[P2P-F] Fwd: Co-Owning the Physical Layer

[Michel Bauwens]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Sepp Hasslberger <sepp at lastrega.com>
Date: Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 9:31 PM
Subject: Re: Co-Owning the Physical Layer
To: building-a-distributed-decentralized-internet at googlegroups.com
Cc: suresh2323 at gmail.com, Michel Bauwens <michelsub2004 at gmail.com>, Robert
Steele <robert.david.steele.vivas at gmail.com>, Mark Petz <ravenwyn at gmail.com>,
videobridgebuilders at globalvillages.org


Patrick's description of ownership and co-ownership of the physical layer of
the internet is quite clear.

Of course you can run any program you want on your own network, you can
exchange files with your neighbors, you can, in other words, enjoy the
fruits of what you own.

Perhaps for some time in the beginning, those co-operatives (or whatever we
call them) of co-owners of the physical network infrastructure will wish to
connect to other such co-operatives that are out of reach of their physical
network infrastructure and they may decide to rent, from an internet service
provider, a broadband connection to be shared among the users of the
network. They would all chip in to pay for that connection as a group, and
they would use it to reach peers who are too distant, or to use services on
the "traditional" internet. They might, in co-operation with other user
groups, eventually take over a failing service provider and run it under
their own collective steam. Everything would get much cheaper (no need to
make profit) and probably more reliable as well, as potential points of
failure of the network get distributed to numerous nodes, each one run by
someone who's responsible for its good functioning.

Whether in the interim of time between building a local net of connectivity
and taking over or establishing a provider of long distance connectivity,
the co-operative's co-owners will collectively rent a broad band connection,
or will decide to share several of their existing connections with the rest
of the co-operative, makes no difference.

The end result will be a user-owned and user-maintained network that
provides secure, stable, resilient connectivity between peers.

Sepp



"The individual is supreme and finds the way through intuition"

http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/
http://www.laleva.org
http://blog.hasslberger.com/
http://www.facebook.com/hasslberger
http://twitter.com/healthsupreme

.

On Mar 12, 2011, at 9:45 PM, Patrick Anderson wrote:

> Suresh Fernando wrote:
>>
>> what you are saying is that most exchanges
>> of goods and services are not sales
>
> The goods are not sold, AND they are not exchanged.
>
> This is easy to see for a single owner, and probably
> nobody will dispute the idea that the owner of an
> Avocado tree - even if he pays another to harvest
> that fruit, does not *buy* those Objects because he
> owns them already - as a side-effect of his owning
> the Sources (the tree, land and water rights).
>
>
>
> This Mode of Production applies to all industries.
>
> We, the people, can co-own the internet as clusters
> of peers who invest for the purpose of receiving
> that connectivity without paying more than cost.
>
>
> ----
> Imagine you have several computers within your
> home that you want to have connected together.
>
> You are not connecting to anything outside of your
> house, but are just creating an internal network.
>
> You buy the wires and routers and maybe hire
> someone to install and configure that equipment.
>
> You must also pay any other costs such as the
> electricity and any sort of upkeep those Sources
> require to keep them operational.
>
> Obviously you do send yourself a bill in the mail
> every month and then pay that bill back to yourself.
>
> This is so obvious it may be too boring to consider.
>
> But bear with me for a few more seconds, as it
> becomes very interesting as we scale this network
> to more and more users.
>
>
> ----
> Now imagine you talk to your neighbor about your
> new internal network and you both decide it would
> be fun to run a wire between your houses to share
> files and be connected for other reasons.
>
> You both pitch-in to buy the wires and probably the
> neighbor pays for the router that will sit in his house.
>
> You must pay all of these initial costs, and continue
> to pay the costs of electricity (until you finally build
> or buy a photo-voltaic array...).
>
> Now, there is no reason for each of you to *buy* that
> connectivity from your collective self.  You just pay
> the costs and that is it.
>
>
> ----
> Now comes the part that for some reason is confusing
> to most people.
>
> Imagine your neighbor also connects to *his* neighbor
> and you to another, and those to more, until there are
> hundreds and then thousands and even possibly
> millions and billions of people connected.
>
> *That* intranet/internet would be owned buy the users
> of that service.
>
> They must pay all the real costs of being connected,
> but cannot pay Profit, since they are not buying that
> service from anyone - but own it already as a side-
> effect of their owning the Sources of those Objectives.
>
>
>
>> How, in the transition to this model are portions
>> in the Sources (of production I assume) allocated?
>
> Simply according to the % of ownership.




-- 
P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net

Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation

Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.ourproject.org/pipermail/p2p-foundation/attachments/20110314/f1fe2d18/attachment.htm