4 Nov
2016
4 Nov
'16
2:45 p.m.
This gets to the question of what and, more to the point, why is the Internet. It’s a very
different way of using the same facilities as telecom but in a very different way. Rather
than having services defined in the network they are defined at the end points and all you
see in the middle are meaningless without any intrinsic value.
When we use a term like “access the Internet” are accepting the telecommunications framing
that the Internet is another destination we call on a telephone or a TV station. That fits
very well into the idea of a pipe with a meter running just like traditional
telecommunications. We’re then quibbling over price. This is where Facebook Basics comes
up short – it is another center-defined service albeit more flexible and better than
nothing.
The idea all we have are raw packets without the ability to make any promises is
counter-intuitive and thus difficult to understand. It’s like trying see the value of
learning to fish rather than getting fish.
For any example the provider model works – you want web, we’ll give a little web access.
But it doesn’t permit people to innovate beyond that and there are limits and meters
running and whatever.
How do we explain that intra-village connecting and inter-village connectivity without
meters and the confines of pipes is fundamental. And that extending that connectivity
beyond is an extension of the free-to-use and free-to-innovate connectivity. We’re not
accessing an Internet, we’re connecting to the rest of the world.
I faced this problem in trying to why I was doing home networking with the NAT/Router at
the edge. I was told by others at Microsoft that cable company would just provide the
connections for each service just like they did the set top box. The assumption was the
Internet was out there and not in the home.
For the sake of a preamble we can say that while traditional telecommunications have given
people some ability to communicate it doesn’t allow them to be full participants and
connect with others. They are then free to take advantage of connectivity beyond use
cases. It becomes a technology they can use for any purpose.
Hmm … I’m writing this as I think and not trying to do a coherent document so I’m just
trying out ideas. But we can acknowledge the growth of cellular has shown that the
technology is not the problem but the business model of providing services falls short of
allowing the communities to get benefits of connectivity, AKA the Internet, without being
limited to assuring that a provider makes money. The value should accrue to the
community.
Lots to discuss at IGF.
From: dc3-bounces(a)listas.altermundi.net [mailto:dc3-bounces@listas.altermundi.net] On
Behalf Of Raoul Plommer
Sent: Friday, November 4, 2016 02:09
To: Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity <dc3(a)listas.altermundi.net>
Subject: Re: [DC3] Guadalajara Declaration and DC3 Report
Hi all,
The declaration looks good to me. Carlos' point seems valida as well and we should
take heed.
Can I show this link (URL) text to some of my contacts just to have some more people to
review it? Namely, I'm thinking of some of Pirate contacts who might have some
valuable input.
I am sorry I have not been more active recently, but I am coming to the IGF and will
attend day 0 with you. Hopefully getting a lot more done there. :)
-Raoul
On 4 November 2016 at 07:28, Nicolás Echániz <nicoechaniz(a)altermundi.net
<mailto:nicoechaniz@altermundi.net> > wrote:
I agree with Carlos on this.
On 11/04/2016 01:57 AM, Carlos Rey-Moreno wrote:
Dear Luca, thank you very much for all you work on the
declaration and
the report.
The declaration does not incorporate the concern I raised about the
first sentence of the preamble ( "Over three billion people do not have
access to communication infrastructure") being a potential source of
discrediting the whole declaration as it is not accurate.
While there is common agreement that there are only 3 billion people
connected to (using) the Internet, that does not mean that they do not
have access to communications. For instance, the ITU shows that
coverage for both GSM and 3G networks is way beyond that number [1].
Other reasons may explain this gap, affordability, lack of relevant
content, confidence/skills, etc, but not lack of access. Thus, I
propose, after the input from John Dada in the same email thread, to
rephrase that sentence to:
"Over four billion people may remain unconnected to the Internet,
including around a billion who do not have access to basic telephony
services".
_______________________________________________
DC3 mailing list
DC3(a)listas.altermundi.net <mailto:DC3@listas.altermundi.net>
https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3