NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Re: Simple questions
On Tue, Sep 1, 2009 at 11:47 AM, Vint Cerf<vint@google.com> wrote:
> The point is to have a choice that does permit servers. I purchased business
> FiOS to assure a fixed IP address and higher speeds for a server system I
> run at hom that monitors a sensor network.
>
> V
>
The truth is that there are more chocies than many would care to
admit. apart from my day job as a techie I own a farm in rural Ohio.
When I bought the farm in 2002 I could stand on the hill and see a
radio tower on top of the County building off in the distance as well
as a few other towers. In my city slicker ignorance I figured I could
run some sort of wireless bridge even if I had to pay a bit to get the
connectivity. Imagine my surprise when I found out that there wasn't
even a dial up POP in the county at that time.
I ended up on the county technical committee for internet connectivity
along with about 20 other people. My solution was to form a
cooperative and work with the local power company (also a coop) to do
BPL or else develop wireless infrastructure. Not a single other person
was willing to put any money towards the effort. The basic refrain was
"we just want someone to provide us the service".
I ended up buying myself a 150 foot radio tower at an auction with the
intent of doing a longer shot wireless bridge or else pulling in a T-1
and acting as a small wireless ISP for neighbors. My main driver was
that I couldn't telecommute part time from the farm if I didn't have a
certain amount of connectivity.
In these "great debates" many urban dwellers forget that for many
rural dwellers the it's not about price, it's a choice between dialup
and Satellite.
Long story short, Verizon Wireless extended their footprint and now I
have EVDO at the farm which is "good enough" for me.
I guess my point is that most people want something handed to them for
x dollars. For that sort of situation I much prefer a market solution
to a regulatory solution. The real problem is that "we" artificially
make wireless spectrum scarce for the types of use that would relaly
open up the internet and give people choice.
Just my 2 cents.
[ Do you mean "we" in the "Pogo" sense of "the enemy is us"? As
we've seen, as soon as U.S. wireless spectrum becomes available,
it is snapped up (by and large) by the dominants to add to their
stables -- not surprising given that Congress has been viewing
spectrum as nothing more or less than a cash cow. And most
alternative proposals to help smaller wireless operators never
get more than lip service. The new white spaces plan has a great
deal of potential, but only time will tell how that will pan out
for consumers in practice. For most consumers right now, the
bottom line when it comes to Internet access is "meet the new
boss -- same as the old boss."
-- Lauren Weinstein
NNSquad Moderator ]