« June 2006 | Weblog | August 2006 »

July 2006 Archive

Hot Spots v. Hot Zones

Oh, man. I've got the headphones on and I'm listening to the podcast that Glenn put up today on Wi Fi Net News. This is Podcast #8, with Michael Oh, at NewburyOpen.Net. Check out this, and all the rest of the podcasts for that matter. It's a great and painless way to stretch your brain around both current events, and new perspectives on the horizon, as with this particular podcast.

This is fascinating because they're talking about the Hot Zone and what a local area network brings to the table, vs. the now more common Hot Spot, which ties the user to a specific location such as a coffee shop, or the Internet and broadband access in general, which takes the user's focus and attention out of the neighborhood and into the Ethernet.


Michael is a wireless veteran, having put up a Wi Fi LAN and experimented with using the available bandwidth for purposes other than accessing the Internet. It turns out that there a lot of interesting things going on in the local area as well as what is happening out on the Internet.

I'm convinced that local area events and activities constitute a sleeper issue that will be more and more discussed in coming months, as the industry develops and more Wi Fi networks are deployed. In fact, this is a key concept and driver for MetroNanoNet, my new business venture.

What happens locally is highly relevant to us - in fact, I would argue that much of our world and our attention is focused on a circle within two miles of our homes, especially if there are children and elementary schools involved.

Content caching at the local area will be huge as more and more content goes out over the Internet. Providing content locally at blazing speeds may well become the killer app for Wi Fi Mesh, to borrow a term from my previous blog.

Handheld devices like Wi Fi phones, PDAs, Music Gremlins, and Game Players are more likely to take advantage of this new application - locally served content - than laptops.

Posted on July 12, 2006 at 04:27 PM | Comments (0)

What are You Going to Do With Your New Network?

Here's a new website, KillerApp.com, that's worth taking a look at. The folks at Broadband Properties are producing this new resource.

According to Wikipedia (and the it's MetroNetIQ glossary entry), a "killer app" is what drives adoption.

Killer App - This term was devised to explain what happens when a computer application is so popular that it leads consumers to adopt a new technology in droves. For instance, e-mail and the Netscape web browser are described as killer apps with regard to the early days of dial-up Internet access. In more current terms, I have described VOIP, or Voice over Internet Protocol, and its accompanying voice applications and services as a Killer App for metropolitan networks.

I like this focus because applications are what really float my boat. While some of my friends, especially those more technically inclined, get into all the gory details of wireless internet technologies, I view all of this as simply a means to an end. As fascinating as it is, infrastructure is what is going to enable all the added value and experience we talk about. As I've frequently said on this page (and on my other websites WikiMetroNet and MetroNanoNet) - the real fun begins when we start using these networks to do new and exciting things.

Check it out - www.killerapp.com - hard to believe that URL was available!

Posted on July 12, 2006 at 04:15 PM | Comments (0)

Wi Fi, Congestion, and Playing Well With Others

Back to those rules we learned in kindergarten ...

Remember that bestseller about 20 years ago: All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten by Robert Fulghum? Well, its back off my bookshelf and open on my desk. A while back, a colleague asked me how Wi Fi Mesh networks deal with the issue of congestion. I thought it was a good question - here's what I found out below in this blog, by leaning on Internet resources and local experts. The bottom line is that for a network that uses unlicensed spectrum to work, there needs to be coordination and cooperation between network operators using the unlicensed spectrum. In other words, we all need to get along, follow some rules of good behavior, and Share with our Neighbor - just like in Kindergarten...

Tech Republic, by the way, gives a good overview of unlicensed spectrum use and constraints, including the diagram below.

802.11 spectrum.bmp

First Question: How much unlicensed spectrum is available and how is it used?

802.11b/g runs on the 2.4 GHz unlicensed spectrum (2400-2483), which is divided and used in three channels, as described in the diagram above.

Additionally, 802.11a, often used as a strategy to avoid the more crowded b/g band, runs at 5.0 GHz, which has eight non-overlapping channels in the 5.3 GHz range, and 4 in the 5.8 GHz range, so there's considerably more real estate to play with there.

Finally, 802.11n, still being standardized, is another option that provides more bandwidth and less interference risk. Some equipment companies are positioning their "pre-N" products (already released) for in-home distribution of digital content, and we know that 802.11n using MIMO is on the development path for outdoor Wi Fi as well.

See this link also for more details on the potential of 802.11n, a new flavor of Wi Fi on the horizon.

Second Question: But what about interference when two parties both broadcast in the same proximity using the same 802.11 technology? (e.g., Starbucks right across the street from Austin Java)

First, Part 15 FCC Rules govern the use and behavior on Unlicensed Spectrum and they do not give preference among legitimate users - it's an open field - a "commons" that we must share. On the other hand, its hard to beat the price of not paying for licensed spectrum. So there are trade-offs between unlicensed and licensed spectrum business models. I have my opinions, but I wanted some confirmation, so I spoke with my friend Murray Freeman, CEO of Wi Fi Texas, who has over five years experience using Wi Fi to manage commercial networks locally, and I value his opinion. Here's what he told me, with my opinions and commentary sprinkled liberally about.

It boils down to a case of noise. The good is that there are no licensing fees for unlicensed spectrum, by definition, but the bad is that a network operator must adapt to a new business model to work cooperatively with what is in essence a public good. There is no splitting of spectrum bands in practice. Rather, congestion results when two APs operate in close proximity without some level of coordination. Without cooperation, the noise would just get louder and louder, and ultimately compromise the signal quality for both operators, something like the Mutually Assured Destruction we talked about back in the Cold War days. In practice, while there is no defense against intentional interference and no automatic allocation of the available bandwidth, there is a practical solution - cooperation, which also happens to confer a distinct advantage for the first mover. That appears to be the way this market is developing, making it a "land grab" market.

How so? Since it's impractical for a second party to enter the market and build a network knowing there will be congestion when a Wi Fi network is already deployed - in a word, overbuild, then it becomes far more economical for a second provider to approach the first mover, who can operate as a "neutral host" and negotiate an accommodation - in other words, they can lease space to following service providers and provide for coordinated joint use of shared facilities. Some Wi Fi access points (APs) for example, allow a single AP to be shared by multiple parties, so that it is far more economical to buy time from the existing network owner than it is to overbuild - in a sense, it becomes an economic monopoly for the first mover, but the physics, politics and economics don't allow the first mover to enage in monopoly abuse.

And, given that the DSL and Cable network operators are moving in the opposite direction of being neutral hosts (last summer, the Supreme Court Brand X decision allowed cable operators to run a closed network and then the FCC decided soon after that to apply the same conditions to telcos) - closing their networks to third parties as their existing contracts expire - creation of such a neutral host model fills an emerging need and is a likely direction for the municpal wireless industry.

This becomes a motivation of municpal RFPs - to create a neutral third network that third party providers like Earthlink (Echostar, DirecTV, etc, etc) can use, or that multiple smaller players can use to develop small niche markets.

Others are likely to determine that the money to be made is less in retail market development, than in being a network operator of a such a local monopoly high-speed wireless data network. Earthlink is building on its ISP business model, while gaining the additional benefit of more control over its destiny by owning the network instead of leasing expensive bandwidth from at&t, Verizon, etc.

The municpal wireless market has developed in its early stages as such a land grab business, with much focus on the early-mover cities, especially the large ones like Philadelphia, San Francisco, and Houston. When a frst mover wins an RFP, it sends a signal to the rest of the players that a certain territory "has been taken." There's an implication that a "franchise" has been won, whether or not that is the case or that word is used. At this early stage with participation by smaller players and lots of open territory, there are too many strikes against a second mover in any market, and no territory looks that attractive, I think, for congestion to materialize as suggested by Question 2 above to become an immediate issue.

Entry by a large player into the unlicensed space at some point would indeed be disruptive, however, and would raise the congestion issue again. But that doesn't appear likely in the near term, given how many other opportunities there are to spend energy in more constructive ways, and I've always assumed that such competitors would sooner use licensed technology then compete, or buy subscribers than enter a market, than they would be to enter a market and compete with similar technology to kill off a smaller competitor.

With that reasoning, my opinion is that most current players building wireless networks and ISP businesses seek to develop a defined market and then plan on either a) switching to a more robust technology (802.11n MIMO, WiMAX) that will better address the congesion issues or b) simply selling their accumulated subs to a larger telecom company as an exit strategy.

So the bottom line to these questions, in my own meandering way, is that while I don't believe there exists a defense to a player who would enter and deploy an overlay Wi Fi network with the intent of damaging a first mover's operation, I'm not sure its that big of a risk in the short term. While congestion would appear to be the Achilles Heel of this technology, intentional congestion would be an irrational action and would not be an immediate threat in any case. Unintentional congestion, on the other hand, remains a factor of using unlicensed spectrum and is a network management issue that must be addressed as a cost of doing business.

Given that there's a current, compelling need for last mile broadband in spots throughout even a very-well-served market like Austin, a cooperative model for market development that would rationally and deliberately deal with early-stage congestion issues makes the most sense.

Posted on July 12, 2006 at 02:29 PM | Comments (0)

Declaration of Independence for Broadband Connectivity 2.0

Last Tuesday, July 4, caught up in the spirit of 1776 and inspired by essays by Robert Cringely and Bob Frankston, I drafted this Declaration of Indpendence for Broadband Connectivity. With this flicker of hope and the outlining of the issue, I'm struck by the need and the potential to fire up the imagination of the everyday men and women who don't track these issues so widely, yet would be the prime beneficiaries of such independence. We need a vsion to get them motivated for change. Call last Tuesday's document a first draft, and here below I'll take a stab at a second draft.

Based on annecdotal evidence (social conversations), I'm convinced that most people are not aware of emerging alternatives to the predominate paradigm: paying large corporations for fixed and mobile voice telephony, broadband, video as subscribers to their services. We see the first alternative when muniicpalities get active and begin to advocate for their citizens for universal affordable broadband access alternatives (ie., Municipal Wireless). A second emerging alternative is for groups of individuals in residential areas, or groups of businesses to gather together and take control of their own destiny by acting collectively to provision their own broadband connectivity (e.g., Fon, MetroNanoNet, etc.). Many more alternatives will arise as technologies and market awareness progress.

With these alternatives in mind, it is vital that many more step up to take control of their individual destinies - and our collective destiny as a society and an economy. History shows that if we stay in our traditional roles as subscribers, as we have done so far, waiting for the large incumbent telecom and cable companies to bring us ubiquitous, affordable broadband services, we will be waiting a long time.

We will get these services on the timetable of the incumbents - and it is to their advantage to move slowly, because they will seek to preserve their market control, manage a controlled build out of infrastructure, and maintain subscriber revenue streams. They have to do that - they're pressured in the stock market as they lose regular voice subscribers and begin to battle each other and they have no incentive, indeed, a disincentve to open up the market to the other alternatives that technology enables.

Here below I'm taking a second stab at the Declaration, hoping to bring more organization and clarity.

A Declaration of Independence for Broadband Connectivity

A new opportunity for connectivity independence has emerged
Society today has a unique opportunity to unite and collaborate to establish communication independence. Ubiquitous, universally affordable broadband connectivity that enables multiple data and voice communication options has become vital to indivdual and community economic and lifestyle independence, and increasingly, political independence as well. Independence means the right to choose alternatives for broadband connectivity from the perspective of the "first mile," not that of providers' last mile. The right to universal and ubiquitous broadband connectivty is now equivalent to other fundamental rights in our lives.

Connectivity is vital to individuals and communities
Open and robust communication infrastructure supports a healthy democracy and a capitalist market-based economy. Connectivity includes not only broadband Internet access at the residence and in the workplace, but also ubiquitous connection options, both wired and wireless, at the "first mile" - out at the ends of the networks. Humans and societies, diminshed in isolation, thrive in collaborative environments, stimulated and supported by high levels of open and affordable communication. We all benefit when we are all connected.

Big business and government have been slow to adapt
Telecommunications, now including broadband connectivity, has historically been provided by large corporations in the private sector, regulated by different levels of government on the public sector side. Big business and government (both state and federal) have fallen into a groove and have demonstrated a preference for continuity and evolution over innovation and revolution. They have continued in place systems and processes that reflect a sensibiity from a bygone era; the viewpoints in the debate, as well as the supporting infrastructure, have not been updated to provide US citizens the best options and the United States has become less competitive as a result.

The system that would give us ubiquitous broadband is broken
A dispassionate assessment of the current US broadband infrastructure system in the United States must conclude that it is broken, but not beyond repair. Most data and voice access in this country is provided by incumbent duopolies (large telecom and cable providers) and access is not available at affordable rates to all citizens in this country. Nor does the access we do have take advantage of the most current technological possibilities - we have set the bar very low on what constitutes "broadband," for instance. Ranked in 16th place for broadband penetration, we are not only behind other nations, we are falling further behind when digital inclusion is considered: even as some segments of our society progress, others that do not become separated by a still wider gap.

The system no longer acts in the best interest of the citizen: we need a Plan B
To date, state and federal regulatory and legislative officials who oversee telecommunication infrastructure and services companies as representatives of the public interest have acted conservatively in support of their own interests, with a short-term perspective. In general, they have acted more to preserve the status quo, generating revenue from spectrum auctions, and addressing incumbent player interests than they have to embrace the future strategically, enabled by radical technological change. As citizens, we must continue to work within the system to affect positive change and reform, but that path will take a long time to bear fruit. An alternate path for connectivity is needed, or we will all suffer the consequences. We need independence - we need a "Plan B."

A national dialogue on connectivity independence is needed
The solutions that will benefit the most citizens of the United States include some that lie outside of existing authority and power players, so we must begin to develop a flexible path around these problems, which will include a new connectivity plan. The people of the United States must begin an explicit, national dialogue on what it means to be independent with regard to connectivity.

Political will is necessary to make a paradigm shift
Indeed, technology advances have already set us free and provide us with the tools, but what we're still missing is widespread political will to shake off the old paradigm - when institutions and government act in harmony to keep our options under their control, they exert a very strong hold on our psyches and define our universe of possibilities. When they say "Telecom is a complex scale business - leave it to us to take care of you - your role is to keep on buying and consuming - you're a subscriber for our services," individuals become disempowered and find it difficult to imagine a different way of doing things.

Collective action is key to changing the paradigm
At the individual level, most lack the skills and experience to conceive, much less implement new connectivity concepts on their own and are at a power disadvantage relative to the big strong players in the private and public sectors. Many are unwilling to compete with these giants, having seen others fail in the past. But working collectively, we can be much more than subscribers and consumers. We can own our networks and produce and distribute our own content.

Cities, Chambers, and Neighborhoods have roles to play to create a new network
All cities have a role to play and should at a minimum be allies to this new movement. Small, targeted residential and commercial wireless cooperatives and networks are acheivable; we are limited only by our imaginations and political will. A linked network of infrastructure-access cooperatives, similar to the global Internet, can be created by linking wireless local area networks with common protocols.

In a highly dynamic environment, a portfolio of small players is less risky than a handful of large players
In a future that is less and less predictable, there's safety in a portfolio approach. A society with tens of thousands of innovation-friendly cooperative broadband access networks, each with a few thousand voluntary cooperative members, will adapt better to rapid change than a few conservative telecom corporations that provide service to millions of captive subscribers each.

Community cooperatives are a compelling alternative to large corporations
Where decision-makers at large corporations tend to act primarily to preserve and enhance corporate revenues, community cooperatives have incentives to experiment and learn from each other, reinventing the nature of communications and connectivity.

Natural systems use collaboration and competition to deal with uncertainty, so can we with connectivity
Telecommunications and connectivity in the 21st Century face a period of transition and change brought about by a disruptive Internet and advances in digital technology. Ubiquitous connectivity now has the potential to become more "edge-oriented," and we should apply new knowledge about how nature deals with risk and change. Connectivity can and should become more adaptive to change and innovation; it can become more biologically-oriented, developing and changing in a bottoms-up fashion, harnessing the power of natural selection and adopting an ecosystem approach. In a rapidly changing technology world, such a flexible approach makes more sense by better mitigating risk and providing more upside through more rapid adaptation and adoption of new innovations.

Infrastructure is only a path to applications, which provide solutions and value
There is a middle path between big traditional incumbents and newer municipal wireless franchises on the one hand, and more radical non-profit community network approaches on the other hand. That middle way is customer-owned, professionally-managed community cooperatives. Moving expeditiously past this infrastructure debate, visionary communities can install networks and cross over to the more interesting and rewarding world of new broadband and wireless applications, showing the rest of us the way to go.

We should start the natioal discussion with this declaration and these principles for connectivity independence

1. Complexity v. Simplicity in Design. Wired or wireless networks are complex, to a degree. Complexity doesn't go away with independence, but a new business model and paradigm can embrace more simplicity, challenging existing "rules" and traditional assumptions. Occam's Razor, for instance, would imply that the optimal solution may well be the simplest solution. We should be free to pursue more simple solutions to connectivity.

2. Professional Operations. The rules of physics, however, impose some boundaries on simplicity: initially, these networks will not be simple to deploy or maintain - they could be owned by the customers in cooperatives, but they will need to be managed and maintained by professionals. Network operators may come in a variety of forms, from traditional telcos to a network of smaller firms using standard operating processes, to a new large company or an existing large company - keys to professional operation will be network expertise and financial stability.

3. Local involvement. Local involement is important: limited partnerships with local investors funding the networks and recovering their investment from cooperative dues with interest holds potential. Nobody understands a local area better than locals, making them the best boosters for local infrastructure and a new approach to connectivity. Limited partnerships would give local business leaders a lasting incentive to make new networks successful.

4. Corporate Sponsorships. National, regional, and local sponsors can support network infrastructure deployments, not unlike the sponsors of neighborhood baseball parks whose signs line the outfields. Such sponsorships, similar to those that supported the development of US commercial TV network infrastructure fifty years ago, and public broadcasting since, indicate a model to emulate.

5. Comprehensive Stakeholder Buy-In. Such alternative network infrastructure approaches do best with widespread buy-in. Wireless neighborhood demonstration networks represent a low-hurdle and as such, are a good transition to the fiber networks that would provide the ultimate connectivity. Time and numerous local demonstrations should capture the imagination of the masses. Starting with a massive number of small wireless networks is the best way to get the most people familiar with a new broadband paradigm.

Posted on July 08, 2006 at 01:13 PM | Comments (0)

A Declaration of Independence for Broadband Connectivity

NOTE: The Declaration of Independence signed 230 years ago today reflected much deliberation and collaboration and was a finished product when it was signed. In contrast, this declaration is only the beginning of a process, which is unlikely to conclude at any time in the near term - it's a work in progress. This document is an open invitation to contribute your thoughts on connectivity and free will. Please feel free to comment and join in the dialogue.

A Declaration of Independence for Broadband Connectivity

With all due respect to our nation's Declaration of Independence from political domination by the British Empire 230 years ago today, we also face an opportunity today to unite and collaborate to establish our own independence. Albeit, the stakes are somewhat less grave. Today when we talk about ubiquitous connectivity, we talk about economic and lifestyle independence, more than the political independence of an earlier day. We've arrived at a point where it's now vital for our collective good to declare independence from narrow alternatives for personal communication. We have a right to declare our freedom to communicate in whatever fashion makes the most sense from our own first/last mile perspective. This does not mean a right to free high speed connectivity, as some would suggest. No "broadband should be free" comments here. But it does mean that affordable and accessible data and voice communication options - connectivity at the edge - have become key to our economic success and fulfillment in life, and that right to connect is becoming as vital as other fundamental rights in our lives.

Communicating with others is as natural and as necessary to humans as is access to food, clothing, and shelter. Or life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In less modern times, communication would have meant freedom of speech and the right to assemble, speaking one's mind without fear of persecution. Today, those freedoms must be expressed on-line. We need open and robust communication infrastructure to support a healthy democracy and a capitalist market-based economy.

In today's world, access to communication - connectivity - includes broadband Internet access and ubiquitous connection options at the "first/last mile" - out on the ends of the networks. Humans and societies, diminshed in isolation, thrive in collaborative environments, stimulated and supported by high levels of open and affordable communication. We all benefit when we are all connected.

In the United States, telecommunications has historically been provided by large corporations in the private sector, regulated by different levels of government on the public sector side. They have continued in place systems and processes that reflect a sensibiity from a bygone era; our viewpoints as well as our infrastructure have not been updated to provide US citizens the best options, or to make the United States as competitive as it could be.

A dispassionate assessment of the current telecommunications system in the United States must conclude that it is broken, but not beyond repair: most data and voice access in this country is provided by incumbent duopolies (large telecom and cable providers) and access is not available at affordable rates to all citizens in this country, nor does the access we do have take advantage of the most current technological possibilities - we have set the bar very low on what constitutes "broadband," for instance. We are not only behind other nations, we are falling further behind in terms of digital inclusion: even as some segments of our society progress, others that do not become separated by a still wider gap.

To date, the state and federal regulatory and legislative officials that oversee telecommunication infrastructure and services companies as representatives of the public interest have acted, well, conservatively. In general, they have acted more to preserve the status quo and address incumbent player interests than they have to embrace a future enabled by radical technological change. As citizens, we must continue to work within the system that we have to affect positive change and reform, but it looks like it will take a long time for those in power to fix the system, if indeed they are ever successful at reforming themselves. We must pursue an alternate path for connectivity or suffer the consequences. We need independence - we need a "Plan B."

The solution that will benefit the most citizens of the United States may well lie outside of existing authority and power players, so we must begin a separate path around these problems; for better or worse, we need a new connectivity plan - and that's a revolutionary concept. Call it a Declaration of Independence for Connectivity, on this Fourth of July, where we begin an explicit, national dialogue on what it means to be independent with regard to connectivity.

Indeed, technology advances have already set us free and provide us with the tools, but what we're still missing is widespread political will to shake off the old paradigm - when institutions and government act in harmony to keep our options under their control, they exert a very strong hold on our psyches and define our universe of possibilities. When they say "Telecom is a complex scale business - leave it to us to take care of you - your role is to keep on buying and consuming - you're a subscriber for our services," individuals become disempowered and find it difficult to imagine a different way of doing things.

At the individual level, most lack the skills and experience to conceive, much less implement new connectivity concepts on their own and are at a power disadvantage relative to the big strong players in the private and public sectors. Many are unwilling to compete with these giants, having seen others fail in the past. Try getting financing for a new business plan in this area! But working collectively, we can be much more than subscribers and consumers. We can own our networks and produce and distribute our own content.

Some cities are already leading in this parade, but all cities have a role to play and should at least be allies to this new movement. Small, targeted residential and commercial wireless cooperatives and networks are acheivable; we are limited only by our imaginations and political will. Imagine a linked network of infrastructure-access cooperatives - what a vision! Is that so different than global Internet created by linking local area networks with common protocols?

In a future that is less and less predictable, there's safety in a portfolio approach. We may well be much better off as a society with tens of thousands of innovation-friendly cooperative broadband access networks, that each have a few thousand voluntary cooperative members. This is a revolutionary paradigm shift away from the predominate view: a handful of conservative, shareholder-focused telecom corporations that service millions of captive subscribers each, by way of a network infrastructure that was built within a regulatory framework of public subsidies and mandated rates and is even still supported by USF monies.

Decision-makers at large corporations tend to act primarily to preserve and enhance corporate revenues (as well as their jobs and their personal wealth) - it's not only the rules of capitalism that make it so, it's human nature as well to hold on to what one has in the face of threatening change. But why not harness the horsepower of capitalism and human nature to a different paradigm wagon? Community cooperatives, in contrast to the prevailing paradigm, will experiment and learn from each other, reinventing the nature of communications and connectivity.

Telecommunications and Connectivity in the 21st Century face a period of transition and change brought about by a disruptive Internet and advances in digital technology. Ubiquitous connectivity now has the potential to become more "edge-oriented," and we can apply new knowledge about how nature deals with risk and change. Connectivity can and should become more adaptive to change and innovation; it can become more biologically-oriented, developing and changing in a bottoms-up fashion, harnessing the power of natural selection and adopting an ecosystem approach. In a rapidly changing technology world, such a flexible approach makes more sense by better mitigating risk and providing more upside through more rapid adaptation and adoption of new innovations.

There is a middle path between big traditional incumbents and newer municipal wireless franchises on the one hand, and more radical non-profit community network approaches on the other hand. That middle way is customer-owned, professionally-managed community cooperatives. Moving expeditiously past this infrastructure debate, visionary communities can install networks and cross over to the more interesting and rewarding world of new broadband and wireless applications, showing the rest of us the way to go.

Our national community should pursue a more action-oriented discussion on this provocative idea of customer-owned networks. Every community across the US should begin with this conversation - everything interesting starts with a conversation, and there is much work to do.

Principles for Connectivity Independence

1. Complexity v. Simplicity. Wired or wireless networks are complex, to a degree. Complexity doesn't go away with independence, but it's no longer used as a smokescreen either. We should infer from rules like Occam's Razor that the best solution is likely to be the simplest solution. A simpler design can minimize complexity and we should be free to pursue more simple solutions to connectivity.
2. Professional Operators. But these networks will not be simple to deploy or maintain = they could be owned by the customers in cooperatives = YES - but they will need to be deployed, managed, and maintained by professionals. Telcos? Perhaps, but network operators could be a network of smaller firms using standard operating processes, or a new large company or an existing large company - keys will be network expertise and financial staying power.
3. Local involvement. One way would be to have Limited Partnerships with local investors funding the networks and recovering their investment from cooperative dues with interest. Nobody understands a local area better than natives, so they would be the best boosters - give them an incentive by making them the long-term financiers. The General Partner could be public or private, but could put up money as well as expertise.
4. Corporate Sponsorships. National, regional, and local sponsors can support network infrastructure deployments, not unlike the sponsors of neighborhood baseball parks whose signs line the outfields. This would be sponsorship like the US commercial TV network enjoyed at the beginning, and public broadcasting has enjoyed since - the public radio and TV model could work for public broadband as well. And if a giant like Microsoft wanted to start the next parade and get out in front, it could sponsor these networks through some kind of matching program, as a charity. Microsoft could generate a lot of momentum and begin to change its corporate image by getting out in front on this issue.
5. Popular Culture Buy-In. Not everyone is on the same page with the pundits and blogs, or has even given these ideas an iota of thought, for that matter. In fact, most are not, and many can't imagine a world without cable companies and telcos. That's why wireless neighborhood demonstration networks are a good transition to the fiber networks that are the ultimate connectivity. We have to start somewhere, and wireless is a low hurdle. We need time and lots of demonstrations to capture the imagination of the masses, and starting with a massive number of small wireless networks is the best way to get the Man on the Street intimate with a new broadband paradigm. Municipal wireless should move in this direction.

This is just a beginning - please add to this draft and look for changes over the near term.

Posted on July 04, 2006 at 02:27 PM | Comments (0)

On Citizens, Subscribers, Consumers, Owners, Users, Producers: What's in a Name? An Identity

On this Fourth of July, I woke up and hung my flag on the wall outside, read patriotic editorials over coffee, and now I'm churning homemade ice cream (well, my kids are, with me supervising). Tonight, we'll go see the fireworks with a picnic in downtown Austin. I'm feeling very American, very mainstream, on this Independence Day, but also, a little revolutionary. I just read the U.S. Declaration of Independence, signed 230 years ago today. Those guys had a bone to pick with King George et al! I recommend a reading to you as well - it only takes a few minutes and it's an awesome document and undertaking. They were putting their lives on the line. This is one of my favorite holidays, and it's good to pause and consider all that we have to appreciate and how we got here, but also all that we could become, if we only worked together with deliberation.

In my last post, I asked for some consideration and perspective when it comes to the pioneers of municipal wireless industry. Today, I'm reflecting on those more ancient pioneers, patriots and revolutionaries who became statesmen by their sacrifices, wisdom, insight, and initiative, setting in motion the events to create a new country on a new set of principles, 230 years ago. And I'm reflecting on our collective duty to carry on where they left off.

It took tremendous courage to stand up to authority back then - really, the British and King George were the ultimate political authority in the world back in 1776. It's an understatement to say that it took hard work to preserve what all those before us created and to build on it in the ensuing 230 years. It's been a constant balancing act, as America and its economy have always been about finding synergy and political accommodation in the space between the haves and have nots, as well as between the forces of preserving the status quo and the need to adapt to new opportunities, while staying flexible to change. That dynamic tension has made our country and our economy great, so far.

My personal view is that the pendulum has swung too far over to the protectionist / conservative / big corporation side, not only favoring the haves over the have nots, but also the preservation of the old over the incubation of the new. When did we become so timid and where did our vision and statesmanship go? While this assessment can apply to many industries and aspects of our lives today, the time is ripe in particular for a re-evaluation of our national approach to telecommunications and connectivity infrastructure, one of our largest and most important industries today.

In short, we deserve a national conversation on this important topic. I think it's time for a new revolution, so much has technological change shifted the deck and changed the balance equation. I draw inspiration from our forefathers, but I don't equate our struggle with theirs. Our nation's citizens today have the freedom to choose to remain subscribers to telecom services, as consumers paying out of their household budgets for an array of new voice and data services. Many will be content to continue on with the status quo. Others will choose to evaluate a new paradigm where they own their own networks and enjoy greater freedom to both consume from the marketplace, but also produce and sell into the marketplace. If we acknowledge this as an alternate path, how will it start?

Change on this front won't be easy, and it will be resisted fiercely by the powers that be, on both the private and public side, who have a tremendous investment in the status quo. Talk about dyanmic tension! I believe the incumbents have begun to represent more of the problem than the solution when they act in their own self interest, as they are bound to. As the debate continues over a new Telecommunications Act in Washington, for instance, there's a distinct feeling that the fox has gotten into the henhouse. Can the FCC and the Congress really act dispassionately on behalf of the long-term national interest, given the tremendous amount of political influence that big telecom and cable companies represent? Have they so far?

What does the history of the Federal Telecom Act of 1996 teach us? It promoted competition and instead we got consolidation and a return of a monopoly. Given the innovation and creativity born of current unlicensed spectrum, do any of us expect the FCC to make more unlicensed spectrum available to foster more innovation, or will the spectrum be auctioned off to large companies? Why does the tremendous amount of revenue collected under the Universal Service Fund flow disproportionately to the established telecom providers? Why are the telecom incumbents not held accountable for their failure to fulfill their promises to roll out broadband infrastructure over the past decade? Where is accountability in this equation? What have we the people received lately in exchange for our tax credits, government subsidies, and use of the public airwaves? What leaders are asking these questions? Why aren't more of us connecting the dots and dreaming of new solutions?

My focus on this website, as well as WikiMetroNet and MetroNanoNet and in my consultant practice has been to educate and equip a broad array of interested parties with information and insight to think about new forms of communication infrastructure, wireless mesh broadband in particular, and practical tools to get started. The sooner we act to test out new technologies and business models, the sooner we will benefit from the value of our infrastructure. My recommendation is to go simple and small with the MetroNanoNet model, described here and here.

Since I began blogging I've drawn a tremendous amount of energy and wisdom from great and innovative thinkers like Om Malik, Bob Cringely, Martin Geddes, and most recently, Bob Frankston, as well as a host of others. They all do a much better job than I could on the high-level topics that ask "Why does it have to be this way?", protesting policy, etc. Instead, my chosen role has evolved to fill a missing niche by answering the question "How do we get from here to there?" What are the painstaking details that can get the ball rolling?

In the past few days, I've read and reread Bob Cringely's June 29 post "If we build it they will come: It's time to own our own last mile," and then I read a great deal of Bob Frankston's essays and articles. In a nutshell, they came to much the same conclusion I have over the past six months:

1. Connectivity infrastructure ownership and operations should be split from access and content services to ensure a level, fair playing field and optimal market conditions.
2. Local connectivity is a commodity / utility that should be achieved in the most efficient manner, most expeditiously.
3. The end consumer should own the infrastructure.
4. Splitting the tremendous capital costs of building out our nation's infrastructure into millions of small pieces, so that individual investors can handle their piece and make a contribution, is a road out of our current dilemma.
5. The federal government could/should do that, but when would that happen, if ever, and would it not be compromised into a gift for the incumbents, as so much other legislation is wont to do?
6. The fact is that while enlighted governmental action would help, we don't need any government as an intermediary, given today's technologies.
7. We have what we need to get started, we just need to get started!

I started out an avid promoter of municipal wireless, (and critic of status-quo obstructionist incumbent behemoths), but have since tried to shed the negatives of criticizing the status quo. I've become more enamored of building bridges and lighting candles, primarily by promoting broader participation by the body public through smaller network units, with a more peripheral role for government at all levels.

My conclusion is that the system is broken and that the people of the United States are in need of a Connectivity Declaration of Independence. While our situation pales in comparison to that of our forefathers, nevertheless we can learn from their initative and deliberate action. The best interests of individual citizens are not at the heart of the current debate. New technology has enabled, and will continue to enable alternatives to the traditional paradigm, but few of us are aware of the potential or able to take action on our own. We need to work together, as they did 230 years ago. We need a plan. We need a vision. We need to start by acknowledging that the rules of the game have changed, and we have an opportunity to fend for ourselves, to be independent. Some will agree, many will not. But any change must start with a conversation, with everything on the table.

Posted on July 04, 2006 at 12:42 PM | Comments (0)