• If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • You already know Dokkio is an AI-powered assistant to organize & manage your digital files & messages. Very soon, Dokkio will support Outlook as well as One Drive. Check it out today!

View
 

F2CCamp

Page history last edited by baron53 16 years ago

F2CCamp (Freedom to Connect)

 

Links to sound and images from F2CCamp: http://www.effaustin.org/2006/09/freedom-to-connect-podcast-and-images.html

 

The "Freedom to Connect" BarCamp takes its name from conferences organized by David Isenberg in Washington, DC to discuss issues of Internet access, including net neutrality, the idea that data should be transported over the network with minimal discrimination. Open discussions will focus on the possibility of universal Internet access, the concept of net neutrality, the state of US and global networks, the proliferation of community wireless networks, and the impact on markets and competitiveness. wino kredyt mieszkaniowy sprzedam mieszkanie sprzedam bilet

 

F2CCamp will be *September 26*, during the Texas Wireless Summit. EFF-Austin is organizing, with Silona Bonewald and Jon Lebkowsky leading the effort. The Digital Convergence Initiative of the Texas Technology Corridor is co-sponsoring.

 

For more information, or to volunteer assistance, email f2c (at) effaustin.org.

 

We've set up an email list, savethenet (at) effaustin.org. To sign up, send a blank email to savethenet-subscribe (at) effaustin.org.

 

Proposed Sessions

 

Logistics

Time: 5pm - 11pm, September 26, 2006

Location: B.D. Riley's Irish Pub, 204 East 6th Street, Austin, TX.

(Thanks to Steve Basile!)

 

Hosts

For EFF-Austin and the Digital Convergence Initiative: Jon Lebkowsky

 

For EFF-Austin and the League of Technical Voters: Silona Bonewald

 

Helpers

We mainly need facilitators and people to do PR prior to the event.

 

Campers

  • Tom Morin

 

Relevant Links

 

FCC's Four Principles of Internet Freedom:

http://www.techlawjournal.com/topstories/2005/20050805.asp

 

The Annenberg Center Principles

for Network Neutrality

http://www.annenberg.edu/news/news.php?id=13

 

Ed Felten's "Nuts and Bolts of Network Neutrality"

http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/?p=1040

 

Public Knowledge response to Felten:

http://www.publicknowledge.org/node/523

 

HR 5252 - Internet Consumer Bill of Rights Act:

http://scrawford.net/courses/stevensaugust.pdf

 

Susan Crawford critiques the Internet Consumer Bill of Rights:

http://scrawford.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2006/8/18/2242836.html

 

Background

 

Open Internet architecture and freedom to connect are core concepts for this camp. Community networks, especially community *wireless* networks, are also in scope.

 

Ed Felten's published a good brief: Nuts and Bolts of Network Neutrality

 

Excerpt:

 

"The Internet is unusual among networks in putting most of the intelligence in the

computers at the edge of the network, rather than in the infrastructure at the heart of the

network. The routers in the middle forward packets with only minor processing—all the

heavy lifting takes place on the transmitting and receiving computers. This approach of

putting intelligence at the edge of the network is known as the end-to-end principle, and it

is one of the keys to the Internet’s success thus far.

 

"Putting the intelligence in the edge computers has several advantages. (1) Edge

computers account for most of the devices involved in the network, so the edge

computers collectively have most of the memory and processing power available to the

network, and it makes sense to put the intelligence where these resources are available.

(2) Edge computers have a better idea what the network’s users want, because they are

owned and controlled directly by users. (3) Innovation usually happens faster at the edge

of the network.

 

"In a sense, the net neutrality debate is a fight between the edges and the middle over

control of the network. Neutrality regulation is generally supported by companies that

provide services at the edge of the network, and is generally opposed by companies that

manage the middle of the network. Each group wants the part of the network that it

controls to have most of the intelligence, because more opportunities to innovate—and

profit from innovation—are available to those who control the intelligent parts of the

network."

 

Last Mile

 

From OIA Wiki re. spectrum deregulation:

 

Spectrum deregulation — end-running the "last mile"

 

"The most critical choke point in today's Internet is the "last mile" between local access points and the end-user's house or office. The Bells and cable companies get their power from monopolizing this. Until we break that monopoly, network-freedom advocates will be running as hard as they can just to counter the huge influence of these corporations.

 

"The combination of UWB frequency hopping and mesh networking nodes offers us a technological end-run around the last mile. The last-resort links from wireline access points to the kerb could be radio, building on the huge success and popularity of WiFi. Most people would probably choose higher capacity wireline links if they could, but ubiquitous meshes would immensely strengthen consumers' pargaining position with respect to the wireline access providers by making access monopolies impossible.

 

"The main constraint on mesh wireless deployments is the availability of spectrum. There are two ways this could be addressed:

 

"1. Pressing the FCC and other regulatory bodies to explicitly allocate more spectrum for UWB.

 

"2. Securing a ruling that non-interfering use of any frequency for UWB is either permitted by the FCC or (better) outside the FCC's jurisdiction.

 

"Approach 2 could work because UWB typically operates below the noise floor for conventional (AM/FM in fixed frequency with guard bands) transmission.

 

"A third route -- simply allocating more spectrum to unlicensed use -- seems to be ignored. here. In this article about the "Wireless Wars" http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/may2006/tc20060515_848569.htm the whole idea is simply ignored. Instead we're expected to see having 1-4 more competitors to the Bells as 'free and open' competition, as really "opening up the market."

 

"Bunk. It's still allowing innovation only at the center, which takes enormous time. It's still erecting huge and growing barriers to entry, which means an oligopoly at best.

rezilederim.com

sonliste.com

toplistk.com

aseks.net

aloveshop.net

cinselkozmetik.com

yemekeviniz.com

sanalmarketiniz.com

kozmetikmedikal.com

medikalkozmetik.net