RE: Kitsap County

It is unlikely, considering the muscle that the lobbyist business wields,
and the direction in which the FCC and the Congress faces today, that we
will have, anytime soon, a city network that competes directly with
commercial interests, the way, for instance, that Tacoma's Click! network
does with respect to cable TV.  In fact, I understand that "utilities
districts" are now specifically prohibited, by Federal legislation, from so
doing (though municipalities theoretically still can, for the present).

However, it is very difficult for a start-up to wire a city, leaving Comcast
as a monopoly to bleed you dry, if you have any hope of receiving CNN, and
anything at all on the far side of Seattle's hills (remember, that was the
initial rational for installing cable).  But, if the pipe were already in
place and available, we may see competition for the distribution of
channels, perhaps including the ability to subscribe to individual channels
the way you can now buy a single track of music.  Then Comcast may well have
to back-off, and we can actually have the type of Capitalistic competition
that the R's profess to support, but then do their best to inhibit when
their buddies are involved.

Ken Meyer

  -----Original Message-----
  From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of [email protected]
  Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 12:50 PM
  To: SeattleWireless Talk List
  Subject: Re: Kitsap County


  I agree with your altruistic motivations but don't think a separate
network will evolve anytime soon.  And it doesn't matter if it does because
that is a different issue than building out a government sponsored node or
FTTP network.  The political and economic reality is that independent
networks from the Internet and commercial services that most business rely
is limited and not something governments are likely to take an active role
in developing.  It is easier to attract participation with honey than fly
swatters.  The goal of community wireless groups should be to gain
widespread access to enabling bandwidth and reliable service platforms.  I
think the best way to do that is to take the line of least resistance for
government sponsored projects and that is an open access fiber utility node
model.  If you want to build an independent network that tells Comcast,
Qwest and others to shove it then more power to you.. but don't fool
yourself into thinking that makes any sense politically or commercially.
Maybe as systems and infrastructure evolve that dream can be realized.  But
first there needs to be infrastructure of the sort that CWN are simply not
capable of providing on a consistent, reliable and pervasive basis.

  I am interested in the City of Seattle and regional efforts for my own
sake and can only suggest the way I think makes best sense for SWN to
participate if anyone cares to.  You certainly can pursue whatever course
you think makes sense and I wish you success.


    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Todd Boyle
    To: SeattleWireless Talk List
    Cc: SeattleWireless Talk List
    Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 11:46 AM
    Subject: Re: Kitsap County


    Thanks Rob, my 2 cents is that the performance of Qwest, Verizon
    and Comcast in the region has been lagging so grossly, the
    improvments in price/performance of networking equipment, for
    so many years, it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that a 3rd
network
    must be built.    Municipalities must get behind it, in the obvious ways
    (nurturing, and subsidizing and protecting the people and organizations
    who build publicly accessible links; providing governance to ensure
    equal access to the facilities, providing rights of way, etc. and most
    of all, actively educating the public and promoting the 3rd network. )
    I expect WiMax to be as impotent as WiFi if we don't have numerous
    gateways, supported by fiber, at spacing less than a kilometer apart
    (or pick your own figure)

    Todd

    At 10:29 AM 12/10/2004, [email protected] wrote:

      Cost of doing FTTP equipment has come down and should move down
further but
      the cost of installation has not gone down appreciably.  Current data
from
      City of Seattle and service companies shows that the reality of
installing
      fiber optic is difficult for some of the same reasons you mention
about
      difficulties of achieving NLOS wireless performance: trees, buildings,
      roads, underground utilities, etc. get in the way and drive up
installed
      cost.  The model deployments the fiber industry give as examples tend
to be
      in flat arid places such as Salt Lake, Utah.  Examples in our own
state show
      a failure of fiber to meet cost objectives.  Presentations aside, the
real
      world of fiber is bound by high installation costs that can't be
integrated
      into an IC.

      Arguments that WiMAX doesn't work should consider why cellular works
      sufficiently well to have become more common overseas than wired
telephones.
      Any wireless communications sees the same level of signal attenuation
and
      scattering due to 'wet leaves' or other environmental phenomena.
Doesn't
      take an Einstein to figure that out.  New technologies such as MIMO,
while
      unable to prevent signal attenuation, actually take advantage of
multipath
      signals to increase effective bandwidths and reliability.  That seems
      counter-intuitive to many RF people.  But it is a reality that is
starting
      to be exploited in new pre-N WiFi devices.

      Does cellular offer dial tone? Cable?  Are cities ready to compete
      head-to-head with local phone companies to provide dial tone service?
I
      don't think that is politically appetizing in a large metro area like
      Seattle and is precisely why I recommend deployment of a network of
open
      nodes.  From there customers and service providers can choose - if
they want
      dial tone over fiber then more power to them.  If they want very low
cost
      WiFi based service, that's great too.  If they want Gbit Ethernet
(802.3ah
      extended range Ethernet over fiber or cat cable), then if it works or
      someone is willing to pay for it, that great too.  Will WiMAX fill the
bill?
      Let the customer and service providers decide if that makes sense and
if the
      technology is developing and costs are falling as advocates claim will
      happen.  First things first:  before anyone can deliver public access
      broadband with a mix of services including HDTV and mobile
      emergency/security services, a backbone node structure needs to be put
in
      place.  If after the 2-3 years it takes to make that happen WiMAX
proves to
      be as limited as you suggest, then simple - just don't use it for
      applications it doesn't fit.  Same is true for every other broadband
system.


      > If a government entity is to get behind a huge system deployment, I
      believe
      > it should address the "triple-play": video, voice and data.  That
means
      > "dial-tone reliability"  and a really FAT pipe.  At my current state
of
      > understanding, I don't believe that WiMax will satisfy either of
these
      from
      > either sight-line or reliability. Maybe in LA, where you can see
Pasadena
      > from Palos Verdes.
      >
      > Also, the cost of doing fiber-to-the-home is plummeting as the big
boys
      take
      > on some major installations and buy equipment units by the
thousands.  At
      > the last Broadband Task Force Meeting, there was a really compelling
      > presentation on passive optical.  Wireless has many applications
where
      fiber
      > just won't hack it: guest, mobile, lousy terrain with sparse user
      > population, but in Seattle city?  I need a lot more convincing, and
I'm
      not
      > ready to sacrifice all of the flora in the neighborhood to get rid
of the
      > "wet-leaves" syndrome.
      >
      > As far as an "open network" is concerned, sure, that's great, and it
is
      the
      > model being used in some places.
      >
      > Ken Meyer
      >
      >
      > -----Original Message-----
      >
      > From: [email protected]
      > [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Rob S
      > Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2004 6:50 PM
      > To: SeattleWireless Talk List
      >
      > Subject: Re: Kitsap County
      >
      > What community wireless groups should be excited about is the
prospect of
      > untapping a huge resource of fiber optic network grids. Many
government
      > entities want to build out bb networks; but like the effort in
Kitsap
      > county, these efforts were half baked: they came from a 'top down'
      > perspective of looking at the network with the end-user connection
being
      > thought of as the 'last mile'.  Dingo brained.
      >
      > The customer connection is
      > the 'first mile'... the part of the overall netowrk that has to make
sense
      > from both a technical and a financial perspective.  the efforts in
Kitsap
      > and other regional fiber efforts are more often proving to be
uneconomical
      > because they use power utilities to build out fiber optic girds, but
then
      > find the 'last mile' fiber connection to the user to be too
expensive to
      > justify.  Then the fixed cost of the grid turns out to be supported
by too
      > few users.   This is thinking that was generated from within these
      > utilites... a natural path to disastor.
      >
      > But what if these governments and
      > public utilities were encouraged to build out the fiber grid to
terminate
      > into Ethernet nodes (prefereably 802.3ah that could the be branched
out
      via
      > Gb Ethernet (new 802.3ah standard gear can be fiber of Ethernet
cable up
      to
      > 1,200 feet) where WiMAX or extended range 802.11n WiFi could link to
end
      > users?  Imo this is where community wireless should be influencing
      > governments to head.  And this is how governments can make sense out
of
      the
      > fiber networks similar to Kitsap - use them to provide a network of
open
      > nodes that can connect for the 'first mile' connection to the user.
      >
      > Commuity wireless groups have a role to play if they chose to take
part,
      > imo.
      > The message should be "Provide an open standards based on IP
Ethernet
      > interconnet between fiber and wireless broadband, and let the best
      > technology
      > and service providers dertermine what is best".  Community wireless
groups
      > think wireless is the 'way to go'; but I don't think they should
push that
      > as
      > THE solution.
      >
      > "Just let us have open access" should be the mantra.  If WiFi
      > or WiMAX or mixed mode of the two is best will be determined over
time due
      > to how these things develope.. and shouldn't be mandated by any
vested
      > interest group up front.. not even this group.  That should be the
common
      > message of CWN groups to governement, because if wireless is the
better
      > approach, as many of us think, then it will gain it's place on it's
      merits.
      >
      > An open network should be something that government welcomes.. if
the
      idiots
      > can understand it.
      >
      >
      > ----- Original Message -----
      >
      > From: "K March" <[email protected]>
      > To: <[email protected]>
      > Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2004 3:07 PM
      >
      > Subject: Kitsap County
      >
      > > There is no wireless in Kitsap County that I know of. However, I
am on a
      > > high hill (400 feet) with a 160 foot tower near Poulsbo and would
like
      to
      > > "connect" into Seattlewireless.  Parts of Seattle are line of site
to
      me,
      > > but the distance is around 15 miles.  Any ideas on what hardware
might
      > > work to accomplish this?
      > >
      > > Thanks,
      > >
      > > Bob
      >
      > _______________________________________________
      > Talk mailing list
      > [email protected]
      > http://seattlewireless.net/mailman/listinfo/talk
      >
      _______________________________________________
      Talk mailing list
      [email protected]
      http://seattlewireless.net/mailman/listinfo/talk


----------------------------------------------------------------------------


    _______________________________________________
    Talk mailing list
    [email protected]
    http://seattlewireless.net/mailman/listinfo/talk

_______________________________________________
Talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://seattlewireless.net/mailman/listinfo/talk