F2CCamp (Freedom to Connect)
This will be held in Austin on *September 26*, during the Texas Wireless Summit. EFF-Austin is organizing, with Silona Bonewald and Jon Lebkowsky leading the effort.
For more info 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.
Time
5pm - 11pm, September 26, 2006
Venue
B.D. Riley's Irish Pub
(Thanks to Steve Basile!)
Hosts
For EFF-Austin
Helpers
Other Campers
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.
