RE: Kitsap County

Well, I was also thinking  about the "triple play" aspect.  Even Verizon and
Quest are going to have a difficult time competing with Comcast due to the
price of video content.  No one has the buying power or gets the discounts
on content and hardware that Comcast gets. I see this being amplified once
Comcast buys Adelphia.  I don't see how any municipality could get the costs
down anywhere near what the big *LECs would pay. This is in addition to what
I stated about commercial vs municipal efficiency.
Jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Jeff King
> Sent: Saturday, December 11, 2004 7:23 PM
> To: 'SeattleWireless Talk List'
> Subject: 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
>
> ---
> Incoming 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
>

---
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