expect the marketplace to solve it but neither should we repeat the imposed solutions as in 1934.
Once we recognize that there is not really a telecom industry -- just transports controlled by privileged service provides the solution is obvious -- don't do that. The transport is like roads (but without the physical encumbrances) and it is not a profit center -- it's infrastructure. We must not give it all to privileged service providers who are allowed to take what they can in return for giving us a trivial amount of ?free? ?Internet? while preventing us from creating our own solutions. Assuring Scarcity demonstrates that they industry knows that they are acting to restrain trade and they do it because they would not exist if we had a real marketplace.