Re: Kitsap County

Good points.

One of the objectives of the TF and other government efforts that have been
discussed is to open up access and make DSL and cable more competitive.  The
presentation by the City of Tacoma pointed out that although Tacoma does not
directly provide end user service the provision of the network has created a
more competitive playing field.  As a result, cable and DSL rates are lower
and more alternatives for bundled services and new digital media services
have and are expected to become available compared to surrounding
communities including Seattle/King County.

I doubt that the City of Seattle has the intention to become the areas only
or most significant broadband supplier.  The City is weighing options about
how much they will participate: from just providing service to government
and education along present lines of deployment or to providing FTTH/P to
the end users directly.  From what I can determine so far, Seattle is
unlikely to provide service directly to end users.  A fair compromise, and
something I am told city engineers and government officials are considering,
is to provide an extended fiber optic node grid based on the existing grid.

The role of SWN should be to encourage the government to provide open
access.  Some ways to encourage them is to position the message that SWN can
help provide service to community hotspot clouds, under serviced areas, and
to groups of users who find it more difficult to afford normal cable and DSL
rates.  SWN serves a useful community function.  But if the message is to
oppose government efforts that are open to commercial participation then
there is no sense providing any input to government at all imo.



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Huseby" <[email protected]>
To: "SeattleWireless Talk List" <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 8:48 AM
Subject: RE: Kitsap County


-]  Do a better job *at what?*  The for-profit companies will
-]  surely do everything they can to deliver optimum results...
-]  to their shareholders.
-]  There is zero incentive for Comcast or Qwest to "care"
-]  about us.  We have no choice, no voice, and no alternative.
-]   We're imprisoned in this market.
-]  Unless we move, they own us.  And if we do move, all we do
-]  is trade Qwest for SBC or Verizon, which isn't so tempting.

One key feature of American capitalism is that we are never imprisoned
in this market as long as government regulation doesn't make the startup
costs so high that little guys can't come in and compete.  If you ask
me, the cause of the 900lb gorilla syndrome we see today is all of the
govt regulation lobbied for by the gorillas to prevent smaller, faster,
and better competitors from getting started.

The best thing that can happen for customers is to have a truly open and
unregulated market.  Then groups like SWN who have the people, the
know-how, and the ideals to build a better competing service could come
in and force the 900lb gorillas to compete and provide better services
in order to stay in business.  I think everybody has pointed out that
we'd have economics on our side with this one.  We'd be using cheap
infrastructure to provide a service that can be sold for much less than
the going rate and still be profitable.


-]  I do not see how society benefits when essential services
-]  such as water and electricity (and "data" and voice and
-]  health care and 911 and libraries and
-]  roads) are done to please stockholders rather than to
-]  please citizens.

This problem was solved 100 years ago.  The solution is called a co-op.
Private companies formed to serve the owners.  They function like a
government but are for-profit and are therefor compelled to be
economically efficient while providing the services demanded by the
owners.

A city-wide wireless bandwidth co-op needs to be formed.  If it is us
that forms it, we need to examine the economics of the problem as
realistically as we can.  We also need to play by all of the govt rules
and get all of the necessary permits and meet all of the regulations.
We should model the whole business after other successful co-ops.  I
think a city like Seattle is ripe for a co-op because of the pervasive
antagonism towards corporate control amongst the citizenry.  I think a
wireless bandwidth co-op would get lots of support from average people
if the services and price are right.

Every once in a while, empowering technology is made available that, if
applied correctly, drastically changes the status quo.  I think that
there are windows of opportunity where something big can happen and I
feel that we are in one right now with the wireless technology.  The
last time this happened was in the late 1970's when cpu's got "cheap"
and plentiful.

The window is closing quickly however.  Congress is looking to regulate
wireless, the entrenched network companies are finally building out
networks in an effort to seize the market, and municipalities are
starting to prevent start-up wirless networks and lock out competitors
of the big networks.

I wish that Seattle would be the one city in the country where
geek-citizens built a co-op network that is better than any government
run and corporate run network.
_______________________________________________
Talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://seattlewireless.net/mailman/listinfo/talk
_______________________________________________
Talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://seattlewireless.net/mailman/listinfo/talk