Of all the communication models out there, it should be no surprise to anyone who knows my computing background that I prefer the networked model.

One of my company's clients is a provider of wireless network technology (used, for instance, to connect an array of environmental sensors together). It strikes me that their topology is strikingly appropriate to interpersonal communication models (but perhaps to the exclusion of the traditional "transmission models," which, although flawed, still have some relevance to broadcast media).

They use an "untethered, mobile ad hoc network." Unteathered means wireless, very appropriate. Mobile means moveable, also appropriate for our portable device world. Ad hoc means you can join the network on the fly by hooking up with any other network node (as opposed to having to register yourself with some central authority).

The key variables affecting the success of any network in this model are range (how far apart each node is), power (how far each node can shout), data rate (how fast each node can talk), duty cycle (the frequency and duration of active communication), scalability (how big the network can grow and remain successful) and mobility (how easily each node can move). Very interesting approach, but like most any model, limited. The key limitation is that each node belongs to only one network, while IRL, communication nodes belong to many different networks.

Our client actually addresses this limitation in part by adopting a hybrid star-mesh network topology, which allows for nodes to serve as both communication hubs and end-points. With some more sophisticated routing protocols, the network can be dynamically reconfigured to permit different transmission routes for different purposes (for instance, by reprioritizing route preferences for each node). While this would in theory accomodate multiple networks, it would not accomodate multiple simultaneous networks.

But, since we're talking "theory" and "model" here, there's no reason why you can't create an "overlay" model with multiple network configurations represented by different layers of acetate describing possible network configurations on top of a map of the individual nodes. The model would require multiple network "stacks" (apologies to TCP/IP-savvy folks for stretching the term) to handle each possible network configuration.

This modified model works really well for interpersonal communication, and handles mediated communication as well. Broadcasters simply have more "power" (they can shout farther, and thus reach more nodes). The model also accomodates multiple data transmission models. While broadcast nodes rely on "periodic" one-way transmission methods, they can also rely on "store and forward" techniques (similar to what is used by e-mail servers) to allow messages (ads, movies, programs) to collect up and wait for receipt (think TiVO here). Blog nodes use a combination of periodic (e.g., one post a day) or "event-driven" ("I just read a great article") transmission methods, while RSS nodes are purely event-driven ("something was posted so I'll pass it on").

The rest of us interpersonal communicators are using bi-directional methods such as "polling," where regular nodes of a network check in on other nodes from time to time (checking to see what's new out there, or how friends are doing, or where the FedEx shipment is) or "on-demand" methods whereby we join a network temporarily, communicate, and leave.

Wikis can be diagrammed quite easily--they're "hubs" in a network, but their transmission method is a little harder to pin down. One could argue that they're the opposite of the broadcast node, in that all of the contributions come from other nodes, but of course this is too simple--they're a "many-to-many" hub node, capable of becoming a huge communication nexus by their very nature. And of course each blog and each wiki and each website has different pages, but specific nodes can easily be pages, and described using Internet-conventions such as URIs (uniform resource identifiers, the most common example of which is a web site URL, but they can also describe people, phone numbers, FTP sites, etc. etc.).

This model could be diagrammed similarly to the one-to-one diagram Don illustrated a few weeks back. Range would be illustrated by the space between nodes, while power can be illustrated by concentric fading circles surrounding a node, similar to the diagram above. Data rate can be illustrated by the thickness of lines between nodes and duty cycle by the size of line dashes. Scalability and mobility are a little more systemic, but can be illustrated dynamically. You can use arrows to signify communication direction (which would illustrate situations like one-to-one, one-to-many, many-to-one or many-to-many).

In fact, the only thing this model is short on that I can see is the message itself (oh, is that all?). There's no discussion about context, meaning, etc. More to follow...