RE: Kitsap County

At 03:43 PM 12/11/2004, 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

The fallacy in your logic is this:  Comcast, Qwest, and Verizon are totally 
protected and regulated from cradle to grave. Our telecom segment is the 
closest thing we have in the U.S. to a command economy.

Even corporations in less regulated industries operate within rules, 
protected by police power, of private property, "market" economics, 
contract law, etc. which has been shaped by power.  Always has 
been.  Always will be.

There are no implications for U.S. telecom policy, whatsoever in the 
breakup of the Soviet Union.  The Republicans would like you to accept that 
the bankruptcy of the Soviet Union was due to our heroic leader Ronald 
Reagan, don't be a chump.  The breakup of the Soviet Union was a very 
complicated thing and arguably, a wise and bold act.  Nonviolent, too!

Many argue, the U.S. would be better off if we similarly, split up into 
autonomous regions, and conversely, the U.S. should recognize that its 
sovereignty is not unlimited with respect to other nations,

Warm regards,
TOdd

>-----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