I'm not sure I recognize any disagreement! I am well aware that various
initiatives in a diverse group of countries are unable to develop
local-loop networks. A local-loop is for individual connections, where
actual access is made. A satellite serves a reasonable backbone for
allowing local-loops to connect to the outside world and each other,
although this is not as low in cost as terrestial-based (backbone)
technology options.
Indeed, we should insist on the adoption of a minimum set of basic IP
applications. The decision itself would have a dramatic effect both on
the deployment of IP applications and their cost. And this won't cost
any of us money!
Many, if not all, of the wireless technologies can be made interoperable
as needed; this isn't a technology issue but one of deployment.
Restrictions abound on ICT deployment for the benefit of incumbent
telecoms, which also foster unnecessary higher costs, eliminate
competition... and creates ICT industry disasters!
Although possibly stated unclear, I was refering to the fact that a
number of global initiatives are seeking to bypass the telecom
incumbent, to lower costs by working with, eventually connecting
local-loops to, an independent backbone provider. They also need
independent local-loops... free from legacy networks, standards,
practices and costs! The global IP network infrastructure most lacks,
and most needs, a proliferation of local-loops. The chicken already
exists for most, the eggs now need to be laid.
It is not a technology (or geography) issue, but simple government
regulation. You must think of wireless technologies differently; they
can be mixed, with the amount of geographic coverage, called a
footprint, determined almost solely by cost per distance... basically
the transmitter technology and size needed, regardless the mix of
wireless technologies used. The larger the footprint, the larger the
transmitter. Various types of wireless local-loop transmitters may cost
anywhere from a thousand dollars to a million dollars. After all, we
are talking about local-loops, not backbones. Local-loops need to be
free to connect to any backbone, to gain the ability to negotiate
service and costs (in a competitive market).
Local-loops don't all have to connect to the same (monolithic)
backbones... save under misguided government regulation bent on creating
an oligarchy capable to compete globally. This certainly works in other
industries, but no longer in communications, which has recently attained
a true ubiquitous potential.
Incumbent telecoms, and their limited, incredibly expensive, networks
can't provide the solution, whether they earn barrels of money or
consolidate. The effort needs to follow the early histories of both the
electric and telco industries, where local communities first established
their own... local-loop networks! Do you know there are still hundreds
of telco's, basically local-loops, in the USA?
The wireless equipment manufacturers recognize this; they are busy
creating a brand new sales channel. They want to establish formal
(factory authorized)relationships with local commercial ICT
organizations capable to work with as much of a local-loop as possible,
including the network and programmed platform, applications and
services, even financing.
No one really cares which wireless technology is used... but no other
technology is easier or less expensive. You're not talking about
markets or conditions... but senseless government restrictions.
And, why should Intel, IBM and the rest of the blue-chip consortium
proposing a nationwide WiFi network be able to step in and claim they
now have a right to build and own a nationwide monolithic wireless
(WiFi-based) network... with the same government protection earlier
accorded the incumbent telecoms? What is a nationwide network, other
than universal coverage by local-loop networks? Why would anyone want
all local-loops to be controlled and operated by the same company (or
even the same backbone)? Who wants to wait for deployment, to the
exclusive benefit of this new group?
This is not a technical nightmare. Government simply wants to control
communications. Government is determined to pick and choose winners, to
build the industry into an oligarchy, a monolithic way, regardless the
delays and costs involved, and the ignored free market principles. This
is quite transparent. It is also a terrible ICT strategy... once again.
Of course, the US taxpayer can absorb their share of the more than half
trillion dollars in soon to be recognized telecom losses... and allow
the government to repeat the failed strategy again. Calling all
investors, again!
It appears to me that our civil society watchdogs have grown fat and
lazy, probably worse. There's been a large amount of money handed out
in civil society both by the ICT incumbents and government, neither
which favor immediate open market solutions, but prefer restrictions.
The truth does not get an honest airing. Please don't shoot this IP
communications expert if you don't like his (my) irrefutable message...
no one is paying me to give you spin, nor am I a political or commercial
partisan.
Alan Levy
Mexico, D.F.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Don Cameron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alan Levy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Satellites are best used for large bandwidth applications, such as for
>> backbones. The type of configuration needed for a local-loop, for local
>> individual access, is best provided by local-loops (less bandwidth, less
>> cost needed). There is more than a sufficient quantity of backbones
>> already being developed... if only there were local-loops to connect
>> them. It is a money issue... you should not use expensive technology
>> when less expensive technology is available, unless your franchise is
>> protected, supported, by government. The taxpayers in the USA can
>> afford this. In fact, the whole question of satellite is but an attempt
>> to find a method to circumvent the high costs artifically imposed by
>> government favoritism. Plain and simple fact.
> An interesting response Alan. What may be a 'plain and simple fact' in
> your country (and I certainly concede your expertise on your local
> market) is far from factual when applied globally - there are many
> variances in Government policy and the competitive models in use by the
> various technology providers.
>
> Satellite in Australia is not being touted as a means of circumventing
> artificially imposed backbone costs... it is a genuine attempt to bridge
> 'last mile' connectivity for the very local-loops you identify as being
> so critical. Backbone (when provided without Government policy
> restrictions) is significantly cheaper when provided by technologies
> other than satellite... in some applications.
------------
***GKD is solely supported by EDC, an NGO that is a GKP member***
To post a message, send it to: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To subscribe or unsubscribe, send a message to:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. In the 1st line of the message type:
subscribe gkd OR type: unsubscribe gkd
Archives of previous GKD messages can be found at:
<http://www.edc.org/GLG/gkd/>
