imported>Gmc: Initial comments on the text

2011-08-25T16:38:53Z

Initial comments on the text

New page

Thanks for drafting this document! You did a good job in summarizing
the essential issues we have now, and providing an overview of the/a
solution.

I will not address the small typos that i stumbled across, that's for
later when the content is finalized and a final reading is applied.

The title, 'Ends and Means of the Free Network Movement' does not fit
the content completely though, in my humble opinion. I will elaborate:
the document provides a solution in the form of a specific technology
and architecture. How much I love the concept of the freedombox, and
of the layer above it with the 'fractal mesh network' and freedom-
towers, the reality is that that is merely a concept for now.

As it is, the free network movement (if one can say there is one such
movement) is already using techonologies and solutions of a very
heterogenous nature. In addition, there are already various initiatives
(you have a nice list included in the document of US based initiatives
already, but in Europe we have eg freifunk, wireless belgium, guifi)
that have established and are actually using an infrastructure already.

I would say, that if we were to unite the free network movement (and this
is my personal goal that I share with the people I have been grouping
with already before we stumbled across eachother) we should look at all
of those existing networks and think about the unification thereof. Not
as in assimilation, presenting a technology or design that is supposed
to surpass what is already there, but more in terms of letting all those
initiatives co-exist but meanwhile plan to implement the five network
freedoms in those existing infrastructures.

I can see how this could work, but I do not see it in the document (yet?).

I am not sure if the commitment to the freedombox project is central
to the mission of the FNF, and if that commitment is to the exclusion
of other ideas. If this is the case, I would reword the title as not
to claim to be 'the free network movement'. If it is not the case,
I would suggest working that into the body of the text. I would be
more than willing to pick up on that task.
As a last note, I think it would be good if we could add references to
the claims made in the first two sections after the introduction. For
example, there are claims that the network will scale better (even
though there exists research that indicates that mesh networks do
not scale in bandwidth availability in such a way that it can keep
up with bandwidth demand) and various economical claims. If possible,
those should be backed up by references, for the critical reader.
If we can not find such references, perhaps it is better to forego
those claims altogether.

Hope this does not come across as overly critical, I have tried to
openly respond to the document. I really like the concept of the
freedomtowers, and am curious about input from economists about
the feasability. Would indeed communities unite to fund such a
tower, or is there a danger that they will out-source this to companies
that specialize in providing this service and (as is inherent for
companies in a capitalist world) result in a handful of large
companies that own the majority of all freedom towers?

Of course, that is not necesarily a bad thing to happen, however
it does mean the fee you pay to the company is no longer just for
the freedom tower as well, but in larger parts for the overhead
too. Plus, it again gives those companies power over the bit-shifting
operations.

Anyway, i'm digressing. As for the document, ignore the above two
paragraphs.

--[[User:Gmc|Gmc]] 11:38, 25 August 2011 (CDT)

Talk:Ends and Means - Revision history

imported>Gmc: Initial comments on the text