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

Thu Sep 21 20:38:38 UTC 2006

Ups! Big differences between points of view here, that's always good for 
a debate, also inline:

En/na Ken DiPietro ha escrit:
> 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?
I mean spaces where neutrality is preserved, free spectrum not invaded 
by not neutral networks. I can't imagine either in short or mid term all 
the spectrum being free.
>
>> -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.
If that's really true and available today, pls. give details on this. 
Note that we will be very thankful if you share that knowledge: Myself 
and probably many others can't achieve those bandwidths in the real 
world in wireless communications today without combining several 
frequencies, and even worst, if large scale of clients have simultaneous 
traffic in a common frequency, that creates a noise between all of them.
If it's not available, we are mixing present and future here, therefore 
hyping.
>
>> -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.
Ummmm... not sure If I explained well. Of course we have to buy things, 
if there is a local retailer with low margins, we'll do, if not, you can 
buy in China, Latvia, or wherever you want. Supply Chain is not the 
biggest issue here today, as long as there is a manufacturer who 
produces in an enough large scale to provide this technology at 
reasonable prices. I assume that the manufacturer should exists, if not, 
that means the technology is not available, therefore all of this become 
just empty words.
I simply don't like enterprises who don't provide a real service with 
value add, they trend to become parasites. All others, whit ethic 
business models, and respectful to network neutrality rules are  very 
welcome.

>
>> -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. 
If you consider that the academic/technical entities such the CERN and a 
few relevant Corporations, Universities and Foundations as governmental 
agencies, maybe yes, but if we mean governments as politics / 
legislators, I would say that no.  Internet was also a surprise for 
them. Traditionally politics and legislators are behind the innovation, 
and in fact introduced the risks of being influenced by lobbies or 
over-legislating.
>
>> -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.
I believe that you misunderstanding my point here or taking it out of 
context. Let me try to show it in another way: Are you running either a 
community or a large customer base? If yes, how large? You'll be always 
limited by your own resources and capabilities. Nobody is magic / 
ubiquitous.
I was not talking about if the competition is good or bad or how much 
centralized/decentralized has to be. Anyway for sure network neutrality 
has to be somewhat organized, and never centralized.
>
>> 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.
I certainly pay my taxes. I can't discuss this, I'm not an expert in how 
they have applied. I just have difficulties in seeing how another tax 
can help here.
>
> 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
>
> ---
Cheers!
Ramon.