Re: Kitsap County

What does the city/county/regional government have that could be of benefit to community wireless and how is it politically, socially, and commercially expedient to gain cooperation on the use of it?

The government control of use permits and many access rights.  They also control local licensing of utilities including cable and POTS/DSL service.  As a consequence of that Puget Sound region and many other areas have required cable companies and others to install fiber optic along their routes, much of which remains 'dark'.  They also have run their own fiber optic lines and those such as NOAH which link up government research, education and facilities.

So government plays a key role in management of broadband resources and they have the largest and more accessible network of big pipe needed for HDTV and other future high bandwidth applications.  They also regulate commercial communications.

What can SWN hope to gain from efforts to open up the fiber optic backbone to greater community use?  The government knows it has an untapped resource that is increasingly important for the region to be competitive and progress.   But SWN should be political realists, not 'extremists'.  I don't think it reasonable or advisable to play the adversarial game against incumbent communications providers.  They are better organized, extremely better financed, and know how to play the political game.  And they know how to advertise and sell their products to consumers and corporations.  

Community wireless efforts could benefit from having access to fat pipes of a fiber optic network and broader Internet connection.  I think that a reasonable goal is to seek open access to FTTN metro grid.  The message to government should be that SWN/CWN wants a 'fair chance' to provide service to their community of users.  And those same users may also want services from commercial cellular and broadband companies.  The message SHOULD NOT BE opposed to commercial involvement.  I think that becomes self destructive because it does not fit reality of politics and mass market appeal.  SWN is not going to take over the world of communications.  It can play a part which could become significant over time.  But it's much more likely to get their through being cooperative rather than through belligerence imo.
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Todd Boyle 
  To: SeattleWirelesshat edoes the city/county/government Talk List 
  Sent: Saturday, December 11, 2004 5:25 PM
  Subject: 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

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