Internet Infrastructure NOT ready for abundance?

[marc fawzi]

As you know, Comcast and others have attempted or are continuing to throttle P2P traffic, so how can abundance in so-called "pirated" music and videos be sustainable? Even if the artists want to give them for free which would require them to host it via BitTorrent so they don't end up paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in hosting and bandwidth fees they will not be able to do that on sustainable basis because ISPs control the medium and they can shut down or throttle P2P file transfers.

I do like how BitTorrent moved to UDP for file transfer but the ISPs can shut down UDP traffic too, so it's a game of cat and mouse and can never be sustainable.
 
So I guess the question is: can we have sustainable abundance in digital content using the existing Internet?

My argument is that there is a need for a P2P Internet or World Wide Mesh in order to give us autonomy from control of the Internet by a few large players

---------- Forwarded message ----------


Patrick's views are congruent with the ideas I'm working with, so I think I can pitch in to explain.

His user-as-owner model fixes a lot of things, at least in theory.

One issue it fixes that's hard to fix in any other "p2p" model (without the introduction of some kind of peer law and peer government) is how to get producers to be transparent and open source their entire production process, not just the thing they're producing.

As far as 'control' goes, I personally think in terms of achieving 'autonomy' through increased interdependence, which is what user-as-owner model does too by making production processes dependent on everyone's support. The way I'm tackling the autonomy issue, however, given that the model I'm working with is for the far future, is by arguing that 'Internet infrastructure' as an industry should evolve to meet the conditions for sustainable abundance, which it does not at this time. 

The network-centric model puts control in the hands of those who have the most capital to afford data centers, backbones, local access, peering hubs, under sea cables, etc.  This creates dependence on a few players. The way I understand it, is that Patrick's model would require ownership of the infrastructure by the public, which can happen, of course, if enough people demonstrate in the street demanding it.

In the model I'm working with, which does not change the ownership model in itself but has its limitations in terms of what industries it applies to (i.e. those that meet the sustainable abundance conditions [see P2P Energy Economy]) in order for the Internet infrastructure as an industry to meet the conditions for sustainable abundance we must move from the network centric model which is extremely capital intensive to the P2P Internet model which replicates the Internet over mesh architecture (which I don't believe anyone has demonstrated on wide-scale basis [search: 802.11s and World Wide Mesh) 

So, yeah, we really need to look beneath the surface and face the issue of control in society.

On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 4:02 PM, Patrick Anderson <agnu...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, Feb 4, 2009 at 4:17 PM, Matt Cooperrider
<mattcoo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Patrick,
>
> I think I follow your argument.  What about when we are dealing with a
> commons (as many wikis can be understood)?  There is no owner, and no sale
> of goods, as far as I can see.  How would you interpret that situation
> within your theory?

No wiki can exist without the Physical Sources (Material Means of
Production) required to 'host' it.

Just as with every other kind of 'thing', software requires Space,
Time, Mass and Energy.  That may sound ominous, or somehow too strange
to consider, but please think it through*.

So the person(s) in control of hardware end up being the owner(s) of
any wiki instance.

For simplicity I usually say that controlling group must be the
literal property owner of the computer, keyboard, monitor, buildings,
etc. needed to keep that wiki operating, but it is also true that
those controllers may be renting or leasing those Physical Sources
from other owners.

But either way, the problem we strangely resist confronting directly
is that control finally rests in property ownership of Physical
Sources required to 'host' any virtual thing (such as software,
movies, mechanical designs, DNA, medicine formulas, etc.).  [[This is,
of course, assuming we are using virtual things that are either Public
Domain (unlocked), or - even better - under the GNU GPL (locked
open)]]


As for "the sale of goods", there is something to be said about
advertising being a fee that the user/consumer pays, but I don't know
how to say it.

(*) See these papers for further elaboration and hopefully more clarity:
http://Blog.P2PFoundation.net/one-loaf-per-child/2007/06/14
http://SourceFreedom.BlogSpot.com
http://Oekonux.org/list-en/archive/msg04253.html

_______________________________________________
p2presearch mailing list
p2pre...@listcultures.org
http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org