Re: Kitsap County

Qwest strongly resembles an Eastern bloc country.

On Dec 11, 2004, at 1:43 PM, 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:[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:[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

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