I find it amusing to see a term like "AT&T Labs researcher" for someone I've known for a long time - David Isenberg.

As to the other post - I like that it recognizes that "broadband" has become associated with a particular business model but I would like to be also be careful about terms such as "bottom" up which implies layering. This is why I like the term local. But this is quibbling and not important.

One area where terms may make a difference is "neutral" vs. "indifferent". Network neutrality is about a provider's behavior whereas "indifferent" is a better fit for best efforts connectivity.

-----Original Message-----
From: dc3-bounces@listas.altermundi.net [mailto:dc3-bounces@listas.altermundi.net] On Behalf Of Carlos M. Martinez
Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 11:14
To: Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity <dc3@listas.altermundi.net>
Subject: Re: [DC3] Diplo's IGF 2016 writeup on Community networks

I love the title as well, as it echoes the title of another groundbreaking document, “The Rise of the Stupid Network”. If you haven’t read it, check it out.

Don’t be misled by the title: this document was written before the Internet was a household name, and it points out why the model of “intelligent” networks where the edges are stupid was doomed to fail. That is why the traditional model of telecom (as in telephone) networks was doomed and why a model where the intelligence is in the edges would be much better. It was the time when the Telcos still thought the Internet was a fad.

It is also a work of courage, since it was written by a AT&T Labs researcher who was basically bitting the hand feeding him. I’m pretty sure it brought him a lot of trouble.

[1] http://www.rageboy.com/stupidnet.html

-C.



On 13 Dec 2016, at 12:59, Nicolás Echániz wrote:

> On 12/13/2016 10:52 AM, Mike Jensen wrote:
>> From Diplo's Final Report on IGF2016:
>>
>> The rise of community networks
>>
>> The discussion on community networks helped raise the point that
>> there are other connectivity models than those provided by telecom
>> companies, and that the use of the term ‘broadband’ as synonymous
>> with ‘connectivity’ is misleading and prevents real connectivity and
>> communication. Communities need to overcome the paradigm of ‘waiting
>> for service’. Community networks offer a bottom-up strategy that
>> relies on the active participation of local communities. The
>> infrastructure is owned by the community and operated democratically.
>> Yet, although community networks face many challenges, the main
>> challenge in connecting a community is the lack of awareness about
>> the value of the Internet, rather than the lack of connectivity
>> itself. The work of the DC on Community Connectivity, and its
>> Guadalajara Declaration can further highlight the potential of such
>> networks, and how obstacles can be overcome.
>>
>> http://digitalwatch.giplatform.org/sites/default/files/IGF2016_FinalR
>> eport.pdf
>
> Very good :) I like the title "The rise of community networks".
>
> thanks for sharing Mike.
>
> _______________________________________________
> DC3 mailing list
> DC3@listas.altermundi.net
> https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3
_______________________________________________
DC3 mailing list
DC3@listas.altermundi.net
https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3

_______________________________________________
DC3 mailing list
DC3@listas.altermundi.net
https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3