<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1400" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><FONT size=2>
<P></P>
<P>Free translation from a swedish document discussing the 3G dilema.</P>
<P>The third generation Mobile tlepephony are now rouling out in europe, and the
hopes are high. Everyone expect that everyone shall buy one. "3G the new
massmedia" The new way of communicationg with text and live images on a very
skinny screen. The problem is as if would be full member. You have to pay for
you megabytes. "For every 2 Megabytes - I shot you in</P>
<P>your pocket. " Meaning reading this text is a price per word And I would
become very ritch.</P>
<P>Now I donīt in this matter want to become ritch since - I value more my and
others freespeech, except <BR>some food on the table..</P>
<P>- Now that would not work, and if - you get an idea of whats on - specially
when you allready had payed for the magazine, and then again have to pay for the
article you are reading. Smart</P>
<P>but dumb.. "In that way we do control the thought and how its spreading - And
a threat to the life truthly freedom of expression these, yes i said it.</P>
<P>The third generation mobile phone technology is SLOWER than the DSL systems
where you</P>
<P>pay a fixed rate. But if you sell an idea - that doesnīt matter. Its a threat
anyway to the ones that just thinks this a cool device - "Control the people
device" As of this writing - I listened to a mexican webradio station over
winamp(www.winamp.com) and where anyone that likes to can send over this
systems. there are many other systems out there. But just to give an
example.</P>
<P>The funcy megabytes are steaming over to my other end here in the world, but
with 3G this would not be possible. It does cost to much to use, and in relation
o f the idea of expressionfreedome in contradiction to cost, what your mind is
worth the bag, it seams like less worth when they have putted several biljons in
the technical, and the invesment for the rouleout itself. The main buisness idea
is to make money on</P>
<P>peoples personal relations ... in an free open information socity. -and in a
system and in a world <BR>that is grounded on the simplest group theory there
is.</P>
<P>"The people IS the network." but yet - the wirelss technology and its
efficentcy with 802.11b technology</P>
<P>one have much to ask for before its a complete system,</P>
<P>In the relation to 3G Why in the hole world have they built a basestation
based system. <BR>When its not safe at all to just reley on a fixed backbone
system at all.</P>
<P>I have the personal meaning that 3G as in its own way do threaten the
personal <BR>intregity, based on the fact with a qestion - who is owning the
centralistic network <BR>- and too what purpose?!</P>
<P>The qestion might not be valid in a scenario of point to point communication,
the goverment</P>
<P>didnīt came to be that "embarrensed" in the closed phone world. Now when you
go over to <BR>a new public electronic media - there is to my knowlage not so
many rules that are in to <BR>protect you as an individual in that electronic
space. Opening envelopes as it happends </P>
<P>is not okey, but in the electronic world it is very well accepted. </P>
<P>but then add some freakouts on images that comes out here and there - and
information </P>
<P>leaks out here and there - the qestion about a certain control can end up
terrible bad. </P>
<P>Some Viberations from 9/11 and you can probably see my thouhgt.</P>
<P>Other qestions what more systems can you connect to this type of network?
RFID?</P>
<P>smart juvelery? nice ears? </P>
<P>There is no citicien foundation image over the hole system. That is needed -
there need</P>
<P>to be a discussion between the users over the techinical details - like the
Internet taskforce</P>
<P>have had, but more based on the users and their contribution to the
network..</P>
<P>And it might be for a good contribution to the network and its fine tuning or
for other</P>
<P>purposes regarding is content. No such initsatives, its a completly comersial
network</P>
<P>dot. There is no qestions what soever asked about who is sitting in thoes 3G
company<BR>boards. My experience from the old university days, was that there
where a computer</P>
<P>association - and there where a guy in the middle people asked and had
atleast some</P>
<P>kind of communication too. Now that image is about to fade away.</P>
<P>The idea of a product, comes here even to the most basic things like </P>
<P>democracy and humans and their networks - as is totaly wrong to my point</P>
<P>of view. My thesis is a qestion: Its not right to earn money out of peoples
relations</P>
<P>and there by one have to create such technogies that empowers the
democracy</P>
<P>system even in in the network structure itself, "making it easy to make
network</P>
<P>with allmost a empty pocket" Many other things comes in hand - the
infrastructure <BR>thanks to the idea of "every one is the network" demands
better routing technologies</P>
<P>that will stand everything from world catastrophes, comests crashing in, data
that must</P>
<P>be moved FAST from one location to another to the real streaming enthusiasm
that </P>
<P>organisations like ARRL have. Whith the idea that the information has more
value</P>
<P>that the network itself. No such thought in our well known 3G.</P>
<P>A system that is govered from just only one side - will allways have the one
side</P>
<P>point of view - on what kind of content that is good or not. What makes me
think</P>
<P>this is bad or not - its the feeling of the 9.11 that can screw up things
realy hard</P>
<P>it wouldnīt be for the net thoes images from irak came out in the other
hand</P>
<P>and it would not be for the fact that USA acted "wrong" when there where </P>
<P>free information access - and by remote they should provide for <BR>better
teaching systems.</P>
<P>How will the future end up? - The best thing would be - if there were a
online</P>
<P>system for wireless knowlage transport. A new WWW system that could</P>
<P>more conjuctively and interactively take care of peoples current
knowlages</P>
<P>and where as in interactivly books -give education from the point they
stod</P>
<P>and breathed, emfasising on creativity - the intuetive learning model. And
real</P>
<P>problem based networking between real people and how resources could</P>
<P>be administred better. But that is just a dream?</P>
<P>The real qestion that matters - is that everything that do happends inbetween
our</P>
<P>closed doors will become public property when ever we do not expect it. I am
afraid</P>
<P>that James orwells visions are about to come true. But it should matter if
</P>
<P>the network itself are made so that people have a vote within the system
-</P>
<P>where content and sperading of knowlage in a non closed way could</P>
<P>help people to understand and administer resoruces better.. </P>
<P> </P>
<P> </P>
<P> </P>
<P> </P>
<P> </P>
<P></P>
<P> </P>
<P> </P></FONT></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>