Re: [DC3] Elaboration of a Declaration of Principles and Good Practices on Community Connectivity
12 Sep
2016
12 Sep
'16
7:31 p.m.
An isp could possibly assume all benefits for itself and discharge all
costs to community. I think that the best is to make it totally gratis.
12 Sep
12 Sep
9:14 p.m.
New subject: Elaboration of a Declaration of Principles and Good Practices on Community Connectivity
I'm not sure what this is exactly in reference to but there is a fine point
in the need to be careful to say "free to use" rather than gratis. We need
to acknowledge that the facilities have to be paid for. We're just looking
for a way to pay for them which doesn't compromise the larger societal needs
be they social (access) or technical (supported connectivity). And a way to
implement connectivity which doesn't put a gatekeeper in the path (social --
deciding who can speak, technical - frustrating transparent edge-to-edge
connectivity).
I'm hoping to post http://rmf.vc/Infrastructureconnected soon -- any
feedback on the draft is appreciated.
Bob Frankston
http://Frankston.com
-----Original Message-----
From: dc3-bounces(a)listas.altermundi.net
[mailto:dc3-bounces@listas.altermundi.net] On Behalf Of Quiliro Ordonez
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 15:31
To: dc3(a)listas.altermundi.net
Subject: Re: [DC3] Elaboration of a Declaration of Principles and Good
Practices on Community Connectivity
An isp could possibly assume all benefits for itself and discharge all costs
to community. I think that the best is to make it totally gratis.
_______________________________________________
DC3 mailing list
DC3(a)listas.altermundi.net
https://listas.altermundi.net/mailman/listinfo/dc3
10:36 p.m.
New subject: Elaboration of a Declaration of Principles and Good Practices on Community Connectivity
El 2016-09-12 16:14, dc3(a)bob.ma escribió:
I'm not sure what this is exactly in reference to
but there is a fine
point
in the need to be careful to say "free to use" rather than gratis. We
need
to acknowledge that the facilities have to be paid for. We're just
looking
for a way to pay for them which doesn't compromise the larger societal
needs
be they social (access) or technical (supported connectivity). And a
way to
implement connectivity which doesn't put a gatekeeper in the path
(social --
deciding who can speak, technical - frustrating transparent
edge-to-edge
connectivity).
Why do you think that charging for something means it is financed or
that when it is financed means it is being charged for. Many things do
one and not the other, either way. The main way to make
telecomunications not need to be charged is to act by the premise: "I
let you through my link if you let me through yours". Then, everyone
pays for their part of the network and it is financed. Possibly the
thought of commons telecommunications is such an utopia in certain
cultures because even the the air[way] is being privitized.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/against-air-traffic-control-privati…
10:59 p.m.
New subject: Elaboration of a Declaration of Principles and Good Practices on Community Connectivity
This is the method I advocate. Each community pays for its local infrastructure and lets
others use it to. It's the model we use for sidewalks. It is a way of paying for the
infrastructure that allows it to be free-to-use.
Scaling from DIY (Do it Yourself) to DIO (Do It Ourselves) requires being explicit about
how to coordinate individual efforts. Imagine trying to roads if we didn't have any
coordination beyond those that happen to clear the path in front of their house would do
so and the rest of the path stays impenetrable.
-----Original Message-----
From: Quiliro Ordonez [mailto:quiliro@riseup.net]
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 18:36
To: dc3(a)bob.ma
Cc: quiliro(a)fsfla.org; 'Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity'
<dc3(a)listas.altermundi.net>et>; Bob Frankston <Bob19-0501(a)bobf.frankston.com>
Subject: RE: [DC3] Elaboration of a Declaration of Principles and Good Practices on
Community Connectivity
El 2016-09-12 16:14, dc3(a)bob.ma escribió:
I'm not sure what this is exactly in reference to
but there is a fine
point in the need to be careful to say "free to use" rather than
gratis. We need to acknowledge that the facilities have to be paid
for. We're just looking for a way to pay for them which doesn't
compromise the larger societal needs be they social (access) or
technical (supported connectivity). And a way to implement
connectivity which doesn't put a gatekeeper in the path (social --
deciding who can speak, technical - frustrating transparent
edge-to-edge connectivity).
Why do you think that charging for something means it is financed or that when it is
financed means it is being charged for. Many things do one and not the other, either way.
The main way to make telecomunications not need to be charged is to act by the premise:
"I let you through my link if you let me through yours". Then, everyone pays for
their part of the network and it is financed. Possibly the thought of commons
telecommunications is such an utopia in certain cultures because even the the air[way] is
being privitized.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/against-air-traffic-control-privati…
11:52 p.m.
New subject: Elaboration of a Declaration of Principles and Good Practices on Community Connectivity
On 09/12/2016 07:59 PM, dc3(a)bob.ma wrote:
This is the method I advocate. Each community pays for
its local
infrastructure and lets others use it to. It's the model we use for
sidewalks. It is a way of paying for the infrastructure that allows
it to be free-to-use.
When we say that Free Networks should allow free peering and free
transit to networks with which they also hold free peering agreements,
we are referring exactly to this.
I see this as as a way to recovering the idea of a free Internet.
The fact that at the top of the Internet "pyramid" the Tier 1 networks
use this strategy but anyone "below them" are required to pay is
interesting food for thought.
cheers.
Nico
11 p.m.
New subject: Elaboration of a Declaration of Principles and Good Practices on Community Connectivity
This is the method I advocate. Each community pays for its local infrastructure and lets
others use it to. It's the model we use for sidewalks. It is a way of paying for the
infrastructure that allows it to be free-to-use.
Scaling from DIY (Do it Yourself) to DIO (Do It Ourselves) requires being explicit about
how to coordinate individual efforts. Imagine trying to roads if we didn't have any
coordination beyond those that happen to clear the path in front of their house would do
so and the rest of the path stays impenetrable.
-----Original Message-----
From: Quiliro Ordonez [mailto:quiliro@riseup.net]
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2016 18:36
To: dc3(a)bob.ma
Cc: quiliro(a)fsfla.org; 'Dynamic Coalition on Community Connectivity'
<dc3(a)listas.altermundi.net>et>; Bob Frankston <Bob19-0501(a)bobf.frankston.com>
Subject: RE: [DC3] Elaboration of a Declaration of Principles and Good Practices on
Community Connectivity
El 2016-09-12 16:14, dc3(a)bob.ma escribió:
I'm not sure what this is exactly in reference to
but there is a fine
point in the need to be careful to say "free to use" rather than
gratis. We need to acknowledge that the facilities have to be paid
for. We're just looking for a way to pay for them which doesn't
compromise the larger societal needs be they social (access) or
technical (supported connectivity). And a way to implement
connectivity which doesn't put a gatekeeper in the path (social --
deciding who can speak, technical - frustrating transparent
edge-to-edge connectivity).
Why do you think that charging for something means it is financed or that when it is
financed means it is being charged for. Many things do one and not the other, either way.
The main way to make telecomunications not need to be charged is to act by the premise:
"I let you through my link if you let me through yours". Then, everyone pays for
their part of the network and it is financed. Possibly the thought of commons
telecommunications is such an utopia in certain cultures because even the the air[way] is
being privitized.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/against-air-traffic-control-privati…
2780
days inactive
2780
days old
5 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
dc3＠bob.ma -
Nicolás Echániz -
Quiliro Ordonez