Re: Kitsap County

No. that on it's face, is not controversial.

What I am tired of, is the "you should do xyz" topics that come up so 
frequently from you and the others in these conversations.    It's 
about as tiring as the "You should get all the high points in town" 
that I've so often heard.  Gee thanks.   How about bringing something 
we haven't heard to the table..

Do I think the city should allow us to take advantage of networks that 
they provide? Sure, but those networks have yet to be realized, and 
they are currently doing 'feasibility studies', not implementation.    
We have been talking to the City folks for a couple of years now,  
explaining what our vision of Seattle Wireless is, and what 
FreeNetworks are doing around the world.  I believe that Jim Compton's 
vision is influenced in part, by what we are doing here.  See the 
documents that they reference on the BTT site.  We are mentioned a few 
times, and it is a positive mention vs an adversarial one.  Please take 
your tin hats off.

The city is not working in a telco vacuum here, and though it may seem 
that way to some, I don't think it's the case.  Maybe I have more faith 
in the process than I should, but that remains to be seen.

Will the network that the city builds even be something that we *want* 
to be a part of?  I believe that we have to get further along in the 
process before we find that out.

If you want to go to the 7:30 meetings, and report back what they're 
talking about and the actual goals that they're discussing, I think 
that would be a service to the list.  I think we could all do with out 
the anti-corporate, anti-telco, community-or-not sentiment.  It's 
troll-food.


-matt

On Dec 13, 2004, at 2:14 PM, Rob S wrote:

> Let me make myself clear:
>  
> I have suggested is that SWN might take advantage of networks that the 
> City/regional government make available.  You don't have to do 
> anything.  I haven't suggested that you change what you are doing, 
> abort anything, or build anything specific. 
>  
> The fact of the matter is that many cities and regional governments 
> are increasingly putting in fiber optic and wireless networks.  And 
> some community wireless network groups are parrticipating in these 
> efforts.  I think that makes it a topic for dicsussion but if you 
> don't think so that is entirely up to you and others.  It would be a 
> good thing to have SWN express an interest to the local governments to 
> have fair and open access.  Is that so controversial?
>   
>  
> ----- Original Message -----
>  From: Matt Westervelt
> To: SeattleWireless Talk List
> Sent: Monday, December 13, 2004 11:54 AM
> Subject: Re: Kitsap County
>
> OK OK.
>
> I'm really tired of you guys (RobS, ToddB, KenM) arguing about the 
> future of CWN and what 'WE' should do. Maybe you haven't noticed, but 
> people around here do stuff, you guys wax on about how important or 
> non-important it is, what sort of impact it might or might not have, 
> and that maybe it's not serving -enough- people.
>
> Seriously. Either put up or shut up. It makes me cringe to open up the 
> talk folder now, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.
>
> If you want to go talk to the city about your plans, fine. Just 
> remember, you don't speak for me. You apparently don't speak for each 
> other either. It's likely you don't speak for the hundreds of other 
> people involved here, but they're too polite to bitch you out in 
> public.
>
> None of you have done anything -for- seattlewireless or CWN other than 
> make stinky on the list.
>
> By the way.
> http://seattlewireless.net/LakeUnion
>
> If people care about regulations, check out 
> <http://saschameinrath.com/> for a list of barriers that are being put 
> in place by state governments. If you want to do something about them, 
> contact <http://newamerica.net>
>
> Cheers.
>  -matt
>
>
>
>
> On Dec 13, 2004, at 11:29 AM, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
> Like I said Todd, you are free to pursue whatever it is that you think 
> will work.  I personally don't think alternative broadband networks 
> are more than for hobbyists.  Now maybe that will become similar to 
> short wave radio which has been active but a secondary development for 
> decades.  I frankly have little interest in spending time on that type 
> of effort.  Judging from the 'success' of alternative networks so far, 
> it looks like they will remain obscure niches for only the few 
> enthusiasts to enjoy imo.
>  
> Why are you even bringing this up in the first place?  You should 
> simply say that you aren't interested.  My suggestion was about how 
> CWN could participate in broader Internet access and media content.  
> If your vision is entirely to create an alternative network then just 
> say so and then don't bash attempts for others to pursue different 
> goals.  Seems that you want everyone to comply with your solitary 
> vision of networking to the exclusion of other networks.  The vast 
> majority of the world is pursuing those other alternatives.  A stand 
> alone network is distinct from networks that wish to have access to 
> the broad Internet and media content that is expected to become 
> available.
>  
> OK, I get it.  I can't expect any support from you to promote open 
> access to fiber optic networks that the City and regional governments 
> own and control.  These are not owned or controlled by your Green 
> Meanie telecomms.  They certainly play a role and have influence but 
> deservedly so - they are providing services however expensive you 
> might consider them to be - to millions of users. 
>  
> My goals is to help influence these networks to accommodate access to 
> community wireless projects as well ass to commercial interests.  Your 
> position it to say "If we can't have it entirely our way then screw 
> you!".  Sorry but I don't think that the real world will work that 
> way.
>  
>  
>  
>  
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Todd Boyle
>  To: SeattleWireless Talk List
>  Sent: Sunday, December 12, 2004 2:27 PM
> Subject: Re: Kitsap County
>
> Rob Syputa wrote:
>
> ...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. 
>
> It's natural to feel that those you disagree with are extremists, but 
> not very useful to anybody reading your comments.
>
> Regaring "adversarial game against incumbents", that's your term, now 
> repeated more than once.  Please don't depict my remarks as 
> adversarial games.   I strongly recommended ignoring Comcast and 
> Verizon and Qwest altogether, and  building a 3rd network.  I strongly 
> recommend no games or transactions whatsoever, with these 
> government-protected monopolies.
>
> We live in a society where property rights over network assets --like 
> any other property --are to be controlled by whoever installed and 
> paid for them.  In fact, the direction of policy continues to place 
> even *more* power, rather than less, in the hands of cablecos and 
> telcos--as well as broadcasters and media corporations.   They use 
> that power to corrupt, limit and bias the content flowing over those 
> media.  Look what has happened to the electoral process the past 20 
> years.
>
>  I told you the problem.  I told you my solution.  You ignore both the 
> problem and my solution, choosing instead to talk about Wimax from a 
> relatively geekish viewpoint, almost a small-entrepreneur viewpoint.  
> An entrepreneurial viewpoint would argue that something gets built, 
> quickly, efficiently, with quality, but *regardless* of what is 
> sacrificed in the social or cultural plane.  This is like the 
> technocrat philosophy --regardless of economic equity-- I say, what's 
> been built by the telcos and cablecos is OVERPRICED and gold plated, 
> precisely because governments have been 'reasonable' with 
> incumbents.   You could build a whole new network, and leave behind 
> the entire accumulated cost base and salary structures and profits of 
> the incumbents.
>
>
> 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.
>
> If the FTTN metro grid is financed and built by the incumbents they 
> will get up early and work all day long to ensure that their pricing 
> and market posiiton is never impacted by it.  They will never 
> voluntarily agree to share their assets.  Don't you agree?  Based on 
> the incredibly discriminatory actions against CLECs and independent 
> ISPs blocking access or equipment from the COs?
>
> It seems clear to me that no elected politicians, nor permanent staffs 
> of municipalities, are any match for the persistence, technical 
> knowledge, legal resources etc. of the global telecoms companies.   
> The best thing municipalities can do is require that anybody digging 
> any trench whatsoever, must put some type of telecom utility duct or 
> conduit as part of the transaction.   Eventually there would be a lot 
> of ducts for our children and grandchildren to work with.
>
>  Todd
>
>
>  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.
>
>
> There you go again!  Since when is it belligerent to walk away from a 
> casino, where the game is rigged??!
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> Talk mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://seattlewireless.net/mailman/listinfo/talk

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