[*] isen.blog: Broadband without Internet ain't worth squat

[Tom Poe]

Bill Reid wrote:
> Tom Poe wrote:
>> Bill Reid wrote:
>>> Tom Poe wrote:
>>>
>>>> Broadband without Internet is a phrase often used to describe 
>>>> decentralized telecommunications.  Isenberg seems determined to 
>>>> frame the issue in terms favorable to the incumbents.  Or, maybe 
>>>> I'm too locked into conspiracy tendencies.
>>>> Tom
>>>>
>>> I do not quite understand why you think he is framing it "in terms 
>>> favorable to the incumbents". Isenberg is not a fan of phone or 
>>> cable companies.
>>>
>>> -- Bill
>>>
>>
>> Here's the key passage that leaves me wondering what Isenberg is up to:
>> <quote>
>> I repeat, Most of the time when we say Broadband we mean High
>> Speed Connections to the Internet. Broadband is synecdoche.
>>
> ...
>> The Internet does that. Broadband by itself is not
>> disruptive; the Internet is.
>> <end quote>
>>
>> Congress listened to promises of video phones in 1992 from 
>> incumbents, available to everyone by the end of the decade.  It never 
>> happened.  Centralized control seems to be the singular cause.  
>> Today, we have a choice between centralized control and decentralized 
>> control, founded in 
>
> I assume you have not read Isenberg's essay:
> http://www.rageboy.com/stupidnet.html
>
> It very clearly discusses the failure of central control and the huge 
> advantage of decentralized control(i.e. the Internet)
>
>
>> Whether a "last mile" solution of fiber-to-the-home, or wifi, or 
>> wimax, or combinations.  For something less than $50 (one-time-fee) 
>> per house,
>
> I have trouble believing that number. $50 does not buy much these 
> days. The number that is usually quoted is much higher than 
> that(certainly for FTTH).
>
>> a community establishes a local broadband infrastructure without 
>> Internet access.  Once in place, that local broadband infrastructure 
>> provides many generations of residents with free local 
>> telecommunications, and no technical expertise is needed to operate and 
>
> The whole point of the text that you quoted was that a local broadband 
> infrastructure is not of much interest without Internet.
>
> Isenberg talks extensively on local broadband and even has organized 
> conferences on this topic.
>
> Freedom to Connect  http://freedom-to-connect.net/
>
> -- Bill
>
>
>
Bill:  You restated the incumbent framing quite eloquently, when you say,
". . . that a local broadband infrastructure is not of much interest 
without Internet."

Yes, I read Isenberg, and left a comment, yesterday, to remind him that 
the issue is centralized vs. decentralized telecommunications, not the 
Internet. 

Now, my position is that for $50 a house, or one open-mesh.com unit per 
house, a community can establish a local broadband infrastructure that 
provides free broadband (1Mbps - 54Mbps) unto perpetuity.  No Internet.  
Local telemedicine programs, community alert services, city services 
(diminish or eliminate many budget considerations), and, of course, 
local telecommunications ranging from videophone to virtual world 
participation.  Above all, every child has broadband access to their 
school network from home and a true 21st century education.

With such an infrastructure, it becomes obvious that hospitals will want 
access to this local broadband infrastructure to offer telemedicine 
programs, in return for Internet access to participants, maybe?  ISPs, 
incumbent telco/cablecos, will want access, and competition results in 
reasonable wholesale Internet access for the community.  How about IPv6 
era business opportunities?  Your refrigerator and your local grocery 
teaming up to make your life convenient?  Don't forget the local 
newspaper that just might offer subscription and Internet access 
packages as incentive to let them gain access.

The point is, a local broadband infrastructure, combined with "white 
spaces" networking at the lowest cost per house is a whole lot better 
for you and I than the centralized crappoolla offered by the 
incumbents.  And, Isenberg is moving us away from the target with his 
coded "framing" of the issues. 

I hope he catches up with countries like Australia that just announced 
recently their intention to invest hundreds of billions into broadband 
infrastructure.
Tom