[wsfii-discuss] Fw: public demand for information technology

Thu Sep 21 18:40:33 UTC 2006

Comments in-line

Ramon Roca wrote:
> -Word "replacement" doesn't sounds realistic to me. Might even sound 
> as a joke to someone. Preserve coexistence of them looks as a smarter 
> goal.

We do have the technology to completely replace the telecommunications 
industry without missing a single service. That being the case why would 
we want to preserve them?

> -There is no "single" (low or expensive) radios capable to huge amount 
> of users. Simply they don't exist, at least yet. Talking in present, 
> what is needed now is to demonstrate that is possible to get same 
> effect by combining lots of them.

I am sorry, you are wrong. Currently, I know of several companies 
indifferent stages of building radios that provide well above 100Mbps 
(with one claiming real data rates of 300Mbps on the backhaul end while 
having the capability to provide an aggregate of over 100Mbps on the 
distribution side) which when deployed on every block could handle 
thousands of concurrent VoIP sessions while still leaving room for data 
and possibly even video - if the video is of a low definition variety 
such as You Tube or Google Video provide and cached locally.

> -Enterprises can collaborate if they are motivated in terms of 
> professional services, maintenance or content that they can provide to 
> the networks, to expect them only motivated by margins while selling 
> hardware is a contradiction in what is wanted to achieve. There is a 
> need for network actors providing a real value add, not "traders only".

I would disagree with this but you are certainly entitled to your 
opinion. I would further state that most, if not all, of the people in 
the countries that could be serviced by such a company would be thrilled 
to be able to purchase equivalent service to what they are now getting a 
1/10th the price. I would also submit that this is a realistic 
expectation and achievable goal.

As to services, of course you are correct but at the end of the day, 
someone has to purchase, hang, operate and maintain the network.

> -Innovation usually never comes from governments, to make them 
> understand something we must first demonstrate that is viable. Once 
> there is a network of a few hundreds, not all of them techies, some 
> local administrations might start to understand and collaborate 
> (after, not before). If still grows, then maybe a larger 
> administration. Don't ask me why, but when a governor is somewhat 
> visionary in terms of technology, very likely fails, so it can be 
> dangerous because very often ends with another failure story..It's 
> important to understand that we have to go for breaking boundaries and 
> have that mentality, not just delegate this to others.

You do understand that the Internet was originally built by the 
government? I can think of thousands of other innovations government has 
been responsible for but the best innovation I can think of right now 
would be for the governments to innovate themselves out of the way.

> -Same applies to general people: They join only when understand and 
> feel it real, in the meantime, it's for visionaries, techies, etc. 
> Doesn't matter if developed/developing. I mean, once they know that 
> they are in the coverage of a neutral network, they will join and 
> create a demand which is going a be difficult to attend without 
> collapse, the difficulty is to make them understand what they have to 
> do in order to get that coverage.

Here we disagree. In fact, I believe this is a fundamental disagreement. 
I believe communications is too important a service to expect a group of 
well intentioned "techies" to be put informally in charge of. There is 
nothing wrong with a business model that is not greedy, corrupt and 
provides service at a reasonable rate. It is when the industry is a 
government run monopoly where no competition is allowed that we run into 
problems. The way to keep the cost down is to remove the monopoly status 
and allow competition. One company gets too expensive and another will 
step in and pick up on that opportunity so that the price gets driven 
down. For that matter there is no reason that both groups cannot coexist 
but when you factor in police, fire, EMT services and other critical 
needs I am not sure I feel allowing this service to be completely 
decentralized is the best answer.

> So what makes sense to me is to fight for an habitat (free 
> spectrum's), and then, use it building networks. It's difficult to ask 
> for help if before there is a small visibility of what we are doing 
> and that we are capable to provide results.

That is certainly one way and I also see a modest licensing fee being 
paid to the government for each radio (perhaps for a clean slice of 
licensed spectrum) so that the government gets their "pound of flesh" 
because the governments want to make sure they get paid. If we pay them 
their due, they tend to allow things to happen.

Respectfully,

Ken DiPietro

New-ISP.net/NextGenCommunications.net
Wireless solutions - not concessions.
http://www.nextgencommunications.net
1044 National Highway LaVale MD 21502
Tel# (301)789-2968 Cell (301)268-1154

---
---