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.

Comments

the problem with wireless networking

[potaz]

quote: For most of the past year, on many US airlines, those phones inserted into the middle seat have borne a label reading "Service Disconnected." Those labels tell a simple story -- people don't like to make $40 phone calls.

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.

Future market on the horizon

[manseman]

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.

Re:false dichotomy

[LoadStar]

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.

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.

Not Cathedral/Bazaar!

[mcrbids]

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.