4 Jun
2016
4 Jun
'16
5:58 p.m.
I'm afraid to look at my Wikipedia entry because there is too much temptation to
quibble over how I'm interpreted :). I don't see the Regulatorium so much a
collusion as a system problem based on policies framed in the assumption that
intermediaries carry speech much like a railroad carries freight rather than transporting
bits apart from their meaning. As with any of my writings I always think I can always do
better. The "purpose" piece actually came together quickly one morning and I
haven't revisited it because it worked well enough.
The real challenge is how to get people to think outside of the telecom framing which is
so implicit in the very words we use. I'm open to suggestions.
There is some irony because once people understand the power of open, best efforts,
connectivity the worries about being restricted can easily turn into worries about it
being too easy to communicate. For example drones can be very inexpensive for managing
crops but they can also be intrusive.
-----Original Message-----
From: dc3-bounces(a)listas.altermundi.net [mailto:dc3-bounces@listas.altermundi.net] On
Behalf Of willi uebelherr
Sent: Friday, June 3, 2016 22:30
To: DC3 list <dc3(a)listas.altermundi.net>
Subject: Re: [DC3] IGF 2016 participation
Dear Bob,
i read your text.
Purpose vs Discovery and the Internet as a Dynamic Nov 03, 2009
http://frankston.com/public/?n=PurposeVSDiscovery
And in the english Wikipedia i read:
"In recent years, Frankston has been an outspoken advocate for reducing the role of
telecommunications companies in the evolution of the internet, particularly with respect
to broadband and mobile communications.[3][4] He coined the term "Regulatorium"
to describe what he considers collusion between telecommunication companies and their
regulators that prevents change."
This is very interesting for me. I will ask you: How you would write this text in CircleId
today? What you would change in the argumentation and/or your focus?
many thanks and greetings, willi
Manaus, Brasil
Am 03/06/2016 um 20:17 schrieb Bob Frankston:
We need to be careful about not begging the question
in the sense of confusing intermediate approach for larger solutions.
There is a tendency to propose solutions that are incremental and framed in traditional
telecommunications. The concept of "spectrum" is one example. It is a construct
that takes the 19th century model of telegraphy confined to a worry and marries it to the
early 20th century technology of resonant circuits. It is a terrible technology and an
economic disaster. With the Internet we don't depend on having a special wireless
infrastructure nor do we depend on a carrier to assure that the messages get through.
The larger challenge is to think about The Internet as a technique that permits us to
take advantage of any opportunity to exchange packets [to use a more specific term than
communicate] but we have to discover what is possible (http://rmf.vc/PurposeVSDiscovery).
In this sense it is not really a solution to a particular problem as much as a way to
discover possibilities.
There is an issue with telecommunications in the sense that current policy (as with
telecommunications) has to protect "channels" because of a combination of 19th
century fragile signaling and its economic legacy. We need a nuanced response rather than
just arguing over who the provider is. CNs (as with Nicalas efforts) demonstrate an
alternative.
Rather than solving problems we can provide examples of how to use opportunities.
I don't know much of this we can explain in the context of these panels so I'd
like feedback on how to approach this.
{BTW, I'm not sure where to provide my email address -- you can add
DC3(a)Bob.ma for starters}
---
Este email foi escaneado pelo Avast antivírus.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
_______________________________________________
DC3 mailing list
DC3(a)listas.altermundi.net
https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3