Beyond Telecom: Bob Frankston looks past the past

part 2 of draft

BF: This is tangled because you've got things that are the result of accidental properties. And then you have solutions that treat those properties as deliberate. And this contnues in a kind of death spiral.

So it turns out the phone companies had to solve this problem, which is (ssomething) wire.. didn't give you enough analog quality over distance. so they developed digital technologies as a solution.

By the way, the whole lie about the phone companies having a natural monopoly because the local companies couldn't interconnect... If you have to interconnect, you learn how to interconnect.

There is a big difference ... You do things to put a stake in the ground.

Basically the phone companies... pulse code modulation... signal frequency... Problem was... the solution was so good that it changed the problems it were solving. It was as if they got so good at building houses that they insisted that we standardize on their form of construction — so only they could build anything.

So think of all the opportunity this closes off. It's as if the construction industry never happened and we have the government working with an ancient "construction industry" with a few monopoly companies that are the only ones allowed to build anything. And with the rest of us begging them to open up and let us do more. This is exactly the problem with "broadband". That's an arcane term from a monopoly industry that's in the way of more opportunity than we can measure. (Bob: My words, but replace them with yiours.)

So we need to de-couple. If we do that, we see it's all about fungibility: replaceable pieces.

DS: But it's very hard because we share a conceptual framework with the telcos and cablecos.

BF: Yes. It's a hard problem. But the telcos and cablecos won't solve it. There is a hierarcy of conceptual levels here. "Broadband" lives in one of those levels. If you also live there, you think you need it. But below that level the problem disappears. What you need is just to connect — any way that works. It doesn't have to be "broadband" from the phone company. It can be whatever you want it to be. So you start building things with the equivalent of 2x4s and screws and nails, and not by living inside the telco's dream house where all you can ever do is rent.

DS: This brings us to addressing our absent ability to understand the system we don't yet have.

BF: Let me give you another example. My college roommate wanted to make potato dumplilngs. He followed the recipe, and they disappeared. What happened?

DS: I have no idea.

BF: Because he used instant mashed potatoes. (Bob, I still don't get this analogy. If it matters, bring it home for me.)

What happened with telephony is that they developed (something) that could be used to make a telephone call. (Something about Datapoint.) But unlike Intel, Datapoint didn't (not clear) see the value of the processor. They were involved in LSI and stuff, but they didn't get it. So they died off while Intel saw the processor as an any-purpose component part., and we got to see Moore's Law demonstrated.

IBM is lucky to be alive because they didn't get this either. they didn't know that they'd be making their big money off of services in 2008, and treating the operating system as just a bunch of 2x4s. They finally saw that they could make their money higher up the stack.

DS: Seems to me that Google gets the abundance side of the Net, today, no?

BF: Not true. Because they believe in the tethered Net. Everything has to be tied back to Google Central. You do things their way, using their services. This leads people to think the Net is one big Google silo. The positive part of Google is that they have enough revenues from advertising that they can afford to be generous with free goods of many kinds. They can provide us with components we can mash up with other components from elswhere. That's the positive side. The negative side is that they still lock you in. You still depend on them. And they also seem to want to be a phone company. That's why they're in the running for this 700MHz auction. But I believe that for less money they can give everybody an open access point with an open face on it. And provide 100% coverage everywhere instantly. Without all the new infrastructure required at 700MHz. They'd have instant critical mass, and open huge opportunities for everybody.

DS: I'm missing something here.

BF: I mean, 700MHz is more of the same. It doesn't really support an opportunity dynamic.

DS: You're saying it's yet another top-down, telco-modeled gotta-be-everywhere, only-works-in-5th-gear boondoggle.

BF: Yes. Meanwhile, they can be FON without the baggage.

DS: I see. They give open access points to everybody, for them to use any way they want.

BF: They wouldn't even need to do it everywhere. They could announce "We are going to spend $100 million to give 100% coverage for everybody in Silicon Valley". That would break the model of the telcos and create a whole new dynamic that would demonstrate how much opportunity there is when you get the telcos out of the picture. Instead they're playing a telco game. They're in the carrier model.

When you're open to more opportunities, you have more chance of succeeding. A lot of the value in open source is just experimenting with cheap and simple tools.

DS: Okay, you were involved in some very early history here. Let's talk a bit about that.

BF: Yes. Early history of Unix. Let's start with Multics. Problem was that Multics was captive to Honeywell's complex business processes. They kept it far more expensive than it should have been. Unix wasn't much of an operating system, back then. But it was cheap. And because it was cheap, it had a lot of innovation. And price does matter.

This went on while I was observing both closely. That's also why I left the big computing world. Because PCs were cheap. And I could do what I wanted with them.

See, when dependency goes to zero, magic happens.

DS: Do you see any hope for the carriers?

BF: You know, a dead fish swims just fine ... until it hits the bottom.

From emails, to adapt/use in here somewhere...

As to cell/land all I can say is that the discussion of gaming the rules is a reminder that the Regulatorium is a helluvalota fun and consumes huge amount of resources while preventing the creation of new value by putting the entire focus on artificial distinctions. It does succeed in meeting the goal of assuring that abundance does not threaten the incumbency.

As to functional or structural separation -- how does it differ from ATT Divesture? The retail/wholesale division seems to mirror that model rather addressing the fundamental dysfunction in packing up our infrastructure and recycling it as arbitrarily priced services. "Arbitrarily" means that the prices for the bits are set according to a presumed context and a presumed technology.

While I argue that prices are stories I also argue that the so-called costs are -- these are transfer prices set according to arbitrary models and are not market-driven costs. The problem is that the Internet's end-to-end model means that you don't depend on providers' service and they don't control the entire network. Thus they can't increase the price based on such favors. I argue that this was the lesson of Genuity (though Scott Marcus may disagree having been there). What makes the discussion difficult is that it's easy to project are naïve models on the edge where the carriers define reality and thus we worry about doling out scarcity when they could just as easily provide abundance.

The basic problem is that the network has no intrinsic value - all the value comes from how we use the network. If the network had a high intrinsic cost then we might have to deal with that but the glass and copper and radios are so cheap compared with sidewalks and just about anything else that we seem determined to do ourselves harm by pretending it is expensive and then proving this by making it expense in order to ensure that we can meter every bit.

What is the ratio of bits involved in sending an SMS message vs billing for it?

the model of a "hog" holding up all traffic for a long time
is wrong. We're not talking about slow networks or 200 car freight trains
but lots of individual pack vying for slots.

The real problem is with the metaphor of a fixed size buffer -- this is a
Malthusian focus on zero-sum scarcity that creates no new value. In practice
the carriers have given us only fraction of the potential capacity. Remember
the "modem" scare which was 100% correct in noting that if we all started
using modems the phone system would collapse. It didn't because we shifted
to getting access to the inherent abundance available in the transport --
instead of 56kbps per copper pair we could get megabits and the rights of
way now can give us gigabits at lower cost.

What does it mean to connect to an "ISP" if we do our own networking and who
defines fairness? Faux-ATT which, according to the NYT, is now threatening
to judge whether our bits are moral enough, AKA, violate some copyright?

As I said in the longer response -- a good engineer works within the
constraints given -- a great engineer questions the constraints and gets
fired because the constraints serve a policy need higher than mere science
or reality.

Q: What do you thinkn of the noiton of a "Bandwidth Cap: and metered pricing?

What makes this fascinating is the interplay between accidental properties and explicit policy. When you are off-hook you are tying up facilities. It's easy to understand that model -- the story makes sense.

Flat rate may seem as a more efficient billing scheme but it changes your perception of what you are buying. You also no longer have to think of whether the call is worth it.

This is one reason why micropayments schemes have had so many problems catching on -- knowing your being charged creates unease even if it isn't that much. You still think about "is it worth it" because we tend to think in relative not absolute terms.

Flat rate introduces an ambiguity because there is no distinction between the service and the fixed cost connection to do with as you wish.

The ambiguity flips with IP and open VoIP -- the carriers can continue to think of themselves as service providers whereas the users/purchasers can view them as facilities providers.

No wonder it's difficult to talk about these issues. In a way Network Neutrality is at the flashpoint of this discussion. A service provider is in the position of adding value by defining the experience yet those who've assumed a facilities model can't understand why they are meddling.

To the carriers, the future will be the past entrenched.

we agree on the power of competitive markets and the desirability. We need to separate out a stable marketplace model from how we get there.

Perhaps the crucial disagreement is that you seem to think we get low prices because of regulators? I find that strange. If you look at the consent decree that forced IBM to separate the software from hardware business and the way it drove Moore’s law (even if doesn’t’ recognize it’s about economics not physics) you’ll see that those price went down by orders of magnitude whereas the regulated prices stayed essentially stagnant for decades. We saw this even more dramatically in networking where it was able to catchup to the marketplace as within our homes.

The networks within our homes are far closer to the first SQUARE mile connectivity than the carriers’ delivery pipes. Remember that when they owned the wires nothing improved and now that Verizon’s Mocalliance is trying to take control back they are rolling back from flexible gigabit Ethernet to their 100Mbps over coax even when their own VoD just uses 20Mbps. This is sheer incompetence it would be hard to do worse.

If we recognized that the scarcity that justifies telecom policy is false and recognized the inherent conflict of interest then there is a simple solution. DDT – Don’t do that – don’t try so hard to maintain a telecom industry. Instead of local ownership of the local facilities – nonexclusive ownership and management to maximize capacity.

What are these high costs you allude to – if it’s $1K/home for fiber (as I point BAML (Before Applying Moore’s Law)) that’s the cheapest infrastructure we have (OK, maybe something is cheaper but what?). And that fiber is many times what we have now.

But even if you argue about those costs what about the cost of not being able to assume connectivity. The price is beyond money – it’s in lives and quality of life and the inability to take advantage of the abundance inherent in the air, the copper and the glass.

The key is to decouple the infrastructure marketplace from the services marketplace. The actually networking is easy – you just know too much and know it’s hard. That’s why my naiveté gave us home networking. I didn’t see what was so hard about moving packets around – and I still don’t.

As I keep pointing out – the industry is dedicated to preventing abundance – <http://www.frankston.com/?Name=AssuringScarcity>http://www.frankston.com/?Name=AssuringScarcity? Why are we aiding and abetting such an approach? What problem is telecom solving that it’s worth sucking all the value out of our economy just to maintain nonviable businesses.

ON WIRED AND WIRELESS...

The problem with wireless is far deeper than anything that can be fixedwithin "wireless". The fundamental problem is the distinction between "wired" and "wireless" bits.

What would the "wireless" capacity be if we took advantage of the nearly 100% coverage of existing 802.11 access points. For the thought experiment we can assume better protocols than 802.11 including assuming a peer protocol such that phone can a communicate directly without any access point. The term access point itself is biased - it's more a relay point that can connected wired/unwired or relay other ways.

This would open up many many times today's cellular capacity without having any additional cost. Today's cellular does use similar packet ideas but keeps it contained to an infinitesimal portion of the potential capacity.

Why spend time arguing over how long the chain is when we should be discussing freedom?

I agree that "cellular carterphone" is a useful way to get people upset but it's not more than that since the real problem is a cellular architecture designed to assure the incumbency total control. If you pay $50 for a Femto cell you still need to connect into the cellular companies' system.

This is very very reminiscent of X.400 - the failed carrier-defined email system. The only difference is that this time they get away with it. Can anyone on that mole hill in DC understand how very very terrible the entire cellular system is? Can they understand that it's about assuring scarcity

ONE LINERS

There’s a fine line between reciprocity and corruption … if there is a line at all.

There is no intrinsic relationship between the bits and the content. Triple plays are a funding mechanism

ON THE LIMITS OF GIANTISM

Yes, this It's not a matter of being suspicious of massive projects as being aware of the inherent inability of such projects to work—they should only be deployed for very very very well understand projects such as building yet another bridge and even there it's risky.

ON AT&T vs. VERIZON

In the short term Verizon can gain because of many impediments to connectivity but these are transient impediments. It is much like the modem “crisis” in the mid 90’s when dial up was big. It melted away because it was essentially a configuration error – taking a low rate data stream but locking down circuits and equipment for no added value.

Ultimately they are like ATT in that they have to charge for the value of what people do with the net on the assumption the value is in the network when, in reality, the value is all in how we use networking. Capturing the value in the network comes at a terrible price to the economy as well as our safety. For public policy why do we have an agency – the FCC – dedicated to starving the economy sucking more value out of it that Bernacke could ever hope to add back?

Verizon does its VoD on 20Mbps – so what’s the rest of the FiOS for? The number of bytes is an arbitrary measure because it has a startlingly low correlation with “experience”. We send Flash-created content as video which could be a 1,000:1 ratio (or even million to one) that may appear the same to the viewer. Just look at the quality you can get at <http://www.abc.com>http://www.abc.com if you have your own fast CPU. The connection speed is only one factor and cleverness can compensate. I can give many examples of such anomalies.

I think I’ve sent you the pointer to <http://www.frankston.com/?name=AssuringScarcity>http://www.frankston.com/?name=AssuringScarcity. Perhaps my skepticism is fueled by having started out on Wall St in the 60’s supplying data and being appalled at how little information the traders really used in making their decision – something that Nassim Talib wrote about years later. It’s the astrology dynamic.

What is most frustrating to me, however, is the lack of awareness that broadband has so little to do with the Internet per se. The inability to tap into the already existing coverage from access points is a tragedy – think of all the value created and even lives saved if we can assume IP connectivity.  As I noted at <http://www.netneutrality2008.org>http://www.netneutrality2008.org (for now <http://www.frankston.com/public/talks/SFUNetNeutrality.htm>http://www.frankston.com/public/talks/SFUNetNeutrality.htm though I haven’t linked to it) what if Google put their money into opening up access points rather than the 700Mhz auction? Combine that with protocols that do meshing outside the net (as with Skype) and owners of the pipes lose control.

I’ve used 9/11 and Katrina as examples but the recent Tornado makes me think of the value of micro-weather stations that could easily be deployed to give information and if watches were connected.

What happens when people understand that for $1k (or soon far less) they should be able to get the full capacity of a fiber to their home and not have to pay $50/month for a fraction of that? Perhaps if there were a feature story on how today’s Internet prototype actually works and the possibilities for real connectivity …

ON THE DYING DEAD

This is WAP – the billable wireless internet all over again.

It’s another reminder that the carriers are the dying dead. People want to watch what they want when they want it. The carriers in their deepest bowels want everything to be 1950’s television. Even the TV networks aren’t this dumb and are downloading to PCs or wherever in whatever form people want. The carriers have nothing at all of value – they can only squeeze their orifices and charge for passing through them.

There are simply too many other options – it’s not bypass. That’s a dumb idea. It’s simply exercising choice and people having other options.

As to free, ad-supported Wi-Fi. That’s stupid – that’s like ad-supported lumber. People confuse the Web with the Internet. It’s infrastructure and raw materials. You can advertise to eyeballs for a site but your emergency bracelet must be able to call for help without you having to go to sign in screen and read an add and click to acknowledge that your read the ad or select another billing option. Even if you aren’t ill when you start, you’ll be in shock by the time you get through the process.

It’s copper, radios, glass and nothing more. The rest you create.

When we get past NN we can then get back to getting infrastructure.

AN ANGLE ON VOIP

My POV starts with VoIP so I see things differently. They are taking what taking costs them absolutely nothing and creating billing events. Neat trick.

If you use the WiFi phone within your house to speak to someone in another room does Orange get a cut? If you use it while traveling in the US to call someone else in the US do they get a cut?

Why not just get an open phone and do the VoIP yourself with a cellular path as backup that you hope to rarely use? Skype already does this but it needs to go one step further.

My HP-HW6945 is approaching an interesting threshold. Skype and VoIP apps should take advantage of the ability to have a persistent public IP address (you have to request it from T-Mobile and they’ll give it to you at no extra cost and it’s the norm with Verizon, dunno about Sprint and Cingular. If the voice apps simply maintained an open listen and a very lean listener and automatically take advantage of opportunistic Wi-Fi connections then I would be far more apt to use the IP path.

The big problem is battery life vs all those radios – but that will be solved just as the color laptops went from impossible to the norm years ago. In meantime an app can listen on the cellular side and then attempt to make a Wi-Fi connection. For GSM this can work using CDS (Cellular Data Services) rather than GPRS or other data protocols since you need few bits to rendezvous and then you needn’t pay for the data service. If you are paying for the data service you can the Edge and EVDO path albeit imperfectly but without any additional charge for cellular – even better than a local cell number and you get the world.

ABOUT QOS

My bits are more important than yours and a good QoS system will give me priority because I’m a better person. A bad QoS system would treat us as equals. At least that’s my definition of good.