<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>From: <b class="gmail_sendername">Sepp Hasslberger</b> <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:sepp@lastrega.com">sepp@lastrega.com</a>></span><br>
Date: Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 9:31 PM<br>Subject: Re: Co-Owning the Physical Layer<br>To: <a href="mailto:building-a-distributed-decentralized-internet@googlegroups.com">building-a-distributed-decentralized-internet@googlegroups.com</a><br>
Cc: <a href="mailto:suresh2323@gmail.com">suresh2323@gmail.com</a>, Michel Bauwens <<a href="mailto:michelsub2004@gmail.com">michelsub2004@gmail.com</a>>, Robert Steele <<a href="mailto:robert.david.steele.vivas@gmail.com">robert.david.steele.vivas@gmail.com</a>>, Mark Petz <<a href="mailto:ravenwyn@gmail.com">ravenwyn@gmail.com</a>>, <a href="mailto:videobridgebuilders@globalvillages.org">videobridgebuilders@globalvillages.org</a><br>
<br><br>Patrick's description of ownership and co-ownership of the physical layer of the internet is quite clear.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
The end result will be a user-owned and user-maintained network that provides secure, stable, resilient connectivity between peers.<br>
<br>
Sepp<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
"The individual is supreme and finds the way through intuition"<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/" target="_blank">http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sepp/</a><br>
<a href="http://www.laleva.org" target="_blank">http://www.laleva.org</a><br>
<a href="http://blog.hasslberger.com/" target="_blank">http://blog.hasslberger.com/</a><br>
<a href="http://www.facebook.com/hasslberger" target="_blank">http://www.facebook.com/hasslberger</a><br>
<a href="http://twitter.com/healthsupreme" target="_blank">http://twitter.com/healthsupreme</a><br>
<br>
.<br>
<br>
On Mar 12, 2011, at 9:45 PM, Patrick Anderson wrote:<br>
<br>
> Suresh Fernando wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> what you are saying is that most exchanges<br>
>> of goods and services are not sales<br>
><br>
> The goods are not sold, AND they are not exchanged.<br>
><br>
> This is easy to see for a single owner, and probably<br>
> nobody will dispute the idea that the owner of an<br>
> Avocado tree - even if he pays another to harvest<br>
> that fruit, does not *buy* those Objects because he<br>
> owns them already - as a side-effect of his owning<br>
> the Sources (the tree, land and water rights).<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> This Mode of Production applies to all industries.<br>
><br>
> We, the people, can co-own the internet as clusters<br>
> of peers who invest for the purpose of receiving<br>
> that connectivity without paying more than cost.<br>
><br>
><br>
> ----<br>
> Imagine you have several computers within your<br>
> home that you want to have connected together.<br>
><br>
> You are not connecting to anything outside of your<br>
> house, but are just creating an internal network.<br>
><br>
> You buy the wires and routers and maybe hire<br>
> someone to install and configure that equipment.<br>
><br>
> You must also pay any other costs such as the<br>
> electricity and any sort of upkeep those Sources<br>
> require to keep them operational.<br>
><br>
> Obviously you do send yourself a bill in the mail<br>
> every month and then pay that bill back to yourself.<br>
><br>
> This is so obvious it may be too boring to consider.<br>
><br>
> But bear with me for a few more seconds, as it<br>
> becomes very interesting as we scale this network<br>
> to more and more users.<br>
><br>
><br>
> ----<br>
> Now imagine you talk to your neighbor about your<br>
> new internal network and you both decide it would<br>
> be fun to run a wire between your houses to share<br>
> files and be connected for other reasons.<br>
><br>
> You both pitch-in to buy the wires and probably the<br>
> neighbor pays for the router that will sit in his house.<br>
><br>
> You must pay all of these initial costs, and continue<br>
> to pay the costs of electricity (until you finally build<br>
> or buy a photo-voltaic array...).<br>
><br>
> Now, there is no reason for each of you to *buy* that<br>
> connectivity from your collective self. �You just pay<br>
> the costs and that is it.<br>
><br>
><br>
> ----<br>
> Now comes the part that for some reason is confusing<br>
> to most people.<br>
><br>
> Imagine your neighbor also connects to *his* neighbor<br>
> and you to another, and those to more, until there are<br>
> hundreds and then thousands and even possibly<br>
> millions and billions of people connected.<br>
><br>
> *That* intranet/internet would be owned buy the users<br>
> of that service.<br>
><br>
> They must pay all the real costs of being connected,<br>
> but cannot pay Profit, since they are not buying that<br>
> service from anyone - but own it already as a side-<br>
> effect of their owning the Sources of those Objectives.<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
>> How, in the transition to this model are portions<br>
>> in the Sources (of production I assume) allocated?<br>
><br>
> Simply according to the % of ownership.<br>
<br>
</div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>P2P Foundation: <a href="http://p2pfoundation.net" target="_blank">http://p2pfoundation.net</a>� - <a href="http://blog.p2pfoundation.net" target="_blank">http://blog.p2pfoundation.net</a> <br>
<br>Connect: <a href="http://p2pfoundation.ning.com" target="_blank">http://p2pfoundation.ning.com</a>; Discuss: <a href="http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation" target="_blank">http://lists.ourproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/p2p-foundation</a><br>
<br>Updates: <a href="http://del.icio.us/mbauwens" target="_blank">http://del.icio.us/mbauwens</a>; <a href="http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens" target="_blank">http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens</a>; <a href="http://twitter.com/mbauwens" target="_blank">http://twitter.com/mbauwens</a>; <a href="http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens" target="_blank">http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens</a><br>
<br><br><br><br><br>