From: Robert Currey (Robert.Currey_at_AHand.co.uk)
Date: 12/06/03 16:20
Executive summary
--------------------------
Wireless has been mentioned a number of times in the gvcc list. This is
a plead that if wireless is used as a delivery to get over adsl
problems that the gvcc do it in an integrated way. ie. please don't
just consider wireless as a delivery of gvcc's wares.
Wireless Freedom
-------------------------
The wireless space is the new common. We all have access and can use it
as we like (apart from charging someone else for their access to it.)
If we have a high density of wireless users, we can have a *free* local
network. Free in the sense of no charges but also free as in what you
can do with it.
Wired Tyranny
--------------------
ADSL is always going to come with a charge - the wires unlike the ether
we do not own; someone has to pay the toll. ADSL is also a straight
jacket, designed for internet consumption; provision over ADSL is
severely knobbled.
Closed vs Open
----------------------
I get a strong sense the way gvcc is headed is that a baseline is 20 or
so quid a month for access to internet and community resource. With
only ADSL this is the only choice. Gvcc consequently also gets to be a
gatekeeper and can use this position to do deals, wield power. But this
is a closed model. As a consumer I have lots of choices of closed
services (AOL etc.) I hope with gvcc we can create an open service
choice with no gatekeeper. The form of a coop is I hope more than a
marketing gimmick or way of periodically electing a benevolent dictator.
As I say, with ADSL this is the only choice: somebody else's wires and
we pay the piper. But we're starting to talk of wireless elements to
the gvcc; to extend range and overcome BT's dodgy wiring. As things
stand wireless has been extended within this closed model.
Implications from saying Legend will help with wireless access points
is that the gvcc will be gatekeeper to the wireless delivery too and
the limits on price and freedom apply too. I know it doesn't stop
lilyhopping creating an open network in parallel; but it does have a
big impact.
Open relies on co-operation
--------------------------------------
I hope you would accept users of a local network would choose one or
another if there were two or more. An open network thrives on density -
it improves as more join. Therefore an open network losing users to a
closed one is less good; has less coverage and less bandwidth. This is
why I wish to plead for any wireless element to gvcc to be open.
Can the gvcc service be delivered over an open network
------------------------------------------------------------------------
---- A open network can host a closed gated network but not the other way around. So the people with open wireless access can also chip in their 20 quid and get the gvcc community and internet back haul services. But if you have closed ADSL access you have to pay 20 quid before you get to the free open network facilities which are not truly open but potentially mediated by gvcc gatekeepers. If we have an open network what do we lose ------------------------------------------------------------ Power. We can't wield executive power (we still have collective power) and potentially that effects our position to do deals with business. But why are we doing this, isn't it the coop idea that is driving this, that we're asking people to trust? Robert
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : 12/06/03 16:19 BST