RE: Kitsap County

Do you really believe that a government entity, with no capitalistic
incentive, is going to do a better job and provide better performance than
commercial *LECs motivated by profit and accountable to their stockholders? 
It's a noble thought but I think this concept was proved out a failure in
all of Eastern Europe in the last 50 years or so in just about everything
enterprise the govt undertook.  We see mostly the same inefficiencies here
when comparing a govt. run enterprise to a private commercial one. There are
a few exceptions to every rule of course, but they are only exceptions.
Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Todd Boyle
Sent: Friday, December 10, 2004 2:46 PM
To: SeattleWireless Talk List
Cc: SeattleWireless Talk List
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]
> [ HYPERLINK
"mailto:[email protected]"mailto:talk-bounces@seattlewireless
.net]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]
> HYPERLINK
"http://seattlewireless.net/mailman/listinfo/talk"http://seattlewireless.net
/mailman/listinfo/talk
>
_______________________________________________
Talk mailing list
[email protected]
HYPERLINK
"http://seattlewireless.net/mailman/listinfo/talk"http://seattlewireless.net
/mailman/listinfo/talk


---
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.807 / Virus Database: 549 - Release Date: 12/7/2004





---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.809 / Virus Database: 551 - Release Date: 12/9/2004

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