RE: Kitsap County

If they nurture the interested individuals doing it, yes, I believe so. Good 
case in point is the county I am in. This is a true story. Lets call the 
towns "J" and "H".

Town "J", considers itself very progressive. They located a commercial WISP, 
gave him access to a 200' tower (rent free), bought all his equipment for the 
tower/link ($4500) and in return, he gives the town OFFICEs free internet 
access. He claims it is a "hotspot" in the town, and he gives all the 
residents a 10% discount ($35 month with $300 install). It should be noted 
the town already had DSL and cable in it.

Town "H" doesn't do that much. But some concerned techies came to them, 
showed them a demo of a free WiFi hotspot, and now they are supporting the 
technies in deploying free WiFi hotspots over the downtown area. The city is 
providing the bandwidth as well as locations to stick the access points 
(rooftops on main street). The city is clear in it is not doing the Hotspots, 
but is clear in its support for the citizen group doing it, even providing 
some small amount of funding for equipment.

That much being said, I'm not sure I disagree with you in the bigger picture. 
In my case, town J has a population of 3000 and town H a population of 8500. 
By all measures, a very rural area. And the citizens that get involved, also 
bring a measure of accountability (seems a few already figured out town J had 
gotten the wool pulled over their eyes). 

Now, could this model scale to a larger city? Maybe, but more often then not 
they likely want to get a bidder involved, and the dollar signs light up in 
their eyes. What was it Philidelpia wanted for its hardware deployment? 
$10million I heard? That is ~200,000 WRT54G's, and while I am not sure how 
big Philla is, if it is 100 square miles (10x10), that would be 200 AP's per 
square mile, or roughly one every 373 feet. Granted, I'm sure that figure 
includes labor and a infra structure build out, but my point is (and I think 
yours also) is once the individual accountability disappears, all bets are 
off.

I'm on the fence here... the real potential for cities to get fleeced with 
hotspot deployments, yet at the same time, citywide free Wifi is something 
that is really needed, in particular in downtown renewal. 


On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 18:43:00 -0500, Jim Henry wrote:
>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:talk-
>[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] [mailto:talk-
>>[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
>
>
>--- 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