RE: Kitsap County

Ah, Jim, I was hoping to "smoke you out" on these arcane technical issues.

No, the presenter is not a Cisco employee; he works for a municipality and
is using a Cisco WiFi unit as the nexus of a system installed in police
cars.  He had a presentation in the can on a level that would be OK for
folks who are router-gurus but not wireless-heads.

His specifically stated concern was for the output transistors in commonly
available equipment, which he claimed were not up to the demands of
transmitting over the relatively broad spectrum that OFDM requires.  I am
not qualified to judge the accuracy of this allegation, but the fellow did
say a bunch of other things that I know to be true, so....

I am hesitant to introduce him into this public discussion without his
approval, but if you wish to rebut, I would attempt to forward it to him and
invite him to jump-in here if he is willing to.

Ken Meyer


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

From: Jim Thompson [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 2:30 PM
To: [email protected]; SeattleWireless Talk List
Cc: [email protected]

Subject: Re: Kitsap County

Utah's "UTOPIA" started out as a community network.  (Literally the
fiber ran down the fence.)   No reason why it couldn't be
duplicated.

I think the thing below about OFDM requiring high power is some potent
BS.  Is that an official Cisco position?


On Dec 10, 2004, at 9:27 AM, Ken Meyer wrote:

> According to the presenter, including in discussion after the BTT
> meeting,
> cost of the CPE has dropped by 50%, FIFTY PERCENT, over the past year,
> due
> to the commitment of Verizon, Bell South and others to large-scale
> deployment.
>
> He also stated that deployment on poles was "easy" and that the fiber
> could
> be pulled in conduit maintained by other utilities, which was also
> pretty
> easy, when available.
>
> If the fiber is to be used for the triple-play, there are a whole lot
> of
> currently imposed charges for telephone and cable TV available to be
> focused
> on amortizing the investment in the fiber installation; and of course,
> there's the already installed fiber that has capacity.
>
> Also, the presenter pointed out the vast cost difference (a factor of
> three,
> perhaps) between the deployment of an active (switched) network, e.g.
> Grant
> County and Utah's Utopia, and the passive network he was describing.
>
> All I have to say about cell reliability is. "...can you hear me now?"
> Also, micro-coverage is very spotty.  This may be acceptable
> reliability for
> confirming a lunch date with your sweetie, and analog transmission of
> verbal
> information does not have to be "bit-accurate" for intelligibility.  I
> for
> one, am not going to accept that for my fixed-base, 24x7
> communications link
> to the world.  Anyway, it is my understanding that WiMax doesn't
> provide the
> bandwidth to hack it with such apps as streaming vid.  Certainly, cell
> data
> transmission is not that great.
>
> At another presentation this week (Cisco Users' Group), I asked a
> presenter
> why he shut-off OFDM in a mobile WiFi network he has created, inasmuch
> as I
> understand that OFDM is more tolerant of non-LOS scenarios.  The
> answer was
> that most of the gear doesn't use electronic components that are
> "healthy"
> enough to support OFDM, which requires a relatively large amount of
> power to
> transmit in a manner that really takes advantage of its capabilities.
> I have
> to take his word for it; seemed like a sharp guy to me.
>
> The idea of starting now to build-out the fiber backbone and then
> select the
> last -- or first, if you prefer -- mile implementation later is
> logically
> appealing, but who would invest in such a nebulous proposal.  Then, do
> you
> actually expect someone to show up on your doorstep with a "Chinese
> Take-out" menu of last/first mile choices: "Sir, would you prefer that
> we
> route fiber to your house, with cost established assuming that you
> might be
> the only taker on the block, or would you like us to put up a Wireless
> node
> on this-here pole for your communications convenience.  Nice, but I
> don't
> think so.
>
> Ken M.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 10:29 AM
> To: [email protected]; SeattleWireless Talk List
>
> Subject: Re: Kitsap County
>
> 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