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.
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
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.
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 to Bahamas just over the Chistmas break and the phones in the seat worked fine, and a couple of people were using cell phones when we were still on the ground, no problems noticed, technically that was an an international flight too I guess.
Depends on the carrier maybe, I used US Air.
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
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.