[p2p-research] Application_Content_Infrastructure, important development

Michel Bauwens michelsub2004 at gmail.com
Mon Jun 7 09:04:47 CEST 2010 

thanks gordon1

On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 6:59 AM, Gordon Cook <cook at cookreport.com> wrote:

>  it's GordOn  ;-)
>
> St arnaud gave it the name application content infrastructure
>
> The important take away is that between 1995 and 2000 you got all traffic
> from one edge to another via 5 or 6 tier one carrier backbones and another 5
> or so tier two back bones -  every one else had to pay carrier backbone to
> deliver their traffic
>
> what is being is  here is that between 2000 and the present the incumbent
> duopoly did not invest in the core of the network leaving google amazon etc
> etc to build increasingly cheap and commoditized lightwaves from one edge of
> the net top the other  that most of the business software service ands
> content people built their own back bone infrastructure and pushed it as
> close to the customer as they could get.
>
> ATT wanted to charge google fo using its backbone.... att was lying google
> had built its own back bone and the FCC now operating on behalf of the
> incumbents no longer required them to disclose their infrastructure...they
> were there for quite free to lie.
>
> Arbor networks ( Craig labovitz)  last fall put out the first major study
> outling the new reality which is very hard to document because  att verizon
> are allowed to treat all their network data as proprietary
>    =============================================================
> The COOK Report on Internet Protocol, (PSTN) 609 882-2572 (Skype-in) 609
> 643-4067
> Back Issues:
> http://www.cookreport.com/index.php?option=com_docman&task=cat_view&gid=37&Itemid=61
>
>  Cook's Collaborative Edge Blog http://gordoncook.net/wp/
>  Subscription info:
> http://www.cookreport.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=54&Itemid=65
> =============================================================
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  On Jun 6, 2010, at 5:50 PM, Michel Bauwens wrote:
>
>  the name comes either from bill st. arnaud, or from comments about it by
> gorden cook ..
>
> http://p2pfoundation.net/Application_Content_Infrastructure
>
> On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 3:49 AM, Alex Rollin <alex.rollin at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I don't know where the ACI name came from.  It seems to me like saying
>> that there's a move to continue to distribute collective computing and
>> storage to the edge is sufficient.
>>
>> I think it's neat and I'll run a node.
>>
>> A
>>
>>   On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 10:10 PM, Michel Bauwens <
>> michelsub2004 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>   Hi sepp, I added it as a discussion item ... see
>>> http://p2pfoundation.net/Application_Content_Infrastructure
>>>
>>> Can you also post it as a blog discussion on the 14th?
>>>
>>> Michel
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 1:46 AM, Sepp Hasslberger <sepp at lastrega.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>>  Hi Michel,
>>>>
>>>> here is my view on the wiki entry on Application Content
>>>> Infrastructure.
>>>>
>>>> Where do you think this should be put to be available to those
>>>> interested, and would you think that the writer of the ACI paper should be
>>>> advised?
>>>>
>>>> Sepp
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is a very interesting discussion (I just re-read it) and it does
>>>> touch on the question of a user-owned network controlled by peers, although
>>>> it does not delve into how such a network could work. St. Arnaud talks about
>>>> the growing importance of Application Content Infrastructure (ACI) on the
>>>> net, and how much of the traffic that traditionally would go over the
>>>> internet backbone of internet service providers is actually being routed and
>>>> computed and stored in alternative ways.
>>>>
>>>>  *"Examples of ACIs include large distributed caching networks such as
>>>> Akamai, cloud service providers such as Amazon and Azure, Application
>>>> Service Providers (ASPs) like Google and Apple, Content Distribution
>>>> Networks (CDNs) such as Limelight and Hulu, and social networking services
>>>> like Facebook and Twitter. Many Fortune 500 companies like banks and
>>>> airlines have also deployed their own ACIs as an adjunct to their own
>>>> private wide area networks in order to provide secure and timely service to
>>>> their customers. Most major content and application organizations have
>>>> contracted with commercial ACIs or have deployed their own infrastructure.
>>>> ACIs also allows the content provider to load balance demand, so that
>>>> traffic in regions expressing excessive loads can be re-directed to nodes
>>>> where there is spare capacity.*
>>>>
>>>> *The end result is that with very little fanfare the Internet has been
>>>> transformed so much so over the past decade that virtually all major content
>>>> and every advanced application on the Internet is now delivered over an ACI
>>>> independent of the traditional carrier Internet backbones."*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In effect, the document says that ISPs are following the outdated model
>>>> of the phone companies but aren't really doing their job of connecting users
>>>> to the greater net with sufficient bandwidth for the content, especially
>>>> video, to arrive at the end user in a proper way. It goes on to make the
>>>> point that ACI or Application Content Infrastructure could be expanded, and
>>>> in conjunction with R&E (Regional and Educational) networks could get even
>>>> closer to the end user.
>>>>
>>>>  *"Up to most recently the text book model of the Internet was for
>>>> businesses and consumers to access the internet through a last mile provider
>>>> such as telephone or cable company. Their traffic would be sent across the
>>>> backbone to its destination by an Internet service provider. This model
>>>> worked reasonably well in the early days of the Internet but as new
>>>> multimedia content such as video and network applications evolved the
>>>> current model failed to provide a satisfactory quality of experience for
>>>> users in terms of responsiveness and speed. As a result a host of content,
>>>> application and hosting companies invested in something for the purposes of
>>>> this paper I have collectively labeled as a Application Content
>>>> Infrastructure (ACI) that complemented and expanded the original Internet
>>>> through the integration of computing, storage and network links."*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What is left open is how the last mile is going to function. The ISPs
>>>> seem to be too busy metering their pipes and even grading traffic, giving
>>>> priority to certain content and degrading the stuff that is seen as being in
>>>> violation of intellectual property laws and they forget that their job
>>>> includes to connect everyone with a sufficiently wide band connection for
>>>> content not to suffer degradation before arriving at the end user.
>>>>
>>>> Mobile networks are mentioned as a possible solution, but with demands
>>>> escalating, they may soon be running into the same trouble as current last
>>>> mile technologies.
>>>>
>>>> There is a mention of "customer owned networks" but with no vision of
>>>> how to achieve these.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I would like to make a point or two here, just for discussion.
>>>>
>>>> There are currently efforts to adapt WIFI technology to build mesh
>>>> networks, but WIFI was conceived as a short range technology and "last mile"
>>>> typically means we may be talking distances between nodes of several hundred
>>>> meters. This degrades signal throughput of WIFI, even with external
>>>> antennas. G3 or G4 mobile phone technology could help, but here we talk
>>>> about competing providers that are not about to share networks with each
>>>> other.
>>>>
>>>> In addition, there are fairly widespread concerns over the huge increase
>>>> in electromagnetic pollution brought to our homes by both WIFI and mobile
>>>> phone technologies, which are not going to go away, unless there is a change
>>>> in technical specs that can assure the electrosensitive that they have a
>>>> future that doesn't involve hiding out in far away places or wearing
>>>> protective clothing and installing special shielding in their homes.
>>>>
>>>> There IS an interesting technology that does not involve pulsed
>>>> microwaves as the transmission medium and that could - with some help - be
>>>> made available to end users, constructing a tight weave of local
>>>> connectivity that can tap into both ISPs and ACIs and their extensions and
>>>> that is sufficiently fast and robust to be a candidate.
>>>>
>>>> ISPs could perhaps be induced to adopt it as an alternative to building
>>>> out their last mile connectivity alone, which turns out to be very expensive
>>>> if it is to carry broadcast quality content. Users could be the ultimate
>>>> custodians of that type of network but it would imply end users and and ISPs
>>>> forming some kind of alliance, out of which the end users get free local
>>>> connectivity (they supply the electricity and basic maintenance) and ISPs
>>>> get a functioning last mile distribution and customers for their backbone
>>>> services.
>>>>
>>>> The vision is to take the light beams that travel through optic cables
>>>> and to replace the cables by simple light-based transmission, preferably
>>>> laser, between the end users. This would form a fault tolerant and fast
>>>> (high data throughput) network from one rooftop to the next, which would
>>>> make local connectivity free and fast. Not every end user would have to be
>>>> connected to the backbone. The user-cloud could be linked by what we might
>>>> call "super users" (those with need for high bandwidth or with need for
>>>> exceptionally stable connection) such as large businesses, educational
>>>> institutions, city hall, etc. to the optic cable backbones. Those
>>>> connections that are anyway needed and already paid for would be quite
>>>> sufficient to connect the user-cloud to the internet.
>>>>
>>>> The technology will need some development, but it has been proven to
>>>> work in concept. One implementation marries ultra wide band radio technology
>>>> with a laser and a single optic fiber:
>>>>
>>>> *"Moshe Ran, Coordinator of the EU-funded project, UROOF (Photonic
>>>> components for Ultra-wideband Radio Over Optical Fiber), has a vision. He
>>>> wants to see streams of high-definition video and other high-bandwidth
>>>> services flowing through homes, office buildings, and even ships and planes,
>>>> through a happy marriage of optical and ultra-wideband radio technologies."
>>>> *
>>>>
>>>> *The UROOF EAT system starts with a central laser that generates an
>>>> unmodulated optical signal and sends it through a single optical fibre to
>>>> remote units. In its downlink mode, the central unit receives a UWB radio
>>>> signal, modulates the optical carrier, and beams it to the remote units. In
>>>> the uplink mode, a remote EAT modulates the optical signal and sends it back
>>>> to the central station.*
>>>> *
>>>> *
>>>>
>>>> *The EAT based Access Node 2 has the potential to carry far more
>>>> information than Access Node 1, but there is a catch. "With EAT you can
>>>> approach 60 GHz," says Ran, "but it is expensive."*
>>>>
>>>> *The UROOF team is actively working to increase the bandwidth of Access
>>>> Node 2 and reduce its cost.*
>>>>
>>>> *Ran is encouraged by the progress UROOF has made. They have shown that
>>>> UWB signals can be beamed over hundreds of metres using inexpensive optical
>>>> technology, with greater bandwidth and longer distances in sight.*
>>>>
>>>> *"As ultra-wideband technology penetrates the mass market - within the
>>>> next two years - it will be possible to manufacture an access node that will
>>>> meet the demand very nicely," says Ran.*
>>>> ***The UROOF project received funding from ICT strand of the EU's Sixth
>>>> Framework Programme for research.*
>>>>
>>>> Link: http://www.cellular-news.com/story/34767.php
>>>>
>>>> Another way of linking is to directly beam the laser from one user's
>>>> device to a receiving sensor of another user as described in the patent
>>>> application of Ajang Bahar of Toronto, Canada.
>>>>
>>>>  *The current options for wireless communication have changed the way
>>>> people work and the way in which networks can be deployed. However, there
>>>> remains unresolved problems in the setup and configuration of wireless
>>>> communication links. Both known cellular and ad hoc wireless networking
>>>> protocols and systems are deficient in that the ability for users to
>>>> communicate without a priori knowledge of MAC addresses (represented by
>>>> phone numbers, IP addresses and the like) is limited or may be compromised
>>>> in a hostile environment. In contrast, provided by aspects of the present
>>>> invention are devices, systems and methods for establishing ad hoc wireless
>>>> communication between users that do not necessarily have MAC addresses and
>>>> the like for one another. In some embodiments, a first user visually selects
>>>> a second user and points a coherent light beam at an electronic device
>>>> employed by the second user. Data specific to the first user is modulated on
>>>> the coherent light beam, which can then be demodulated when the coherent
>>>> light beam is received by the electronic device of the second user.*
>>>>
>>>> Link: http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20080247345#ixzz0q61l0c8U
>>>>
>>>> A similar patent by Doucet and Panak can be found here:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=RbQjAAAAEBAJ&dq=6188988&ie=ISO-8859-1
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There is a paper by Akella and others of Rensselaer Polytechnic
>>>> Institute titled *Building Blocks for Mobile Free-Space-Optical
>>>> Networks.*
>>>>
>>>> *Optical wireless, also known as free space optics (FSO), is an
>>>> effective high bandwidth communication technology serving commercial
>>>> point-to-point links in terrestrial last mile applications and in infrared
>>>> indoor LANs. FSO has several attractive characteristics such as (i) dense
>>>> spacial reuse, (ii) low power usage per transmitted bit, (iii) license-free
>>>> band of operation, and (iv) relatively high bandwidth. Despite these
>>>> features it has not been considered as a communication environment for
>>>> general-purpose metropolitan area networks or multi-hop ad-hoc networks,
>>>> which are currently based on radio frequency (RF) communication
>>>> technologies...*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The US military has analyzed Free Space Optics as a transmission
>>>> technology and has produced and published a White Paper:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.docstoc.com/docs/25017951/Analysis-of-FSO
>>>>
>>>> My point is that the technology of optical transmission has been
>>>> explored and is technically feasible for last mile applications. Since users
>>>> can be connected to more than one peer, the network becomes fault tolerant.
>>>> Increasing proximity to a super-user, a node connected with the backbone,
>>>> will make for increasing reliability of the network.
>>>>
>>>> Now if telcos and ISPs could be induced to embrace that technology, a
>>>> simple, cheap implementation could be developed that could easilty be given
>>>> away to end users, in exchange for operation of the node. ISPs would have
>>>> resolved the problem of covering the last mile, while users would be linked
>>>> in to the internet at negligible or no cost and we would have a local p2p
>>>> network that data can travel on without having to go through any provider.
>>>> Even in a national context, data would only have to go short hops (such as
>>>> from one city to another) saving backbone capacity and making the net very
>>>> much more resilient.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sepp Hasslberger for the P2P Foundation
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  On 24/mag/10, at 10:27, Michel Bauwens wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  Sepp, Olivier, see
>>>> http://p2pfoundation.net/Application_Content_Infrastructure
>>>>
>>>> blog commentary and presentation would be much appreciated, see
>>>> discussion part for summary of implications of this new internet
>>>> infrastructure,
>>>>
>>>> Michel
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  -
>>>> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
>>>>
>>>> Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
>>>> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>>>>
>>>> Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
>>>> http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
>>>>
>>>> Think thank:
>>>> http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  -
>>> http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
>>>
>>> Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
>>> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>>>
>>> Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
>>> http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
>>>
>>> Think tank: http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> p2presearch mailing list
>>> p2presearch at listcultures.org
>>>
>>> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> p2presearch mailing list
>> p2presearch at listcultures.org
>> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> P2P Foundation: http://p2pfoundation.net  - http://blog.p2pfoundation.net
>
> Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
> http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org
>
> Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
> http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens
>
> Think tank: http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
>
>
>
>
>
>


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

Connect: http://p2pfoundation.ning.com; Discuss:
http://listcultures.org/mailman/listinfo/p2presearch_listcultures.org

Updates: http://del.icio.us/mbauwens; http://friendfeed.com/mbauwens;
http://twitter.com/mbauwens; http://www.facebook.com/mbauwens

Think tank: http://www.asianforesightinstitute.org/index.php/eng/The-AFI
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listcultures.org/pipermail/p2presearch_listcultures.org/attachments/20100607/99979b98/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the p2presearch mailing list