Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Wireless Networking Hardware

Permanet vs. Nearlynet 58

Posted by michael from the permanet-press dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Permanet vs. Nearlynet More

Permanet vs. Nearlynet

Comments Filter:

  • the problem with wireless networking (Score:5, Insightful)

    by potaz ( 211754 ) on Saturday March 29, 2003 @09:20AM (#5621905) Homepage
    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.

    • 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?
      • Well, that's my point. I think the cost does matter to all but the biggest companies (IBM and government, people like that) - most business are small businesses and they're not going to pay that. You have to get pretty big before it doesn't matter to you if a phone call costs $5 or $100.
      • 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!"

    • Collective Funding (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      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
    • AFAIK, they shut off these phones due to the security risks invoved... you know, terrorists calling each other in-flight to coordinate their attacks, etc.

      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

      • 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.
      • Cell phones have always been required to be off on airplanes. The rapid travel overwhelms the stations on the ground, which can't keep up.
      • I found an interesting article [ntlworld.com] about the real significance of the calls-from-the-air on 9-11. I'm not sure that I buy it yet - I can see some possible holes in the argument - but it's an interesting theory, and it could explain Mr. bin Laden's cowarldy disappearance better than as yet.

        I always thought cell-phones were banned because they might interfere with navigation-systems, but I am not an expert. If they only didn't work, people should see that after trying to turn them on and give up.

  • Future market on the horizon (Score:5, Interesting)

    by manseman ( 582150 ) on Saturday March 29, 2003 @09:23AM (#5621912)
    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.

    • Re:false dichotomy (Score:2, Interesting)

      by ahfoo ( 223186 )
      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 ste

    • Re:false dichotomy (Score:4, Interesting)

      by LoadStar ( 532607 ) on Saturday March 29, 2003 @10:52AM (#5622093)
      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.

      • Re:false dichotomy (Score:4, Interesting)

        by madfgurtbn ( 321041 ) on Saturday March 29, 2003 @11:13AM (#5622152)
        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.
      • If you think of ther internet as a big network of computers, it is a "Permanet" (in Shirky's terms). But, if you think of it simply as a protocol (TCP/IP) that runs on top of existing networks and can be used with existing computers and software, it is more a "Nearlynet". With TCP/IP you get no assurance of "quality of service" (in the way the telcos do), and that is why in the begining of the internet its success was doubtful. Most of the investment needed to make the internet succeed was not made on the n
    • I don't think he really disparages the "nearlynet" (what an awful word coinage) so much as he realizes that the "permanet" (a little better) is an ideal. Who wouldn't want their cell phone to work in Antarctica? As it turns out, the obvious answer is: People who don't want to pay triple for that ability.

      I would also mention that it's a lot easier, in general, to start with a cheap system and improve it than it is to start with a good system and cheapen it. Think of the Internet vs. the ISS.
  • 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.. :)

    • But they are important to remember (Score:4, Insightful)

      by bluGill ( 862 ) on Saturday March 29, 2003 @12:19PM (#5622415)

      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.

  • This article tries so hard to be polite that it distorts reality and misses some fundamentals. Why bother being nice to greed heads who want to squeze a captive audience? More importantly, why not distingush them from more reasonable service providers? I'll put up a few examples. Finally, where is a mention of alternatives such as Locusworks? [locustworld.com]

    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 ubiquitou

  • 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

    • For some reason I doubt you've actually read the Cathedral and the Bazaar. You talk about all Bazaar but no Cathedral and yet refer to the two in the same breath. Maybe I'm wrong. But I really don't see how this:

      Maybe the wifi technology is evolving in a cathadral and bazaar manner, but the services can't follow same pattern.

      makes any sense. Is it evoling in a Catherdral manner? Or a Bazaar manner? Or both, which I suppose is possible (as is the case with software) but I don't really think that was the id

  • That's "Permanet vs. CowboyNealnet", you insensitive clod!
  • http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/03/27/125524 2&mode=thread&tid=95
  • 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 [unisa.edu.au] (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 winn
  • 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
    • 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.

  • Not Cathedral/Bazaar! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mcrbids ( 148650 ) on Saturday March 29, 2003 @12:39PM (#5622472) Journal
    This is not really at all like "Cathedral/Bazaar" but rather, " Worse is Better [jwz.org]. (now updated [dreamsongs.com])

    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.

  • Failure of the Essay (Score:4, Insightful)

    by aaarrrgggh ( 9205 ) on Saturday March 29, 2003 @12:40PM (#5622476)
    The failure with permanets is not "permanet" vs. "nearlynet", it is about creating a business strategy to bridge between the two.

    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....

  • 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

  • Wifi is 100% on target (Score:3, Interesting)

    by alexhmit01 ( 104757 ) on Saturday March 29, 2003 @07:11PM (#5623947)
    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

  • 3G is flat rate now... Shirky's asleep! (Score:3, Informative)

    by aquarian ( 134728 ) on Saturday March 29, 2003 @11:50PM (#5624746)
    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:

    1. While the airphone example does illustrate his point nicely, it seems to be overly convenient. You could easily (try to) make the same argument against cell phones (permanet) v. land lines (nearlynet) in the context of the early to mid 90's, and we all know who's winning that battle. The truth is that people are willing to pay a reasonable premium for ubiquity. Does this prove that 3G will succeed? No, but it does illusrate that in some cases the permanet can come out on top.
    2. Another big t

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close