Re: [gaia] [hrpc] Fibre Feudalism
Steve Song <stevesong@nsrc.org> Wed, 24 October 2018 12:55 UTC
Return-Path: <stephen.song@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: gaia@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 216A3129619 for <gaia@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Oct 2018 05:55:23 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.4
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.4 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, GB_AFFORDABLE=1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.249, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, LOTS_OF_MONEY=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HQHOxE3YW3E5 for <gaia@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Oct 2018 05:55:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk1-f175.google.com (mail-qk1-f175.google.com [209.85.222.175]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF667128DFD for <gaia@irtf.org>; Wed, 24 Oct 2018 05:55:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk1-f175.google.com with SMTP id m8-v6so3016376qka.12 for <gaia@irtf.org>; Wed, 24 Oct 2018 05:55:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=A7LqHbmB21ouuMpmjB1HLNTcrCYvVlBhJ+GX2D+qb9g=; b=kV4QiXu4MBifaQAC6lojQqJJhyMF4ufXCdzm+X73xB06FdFjD9TGU4tRwa08HxXFEn Tem5wcD96kbUWg66ws0EOgr5vCUuW4EA34xGz7o/efblukwMIA/F0vUc/YyekHScVWna rwxhnUrOeSgKPpYvJyzoqbGTegyh26eHp4hhWyCwN+/Lml19P+edOMEqX2fAwITqbTm/ SnFgxIGTgT81zF4X4g/2oS6Foq2/xoOjKkAVQSqZC6PnRlH7A9v6+CuKvoO6EZ1Hub8N M9xfxTbEHrBrWEvp13HlNWDivJuLjrgkACiFG6cM+tdZSUnZsdhoT1DKTFO5vDpBRQAK USNw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGRZ1gIpzkyk474jLcxyJNVRlPvAMXoC6u9SeugZHxHzowLZIKRO8xbg nF4ADscXRPLrBeomd81OId46mQRIMFGejco4h7sSbSLMKTI=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AJdET5e09or34r/yeniLP5kOBn2ThI7yYqmUq645rkB1Z2V+Nr6gbz8CWcdetbFNaUzwY3su/oxE2RLueg+rMNKgv0Y=
X-Received: by 2002:a37:7041:: with SMTP id l62-v6mr2149018qkc.294.1540385716974; Wed, 24 Oct 2018 05:55:16 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAD_CWO2=WS0E5HSrLmxPaMtESV5CVe+oKWDCDst6K8=7i=UpTA@mail.gmail.com> <b88433a6-873d-2333-ee40-8011d0c7d145@article19.org> <CAD_CWO1aHsQh-Rmq0Pd7J5Hc35Qfs5+A--y9MCy3kHt_Qsz0AA@mail.gmail.com> <2e2991e8-e44b-d90f-5411-9e2c2fadddba@article19.org> <770B9455-BAC5-4131-A871-0678B949F61D@webfoundation.org> <CAD_CWO3tGCg0k9QYHsrDvwTRe=oBGPkZpBBYwfEawYRJB3DKhg@mail.gmail.com> <CAHxHggcEvYNFdbkC-Cw-QTSpj6qR+qPEBEhi8njdxwZNVQr9cQ@mail.gmail.com> <6FE759E5-477D-488A-A7A3-D5241544AFF8@ac.upc.edu> <CAPkwMUcS3BOEHJ87YXqOb+2B2oTuDaJ36mY9r5kEdvzWjrfGuA@mail.gmail.com> <CACyT-3m-kB4n6w1y62h7QeyVG-b_y96XhSvyFmSi+Rgb6+P9qA@mail.gmail.com> <MWHPR04MB03352DC474C670FDB39952CDFFF60@MWHPR04MB0335.namprd04.prod.outlook.com> <a5bf1ae9-56b5-5737-fdb3-eb24a9ac8b03@article19.org>
In-Reply-To: <a5bf1ae9-56b5-5737-fdb3-eb24a9ac8b03@article19.org>
From: Steve Song <stevesong@nsrc.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 09:55:04 -0300
Message-ID: <CAD_CWO15qzLzz9Yu5_ocjCQnTyMeaP0pzoj3XekXL2SpxBRwPw@mail.gmail.com>
To: gaia <gaia@irtf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000007a504e0578f8ff1d"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/gaia/UhGCzhLMMt2vTaJ8oNUEDYFcCX4>
Subject: Re: [gaia] [hrpc] Fibre Feudalism
X-BeenThere: gaia@irtf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Global Access to the Internet for All <gaia.irtf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/options/gaia>, <mailto:gaia-request@irtf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/gaia/>
List-Post: <mailto:gaia@irtf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gaia-request@irtf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia>, <mailto:gaia-request@irtf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 12:55:23 -0000
In South Africa, universal service funds are being used to buy set-top-boxes to facilitate the switchover to digital terrestrial television broadcasting. https://www.itweb.co.za/content/G98Yd7LxOPj7X2PD In Mozambique, universal service funds were used to fund the construction of 103 mobile base stations of which 77 are non-functional today. Regards... Steve On Wed, 24 Oct 2018 at 09:23, Mallory Knodel <mallory@article19.org> wrote: > The USF in Kenya hit the front pages when it announced it would > (finally) spend its money (heretofore it is not clear if or how the > money was ever spent) on a rural connectivity project at $850k. Buried > in the text of the article it was noted that $10m would go to a > cybersecurity initiative of the President's office. > > > https://www.businessdailyafrica.com/economy/CA-s-Sh85m-plan-to-link-remote-areas-with-mobile-voice/3946234-4319204-gbsfna/index.html > > It would be really interesting to gather these unfortunate cases, as > Carlos suggests, but its a moving target. > > -Mallory > > On 24/10/2018 11:17, Arzak Khan wrote: > > The utilization of USF funds has been an issue in Pakistan where > > Ministry of IT and Telecoms has used the fund for building cricket > > stadiums, distributing smartphones to government employees and many > > other projects which has not impacted greatly on provisioning of > > broadband services in most of rural Pakistan. Building out fiber > > networks still remain a challenge and limited to few players only > > without promoting any competition. > > > > > > Arzak > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:* hrpc <hrpc-bounces@irtf.org> on behalf of Kurtis Heimerl > > <kheimerl@cs.washington.edu> > > *Sent:* Monday, October 22, 2018 6:44 AM > > *To:* Carlos Rey-Moreno > > *Cc:* gaia; vint=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org; Steve Song; hrpc@irtf.org; > > Leandro Navarro > > *Subject:* Re: [hrpc] [gaia] Fibre Feudalism > > > > I thought it worth noting that some of my experiences have been > > different than Carlos's; for example in an unnamed central asian country > > the regulator mentioned that the USF distribution is set in policy and > > they must, by law, return the money to the telecoms. Even in those with > > the ability to put the money elsewhere, there were occasionally > > structures that push the regulator to fund "related" but non-competitive > > services like computer or internet literacy. Tricky space with a lot of > > moving pieces. > > > > On Sun, Oct 21, 2018 at 10:58 PM Carlos Rey-Moreno > > <carlos.reymoreno@gmail..com <mailto:carlos.reymoreno@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > > Hi all, interesting debate indeed, and happy to join a further call > > on this, or even work in a document where we can consolidate these > > discussions. > > > > After having engaged with several regulators, and managers/officials > > from universal access agencies in Africa this year, my main take > > away is that they keep on using USO to incentivize incumbents to go > > to rural areas because that's the only way they know. Once they are > > presented with alternative models like the ones mentioned by > > Leandro, they are very open, in principle, to explore them. They are > > the ones who know how ineffective the current models are, but in > > most cases they are, as Steve points out, constrained by frameworks > > that only allow to use the fund to those who contribute to it. > > > > I think, at least in Africa, there is a very interesting opportunity > > to work together with USAF managers/officials to discuss an > > potentially implement innovative ways of using them. Consolidating > > the knowledge in this discussion and others in a working document, > > with the different advocates in the region speaking proposing the > > same thing, could contribute a lot in this direction. > > > > best, > > > > carlos > > > > On Sun, 21 Oct 2018 at 19:29, Leandro Navarro <leandro@ac.upc.edu > > <mailto:leandro@ac.upc.edu>> wrote: > > > > Agreed, but the sad thing is that practice (country policy) goes > > in the opposite way in the few cases I know where USO is a form > > of subsidy or tax deduction to benefit the incumbent only, > > before a legal monopoly. The typical government argument is that > > USO is paid by industry, that reflects this privilege or new > > form of monopoly/subsidy in favour of the incumbent only > > (everyone pays the king operator in the feudal metaphor). In > > consequence, the incumbent does the minimum required to justify > > receiving the funds to preserve the pool of unconnected as a > > source of future USO income (the serfs of the feudal system). > > > > For example, one fibre community network but can be any > > alternative operator to the incumbent, fears the effect of > > that: https://www.ispreview.co. > .uk/index.php/2017/11/b4rn-fear-10mbps-uk-broadband-uso-may-hamper-rural-ftth-rollout.html > > < > https://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2017/11/b4rn-fear-10mbps-uk-broadband-uso-may-hamper-rural-ftth-rollout.html > > > > > > That’s why USO as implemented can be counter effective. > > Alternative models of distribution, radically different, are > > needed, where all the funds are not given to a single operator > > (and deter investment by others), but to every citizen that > > qualifies (to free the serfs). Bottom-up (people centred) > > instead of top-down (incumbent centred). Something along those > > lines may contribute to increase alternatives and not just be > > used to mainly reinforce the de-facto monopoly of largest > > operators (for example: https://b4rn.org.uk/b4rn-service/gbvs/ ) > > Otherwise USO policies are mainly a form of public subsidy, a > > form of monopoly, to reinforce the incumbent, with the excuse of > > the underserved and unconnected. > > > > Leandro. > > > >> On 21 Oct 2018, at 18:15, Vint Cerf > >> <vint=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org > >> <mailto:vint=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote: > >> > >> Steve is spot on. > >> V > >> > >> On Sun, Oct 21, 2018, 09:53 Steve Song <stevesong@nsrc.org > >> <mailto:stevesong@nsrc.org>> wrote: > >> > >> Hi Amelia, Sonia, > >> > >> I agree this is a very interesting and timely debate and I > >> would be happy to participate in a discussion on this. > >> > >> Universal service funds that involve (or in many cases are > >> legally restricted to) giving money back to the incumbents > >> to build out infrastructure has proven (over and over and > >> over again) to be a terrible idea. I hope we can agree > >> that we should stop doing that. For me the issue is about > >> power and control and the way it is used to impede > >> competition. The cost of technology has plummeted in both > >> fibre and wireless technologies. In theory that should > >> have been a boon for competition but high spectrum auction > >> fees and licenses along with exclusive control of fibre > >> backbones has created an almost impenetrable barrier to > >> market entry. Any government intervention in universal > >> service should obliged to address the issue of market > >> permeability as well as ownership of and access to core > >> networks. > >> > >> Cheers... Steve > >> > >> On Sat, 20 Oct 2018 at 07:07, Sonia Jorge > >> <sonia.jorge@webfoundation.org > >> <mailto:sonia.jorge@webfoundation.org>> wrote: > >> > >> Hi All, > >> > >> Interesting discussion here. One that might warrant a > >> webinar/conference call among interested people? > >> Steve, what do you think? I would be happy to join a > >> stimulating discussion on the topic, starting with > >> your blog and the Access Model. > >> > >> Amelia, can you point me to some evidence or a paper > >> (anything you may have) that shows that relationship > >> between USO and quality of infrastructure? I find that > >> very difficult to believe but open to be proven wrong. > >> > >> Something important to keep in mind is that countries > >> where USO have been more instrumental are also > >> countries that have traditionally been poorer and > >> behind in terms of infrastructure development; this is > >> certainly the case in some Southern European countries > >> and maybe Eastern European ones as well. So the level > >> of economic development overall is a key variable. > >> > >> As for Africa and/or infrastructure investments, I > >> could share a lot here, but for now let me call your > >> attention to some reports we produced and that can add > >> to the discussion. > >> - A4AI’s annual Affordability > >> Report: > https://a4ai.org/affordability-report/report/2017/. > >> Note that the 2018 report will be launched and > >> published on Tuesday and addresses key questions > >> relevant to this discussion, specially on costs > >> associated with infrastructure investment > >> - a recent blog on infrastructure costs and > >> challenges: https://a4ai. > .org/affordable-internet-access-the-cost-challenge/ > >> < > https://a4ai.org/affordable-internet-access-the-cost-challenge/> > >> - For those interested in USFs in Africa, > >> see > https://a4ai.org/universal-service-and-access-funds-an-untapped-resource-to-close-the-gender-digital-divide/ > >> > >> Best, > >> Sonia Jorge > >> Executive Director, A4AI > >> Head of Digital Inclusion, Web Foundation > >> 1-617-905-7819 > >> > >> On Oct 20, 2018, at 05:33, Amelia Andersdotter > >> <amelia@article19..org <mailto:amelia@article19.org>> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Hi all, > >>> > >>> It might be helpful to know that EU countries where > >>> Universal Service > >>> Obligations have been extensively used and applied, > >>> also typically have > >>> worse infrastructure than EU countries where USO > >>> wasn't well applied. > >>> Applying USO means you put the government in a > >>> position where it faces > >>> off with the service provider under USO in a > >>> negotiation. The service > >>> provider has information advantage and typically a > >>> better relationship > >>> to its consumers than the government has to its > >>> citizens (so a > >>> communications advantage too). I lack experience of > >>> the African markets > >>> and their regulators, but in broad strokes those are > >>> the issues faced in > >>> various European jurisdictions with USO and I'm > >>> assuming similar > >>> difficulties would arise in the African setting. This > >>> is a bit > >>> theoretical, and I'm just curious how to avoid these > >>> information > >>> asymmetries? > >>> > >>> As it is described by Steven, the current feudalism > >>> (operators A, B and > >>> C all collaborate as soon as they own physical fibre > >>> networks) also > >>> incentivises many actors to get into the > >>> infrastructure market. That's > >>> fundamentally a good thing: it means not all the > >>> last-mile is owned by a > >>> few big actors who need to be regulated by a > >>> regulator who is > >>> fundamentally at a disadvantage compared to the big > >>> actors. It's the > >>> main criticism targetting the Local Loop Unbundling > >>> reform of 1999 in > >>> the EU as well - challengers don't invest enough in > >>> last-mile > >>> infrastructure (except in those EU markets where many > >>> different actors > >>> have had regulatory incentives to build their own > >>> networks, or where > >>> there has been purposeful public investment in > >>> last-mile). Or am I > >>> misunderstanding something? > >>> > >>> best regards, > >>> > >>> Amelia > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On 2018-10-04 20:52, Steve Song wrote: > >>>> Hi Mallory, > >>>> > >>>> Thanks for that! I think you are on exactly the > >>>> right track in terms > >>>> of thinking about economic models. Thanks to Erick > >>>> Huerta of > >>>> Rhizomatica, I am very taken with the thinking of > >>>> French economic > >>>> historian, Fernand Braudel.. Braudel argues that > >>>> the world has three > >>>> economies not one. A global economy which is the > >>>> well-known > >>>> capitalist economic model where monopoly is the > >>>> perfect end-game in > >>>> theory for every player. Google, Colgate, > >>>> Coca-Cola, all the usual > >>>> suspects form part of this economy. The second > >>>> economy is the Local > >>>> Economy where services are specific to the > >>>> city/community where you > >>>> live. This might be your local butcher, baker, > >>>> plumbers or even > >>>> larger service provider which offers services that > >>>> grow out of local > >>>> demand and which serve local needs in more unique > >>>> ways than the Global > >>>> Economy. The third economy is the Subsistence > >>>> economy where market > >>>> forces may not operate because there is not > >>>> sufficient traditional > >>>> capital to make it work. This is the world of the > >>>> informal economy > >>>> with barters, cooperatives, community initiatives > >>>> that directly > >>>> contribute to the overall economy but are largely > >>>> unmeasured by > >>>> traditional statistics. And woven among these are > >>>> both commercial and > >>>> commons models, which can operate with varying > >>>> success at the > >>>> different levels. > >>>> > >>>> When viewed through this lens, it is easy to see how > >>>> regulation has > >>>> only enabled the global economy in telecommunication > >>>> and that there is > >>>> a need for enabling regulations to nurture telecom > >>>> initiatives in the > >>>> Local and Subsistence economies. > >>>> > >>>> For me this also highlights a key flaw in models > >>>> like the World Bank's > >>>> Access Gap model > >>>> < > http://blogs.worldbank.org/ic4d/the-gaps-model-and-universal-access>. It > >>>> is not so much that the model is wrong, it is just > >>>> one-dimensional; > >>>> assuming that successful global capitalism is the > >>>> best of all possible > >>>> outcomes. > >>>> > >>>> Writing more about this shortly. > >>>> > >>>> Cheers... Steve > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Thu, 4 Oct 2018 at 10:57, Mallory Knodel > >>>> <mallory@article19.org <mailto:mallory@article19.org> > >>>> <mailto:mallory@article19.org>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Hi Steve, > >>>> > >>>> Thanks for sharing. I read it last night and I > >>>> really enjoyed it.. I > >>>> think the metaphor is solid economically. And > >>>> politically, well, that > >>>> could be another post in and of itself.. > >>>> > >>>> The agrarian commons would of course be ideal, > >>>> but what we have is a > >>>> sort of old-world economic structure that > >>>> politically controls and > >>>> profits from (what should be) the commons. This > >>>> sets you up nicely to > >>>> call for modern economic models ranging from > >>>> squarely capitalist to > >>>> socialist, and even (back to) the commons! > >>>> > >>>> I'm CCing HRPC because it might be of interest to > >>>> those who have > >>>> raised > >>>> issues of centralisation on the list in the past. > >>>> > >>>> -Mallory > >>>> > >>>> On 04/10/2018 15:30, Steve Song wrote: > >>>>> Hi all, > >>>>> > >>>>> This is a reflection on the current state of > >>>>> terrestrial fibre > >>>>> infrastructure in Sub-Saharan Africa (but I think > >>>>> applies just about > >>>>> everywhere). > >>>>> > >>>>> > https://manypossibilities.net/2018/10/fibre-feudalism/ > >>>>> > >>>>> Curious to know how apt you feel the metaphor is or > >>>>> any other > >>>> reactions > >>>>> you may have. > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks..... Steve Song > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>> gaia mailing list > >>>>> gaia@irtf.org <mailto:gaia@irtf.org> > >>>>> <mailto:gaia@irtf.org> > >>>>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> Mallory Knodel > >>>> Head of Digital :: article19.org > >>>> <http://article19.org/> <http://article19.org > >>>> <http://article19.org/>> > >>>> gpg fingerprint :: E3EB 63E0 65A3 B240 BCD9 B071 > >>>> 0C32 A271 BD3C C780 > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> gaia mailing list > >>>> gaia@irtf.org <mailto:gaia@irtf.org> > >>>> <mailto:gaia@irtf..org <mailto:gaia@irtf.org>> > >>>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> +1 902 529 0046 > >>>> stevesong@nsrc.org <mailto:stevesong@nsrc.org> > >>>> <mailto:stevesong@nsrc.org> > >>>> http://nsrc..org <http://nsrc..org/> > >>>> <http://nsrc.org <http://nsrc.org/>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> hrpc mailing list > >>>> hrpc@irtf.org <mailto:hrpc@irtf.org> > >>>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/hrpc > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Amelia Andersdotter > >>> Technical Consultant, Digital Programme > >>> > >>> ARTICLE19 > >>> www.article19.org <http://www.article19.org/> > >>> > >>> PGP: 3D5D B6CA B852 B988 055A 6A6F FEF1 C294 B4E8 0B55 > >>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> gaia mailing list > >>> gaia@irtf.org <mailto:gaia@irtf.org> > >>> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia > >> _______________________________________________ > >> gaia mailing list > >> gaia@irtf.org <mailto:gaia@irtf.org> > >> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> +1 902 529 0046 > >> stevesong@nsrc.org <mailto:stevesong@nsrc.org> > >> http://nsrc..org <http://nsrc.org/> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> gaia mailing list > >> gaia@irtf.org <mailto:gaia@irtf.org> > >> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> gaia mailing list > >> gaia@irtf.org <mailto:gaia@irtf.org> > >> https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia > > > > -- > > Leandro Navarro > > http://people.ac.upc.edu/leandro http://dsg..ac.upc.edu > > <http://dsg.ac.upc.edu> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > gaia mailing list > > gaia@irtf.org <mailto:gaia@irtf.org> > > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia > > > > > > > > -- > > Carlos Rey-Moreno, PhD > > "Community and Local Access Networks" Project Coordinator > > Association for Progressive Communications > > > https://www.apc.org/en/project/local-access-networks-can-unconnected-connect-themselves > > <https://www.apc. > .org/en/project/local-access-networks-can-unconnected-connect-themselves> > > Cel: +27 (0) 76 986 3633 > > Skype: carlos.reymoreno Twitter: Creym > > _______________________________________________ > > gaia mailing list > > gaia@irtf.org <mailto:gaia@irtf.org> > > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia > > > > > > > > -- > > Public Key: https://flowcrypt.com/pub/kheimerl@cs.washington.edu > > > > _______________________________________________ > > gaia mailing list > > gaia@irtf.org > > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia > > > > > -- > Mallory Knodel > Head of Digital :: article19.org > gpg fingerprint :: E3EB 63E0 65A3 B240 BCD9 B071 0C32 A271 BD3C C780 > > _______________________________________________ > gaia mailing list > gaia@irtf.org > https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/gaia > -- +1 902 529 0046 stevesong@nsrc.org http://nsrc.org
- [gaia] Fibre Feudalism Steve Song
- Re: [gaia] Fibre Feudalism Mallory Knodel
- Re: [gaia] Fibre Feudalism Steve Song
- Re: [gaia] [hrpc] Fibre Feudalism Amelia Andersdotter
- Re: [gaia] [hrpc] Fibre Feudalism Sonia Jorge
- Re: [gaia] [hrpc] Fibre Feudalism Michael J. Oghia
- Re: [gaia] [hrpc] Fibre Feudalism Henning Schulzrinne
- Re: [gaia] [hrpc] Fibre Feudalism Amelia Andersdotter
- Re: [gaia] [hrpc] Fibre Feudalism Amelia Andersdotter
- Re: [gaia] [hrpc] Fibre Feudalism Michael J. Oghia
- Re: [gaia] [hrpc] Fibre Feudalism Steve Song
- Re: [gaia] [hrpc] Fibre Feudalism Sonia Jorge
- Re: [gaia] [hrpc] Fibre Feudalism Vint Cerf
- Re: [gaia] [hrpc] Fibre Feudalism Leandro Navarro
- Re: [gaia] [hrpc] Fibre Feudalism Carlos Rey-Moreno
- Re: [gaia] [hrpc] Fibre Feudalism Kurtis Heimerl
- Re: [gaia] [hrpc] Fibre Feudalism Arzak Khan
- Re: [gaia] [hrpc] Fibre Feudalism Mallory Knodel
- Re: [gaia] [hrpc] Fibre Feudalism Jane Coffin
- Re: [gaia] [hrpc] Fibre Feudalism Steve Song
- Re: [gaia] [hrpc] Fibre Feudalism Henning Schulzrinne
- Re: [gaia] [hrpc] Fibre Feudalism Sonia Jorge
- Re: [gaia] [hrpc] Fibre Feudalism Jane Coffin
- Re: [gaia] [hrpc] Fibre Feudalism Steven G. Huter
- Re: [gaia] [hrpc] Fibre Feudalism Jane Coffin
- Re: [gaia] [hrpc] Fibre Feudalism Adam Burns
- Re: [gaia] [hrpc] Fibre Feudalism Sonia Jorge
- Re: [gaia] [hrpc] Fibre Feudalism Jane Coffin