From: Mark Harrison (mark_at_mhais.com)
Date: 12/06/03 20:31
Robert, if you're going to make the arguments stick on this for
potential GVC members I think you'd need to bring with you some pretty
solid underpinning of the following. These are off the top of my head
and there are probably a lot more.
Security - prevention of hacking, monitoring of traffic, security of
email, validation of users, viruses...
Abuse - bandwidth hogs, illegal activities and content, impersonation,
paedophilic grooming....
Services - email, web space, secure ordering, static IPs....
Integrity of content - child-safe spaces, validity of assertions and
information, minimisation of spam, copyright abuse....
Integrity of service - what happens if your local node is switched off
for the evening, the week, or moves away? What would contention ratios
be like on key geographic locations. Who's providing the free backhaul
to the internet? Can all 1000 of us share yours?
Stakeholder benefits - it's free but what else. (For example, GVC
intends to offer business to business and business to consumer
transactions of benefit to all parties - with the intention that
cross-subsidy from commercial traffic will ultimately make the network
free, or near free, anyway. Who would be responsible for making this
bullet-proof on an open network?)
Organisational image - likelihood of being a vehicle for grants,
investment etc using your model. Breadth of appeal to potential users -
how do you convince people you're not just skateboarders wanting to get
pedestrians off the precincts?. Potential for serious bandwidth
integration of community networks. Potential for underpinning major
local infrastructure development....
Technology future proofing - service and bandwidth upgrades. Stickiness
of always on mesh node provision - 2 tier node services?
Scope - can the open network extend provision right across the upper
Calder valley (Tod, Hebden, Mytholmroyd, Sowerby Bridge and outlying
rural areas in between) within a matter of months. If not, how do you
persuade potential users to wait rather than switching on a pay to use
method?
It's easy to project passion and knowledge onto the average potential
user - I know, because I frequently suffer from the problem. I'm
constantly being reminded that most people just want an easy life and
for it to 'just work', no matter what the cognoscenti see as being a
simple additional skill or responsibility. This is why I suspect that
we'll end up with some parallel development with immediate association
and possible future integration.
As for a question of trust - would potential users be apprehensive that
some elements of an open wireless group may join up simply because their
hobby thrill is peeking into other peoples data and traffic?
Hope this helps mate, look forward to hearing your thoughts.
Mark
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : 12/06/03 21:53 BST