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)
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.
Aiming something like this on business users alone might be difficult, but I'm sure that it doesn't matter much to any company if an important call costs $5 or $100. If it can't wait a few hours, maybe it's just not that important?
I tend to assume it's part of human nature to desire change. I assume nano would enable things to be created and destroyed faster than ever. Of course even without nano that kind of future is in the cards.
While we don't tend to think of steel as high tech anymore, there is a school of thought that suggests the impacts of steel on architecture have only begun to be felt. What we've seen so far are only primitive first steps compared to what we will inevitably end up with as we continue to create new steel for cars and appliances while simultaneously recycling existing stocks.
This steady accumulation of steel and other metals will eventually make them the first choices for architecture as they have already become in many cases. This should eventually lead to a follow on effect of making buildings and even entire cities recyclable.
And while it looks like I'm getting way off topic here, it's not as far as it seems. After all, wireless and wired infratructures are interdependent for a real global Internet and the wired infrastructure is very much about the nature of architecture.
I didn't get from the article that he disparages the nearlynet - in fact, he credits nearlynets for pushing permanets out. In his examples - iridium and airphones - he describes how the nearlynet - cell phones and wifi - has lower cost of entry and use, and as such, will tend to win over the more expensive permanets.
Permanets seem to have more innovative solutions, but the cost of building out these permanets means that the cost-benefit ratio rarely works out - people just don't need to be connected that badly.
My only question that just popped into my head: the Internet was built-out as an extension of a government program. If the Internet had been a private sector project, would it have been built? It seems to have all the earmarks of a permanet as described in the article... a fairly expensive and permanent build-out phase, and during the build-out phase, very little benefit to balance out the cost. It was only fairly heavy government subsidies that helped the Internet become a reality and make it affordable for anyone to get on.
It's an interesting thought. If the government building out the Internet helped make it affordable enough - would doing the same with, say, Iridium have helped? Could we have been carrying around sat phones at this point had it been a government project that was then opened up to the public? It kind of helps make the taxes that are going to, say, NASA, make sense - because perhaps, one of their projects might be the next Internet.
My only question that just popped into my head: the Internet was built-out as an extension of a government program. If the Internet had been a private sector project, would it have been built?
Prodigy, Compuserve, AOL all attempted it, but I think they were all doomed to the extent they tried to maintain walled gardens.
The nearlynet/permanet problem has also been exacerbated by the walled garden approach, I think.
Send lawyers, guns, and money. Dad, get me out of this.
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