RE: Kitsap County

BPL is not that broadband (definition is nebulous), unless you are presently
stuck with rotten dial-up that can't get over 26 Kbps.  However, I have
recently heard of tests in which the presumed interference with amateur
radio was successfully notched-out.  Just doesn't seem to be one of those
attractive business cases.

Ken Meyer

  -----Original Message-----

  From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of K March
  Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 1:21 PM
  To: SeattleWireless Talk List

  Subject: Re: Kitsap County

  Interesting discussion.  Frankly I would like to see some broadband
service here where I live, as long as it is not over the power lines
(interferes with radio).  But my basic question still remains.  Given that i
have a good LOS shot to many areas on the Seattle side, is it possible using
WIFI, to set up a reliable link that is 15 miles or so?  If so what hardware
would be appropriate in addition to a high gain yagi?  Thanks
    ----- Original Message -----
    From: [email protected]
    To: SeattleWireless Talk List
    Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 12:50 PM
    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

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