Slashdot Mirror
Permanet vs. Nearlynet
Clay Shirky has a good essay on wireless networking, contrasting two approaches to building out a network, roughly akin to the cathedral and bazaar methods of building software.
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Well, duh. Most people don't like to spend $40 on anything, let alone a phone call. I don't understand how businesses think that hey, if we're dealing with other business people, they'll want to throw money around like it was candy! Treat them like other people (ie: cheap) and you'll find you have more realistic expectations.
dinosaur comics
When the permanet is a reality everywhere, the real profit will be in selling devices that disconnect or shield you from the nets. Kind of like sunblock.
the nearlynet that shirky disparages so loudly is what creates technological innovations and practical experience in building a network. We have very few technologies in any field that resist quick obsolescence. Until we do we shouldn't build a perma-anything. I think nanotechnology will allow us to engineer things that will still be useful hundreds of years from now.
more like a discussion of TDMA vs. packets in some sense. i mean it is not, but it is the same sort of thinking in the end. the problem with all of this is applications - what whould the killer app be for wireless ? yes, i think video phones - if they really work and are as cheap as audio-only phones - could be appealing to some degree - but they're still useless. i don't think you need so much bandwidth for useful apps. the problem is that there aren't any really useful apps yet, so they need the bandwidth to deliver movies and flash animations to drive their revenue.
... does someone have a mirror available?
Hmm, the article mostly addresses economical issues, not the technical ones. :)
In my sense, after reading through the article, I have no new clue about building wifi networks...
Thought it would contain technical things, I'm a bit disappointed..
This is the general pattern of the defeat of permanet by nearlynet. In the context of any given system, permanet is the pattern that makes communication ubiquitous. For a plane ride, the airphone is permanet, always available but always expensive, while the cell phone is nearlynet, only intermittently connected but cheap and under the user's control.
For some reason, most people percieve their cell phones as being only intermittently disconnected, like on plan flights.
Because 3G requires licensed spectrum, the artificial scarcity created by treating the airwaves like physical property guarantees limited competition among 3G providers.
Wow, they said it but it completly contradicts their artificial distiction system. The "upfront" costs here are everybit as artificial as that system and they know it. The real lesson to be learned is that greedy shcemes don't make money.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
of building software is acutally method adopted by hackers. If they want a software for any of their needs, they search it on the internet, if they completely fit their needs, they use it, if it is lacking somewhere, they modify it according to their own needs and make it available for everyone to do the same and the process continues until that piece of software evolves to perfection. However, if the software is not available at first place, they write their own (just with fucntinality to serve their needs) and insert it into the evoloution cycle. We have seen many software products starting from nothing to giants by this process, On the other hand, wireless connectivity cannot be analogical to this process. They say, first impression is the last impession. If you start cheap and bad, people will continue to think about you that way, for years, until you become good enough to leave everyone in the market behind. And that never happens 'cuz you never get enough feedback and resources. So such companies end up dying. The truth is that wifi has not evolved much to cover an area so large that an ISP can use it. Maybe the wifi technology is evolving in a cathadral and bazaar manner, but the services can't follow same pattern. So anyone who is thinking about a wireless ISP is being too optimistic. It will come, but not now.
Absolutely the best use of the Internet since........*thinking*....... oh criminy - since EVER! Theres something about a dino with a quest for an explanation of his existence that is just hilarious. Not to mention the merchandise. I'm getting my lil wifey those cute little panties! http://www.cafeshops.com/qwantz.4686722?zoom=yes#z oom
"Panties and dinosaurs - together at last!"
...both interiorlly, and exteriorlly.
That's "Permanet vs. CowboyNealnet", you insensitive clod!
boooriiinngggggggggg
it's easier to turn "cheap and lousy" into "cheap and adequate" than it is to turn "expensive and ubiquitous" into "reasonable and ubiquitous" and that people will tolerate the cheaper option if the price differential is sufficient.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/03/27/125524 2&mode=thread&tid=95
668: Neighbour of the Beast
The 3G model is based on two permanetish assumptions -- one, that users have an unlimited demand for data while traveling, and two, that once they get used to using data on their phone, they will use it everywhere. Both assumptions are wrong.
Now they are, yes, but augmented reality (AR) could change that. AR is pretty much the killer app for mobile internet. When HUDs are small enough to clip on a pair of glasses, you'll want constant internet access.
Of course, this doesn't automatically make 3G the winner but it weakens both of Shirkys assumptions.
Having used wireless for 4 years or so because
i am in the boonies, i can wireless sucks. Weather
does effect your connections, no matter what they
say. And they don't like to roll out the trucks
when there's a problem. Stick to the umbilical
cord.
The problem is that we are expecting the private sector to do the work of the government. The only reason we have a "permanet" as regards roads is that the citizenry decided it was important and all of us chipped in our small amounts of money each. Imagine how silly it would have been to have had it be a purely private sector undertaking ("I will build out the long haul roads and charge a $100 toll per thousand pounds to recoup the costs from those shipping companies that shift to truck usage").
The private sector should be involved and competition has its place, but it ought to be more like an open competition where private contractors give bids to build the public infrastructure. This will let innovation flourish at the margins of the network where much of the real value can be added.
from the article "Everyone wants permanet -- the providers want to provide it, the customers want to use it, and every few years, someone announces that they are going to build some version of it" this is wrong. providers do not want this at all. if there is 1 permanet, then there is only one supplier and nobody makes money. people provide networks for money, not goodwill. we've all got to feed ourselves. capitalism should be taught in elemantary school. also has the writer ever actually been on a plane? you are not allowed to use a cell phone while sitting on the plane at the gate or on the runway, no matter how long you're there.
Sure as a tech I can design a network to be avaiable anywhere. (Even on airplanes during takeoff/landing, where most electronic devices are banned) However this artical make it clear that I shouldn't spend my time doing that unless someone is watching the overall ecconmic costs. Sure as an engineer that isn't my prime responsibility, but I should be aware that other issues exist, and if they are not being watched by someone who understand them (which I likely don't) then I should expect the project to fail.
It has been said that most technological project fails because of bad management. I believe it, because I've seen it. Engineers may not understand or know these issues, but it is the job of management to know they exist and solve them. Technical problems can be solved if resources are unlimited (Mostly money, but sometimes other). However that is not the case. Many projects have solved all the technological problems, but the cost was so high that nobody could afford them.
Support for disconnection is already included in all versions of windows. Some call this feature the BSOD, others call it Driver Signing and Palladium. But these all have one common feature: windows supports disconnecting and you don't even have to do anything!
This is not really at all like "Cathedral/Bazaar" but rather, " Worse is Better. (now updated)
The underlying idea is that the "right" way isn't always the best, but rather, that the "best" way is what is "good enough" for cheap.
This is the same force that makes Linux compete against *nix, and is also responsible for the rise of Microsoft against vastly superior technologies.
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
Simple example: I can't get cell phone reception in the basement of the building I work in. The building has many wireless services, but the only one with antennas in the basement is the Facilities walkie-talkie system.
It will never be cost-effective for a wireless phone company to provide us with better cellular service in our little basement, but it is worthwhile for me to have phone access everywhere in the building. What are the alternatives?
Land-line phones at regular intervals throughout the building so it is easy to get to a phone.
A pager network to know when someone wants to reach you.
A private exchange telephone service (a la original PCS concept), with antennas distributed as required. ...but other people have different needs! Someone else needs their blackberry, and another person needs the iPaq and 802.11.
Ultimately, the only viable solution is software defined radio devices, which take advantage of whatever distribution mechanisms are available.
To put it in terms of the article, the best permanet is a loose network of nearlynets....
I flew American in January (2003) and regular cellphones were banned, as well. In fact, one of the pilots came back to the passenger section on one of my flights and demanded that a passenger turn off his cellphone immediately. I quess the crew had some way of monitoring active cell connections, or something (or maybe the stewardess went and reported him, dunno).
Then again, I've only flown once since 9-11, and the restrictions on that flight (part of it was an international flight) may have just been local to the plane I was on. Anyone else have any information about this?
Need a Linux consultant in New Orleans?
By the time people require truly ubiquitous connectivity, we would have reached singularity. Telepathy will work as a permanet then.
I am really tired of hearing about the fucking cathedral and bazaar. Would someone please coin a new hackneyed phrase?
Software can be developed on the bazaar, because your primary investment is time, not equipment, telecoms, on the other hand need infrustructure. The function on the landfill and the trackhome method. each major telco pours their trash (capital and infrustructure) into the pit hoping it will be enough, and that they will be the lucky land developer. at first they fail. when the pit is full someone will be able to build the perm-net we all want, we just need a couple dozen more failures first...
We do not continuously talk, think and listen. We function in quanta. The ideal nearly net device would be a cell phone that would always monitor the signal strength of the network, and when it's adequate, retrieve all voice mail, email, and video messages. Even here in massachusetts, 20 miles from Silicon alley, there are frustrating dropouts in signal strength. Who is to say that as the network ages and components randomly fail, even people in urban areas wont experience frustration with attempting live communication on demand. Burst communications are also more secure. So as you drive home, your device will ring when it's buuffer is refreshed with new content and you'll be able to respond in a human way. Devices serve people,
Permanet that costs nothing is what people want and wifi is the key.
I don't travel much, but when I do, I need connectivity. I have an AOL account merely for those occaisional trips. In any hotel, I can make two calls (at $1/each), to get a local access number and connect in. That lets me grab my email from the road.
When I am staying somewhere for a while on a trip, I stay in a hotel with ethernet, that gives me connectivity. I just bought a Samsung i330, which is a PDA/Cel combo... I have it because I've never carried a PDA, but I always carry my phone, now I'll have a PDA with me.
One trip, I didn't have connectivity, and dialing in was driving me crazy. Across the street from my hotel was a Coffee shop with a Wifi point, so I went and got coffee and checked my email before starting my day.
If Sprint would be useful and let me use my laptop via the phone (which can supposedly be done, just need the cables), I may use it when at a hotel. The $10/day for broadband is fine, but if I didn't have to worry, that would be great.
However, when I'm not in my hotel, I have 0 need for real connectivity. I'll set up a private email that forwards to the phone, but if you need me when I'm traveling, you call me. If you send me a file, I get it when I get back to my hotel.
Nearlynet is sufficient, and there is no reason to pay a premium for more connectivity than that. Permanet (3G) will likely fail, because what people WANT is a reasonably inexpensive unmetered service. Metered is annoying, I don't want to think, should I spend $3 on this service this time. $10/mo. is an easy to justify business expense, and doesn't require individually making the decision.
Alex
In fact, the airlines generally allow you to talk on cell phones while sitting at the gate up to the point they close the door.
From then on, you're not supposed to use your phone, but it will still work and people who have been detained for hours on airplanes on the ground ("waiting for the part to arrive") will often use their phones.
The second problem is that 3G services don't just have the wrong prices, they have the wrong kind of prices -- metered -- while Wifi is flat-rate.
It may not be everyone's idea of the mythical 3G, but Verizon's Express Network offers flat-rate, unilmited use for $99 per month. The advertised speed is 144kbps.
two things:
In my opinion, these two things (and others) make the 3G/WiFi situation and the AirPhone/cell phone situation sufficiently different to render any parallels between them inconclusive. There are other factors at work here well outside of the scope of the permanet/nearlynet concept.
scot
BTW, in reference to the flat v. metered rate issue, most people who are familiar with both markets agree that cell phone customers in the US are getting screwed by the (essentially flat rate, for most people) approach to billing compared to the (entirely metered) approach used in Europe and elsewhere.
> No manual is ever necessary.
May I politely interject here: BULLSHIT. That's the biggest Apple lie of all!
-- Discussion in comp.os.linux.misc on the intuitiveness of interfaces
- this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...