Why are Wireless Philadelphia and other city wireless programs such a big threat? More precisely, why do the big boys keep trying to kill our Wi-Fi networks?
Tell me who among incumbent local exchange carriers (ILECs)--have deployed ubiquitous, high-speed wireless networks that support roaming/mobile capabilities. No ILEC. Who provides high-speed, broadband, ubiquitous services at dial-up rates for the underserved populations? No ILEC. Who is working to get equipment and training into the homes of low-income and disadvantaged portions of our community? Again, no ILEC.
The truth, of course, is that the incumbent local exchange carriers want unregulated monopolies over all telecommunications.
No, they'd rather charge the city governments with having an unfair competitive advantage because of the governments' access to tax-exempt financing. But who says we are financing Wireless Philadelphia with tax-exempt funding? What about all the incentives the ILECs have received the past two decades? When was the last time they were elected to determine what is best for our communities? If they're really concerned about what is important to all members of the community, why haven't they built this type of network that meets community needs or approached a city to use their assets to build a high-speed, low-cost, ubiquitous network?
For all the money they've spent lobbying against municipal participation, they could have built the network themselves. The truth, of course, is that the incumbent local exchange carriers want unregulated monopolies over all telecommunications.
On this point, Dr. Mark N. Cooper, research director at the Consumer Federation of America, notes that about 95 percent of high-speed Internet access service customers are served by ISPs associated with cable or phone companies. In a paper he wrote for the Journal of Telecommunications and High Technology Law, Cooper found that this dominance was the result of leveraging control of physical facilities, not the result of winning in a competitive market.
Maybe--just maybe--they should see what the City of Philadelphia is proposing before they attack.
"Cable companies have not sold Internet service in any product and geographic market where they do not control a monopoly wire," Cooper wrote. "Telephone companies have done very poorly as ISPs in the dial-up market. Consequently, 95 percent of the customers in the dial-up market take their service from independent ISPs--treating AOL as an independent in the dial-up market. In other words, incumbent monopolists have a 95 percent market share where they can leverage their market power over their wires, and a 5 percent market share where they cannot."
Since the 1980s, ILECs have been talking about installing fiber as long as they were given incentives to protect their investments. Now, in Pennsylvania, they've been given another 12 years, and they promise to upgrade some share of the homes passed to fiber optics if, and only if, they don't have to let competitive local exchange carriers (CLECs), Internet service providers or video program providers onto their network. (And by the way, let's prohibit governments from serving their community with low-cost Internet access to strengthen economic development in the neighborhoods, to help overcome the digital divide or to help families with children better communicate with teachers and the administration to improve their kids' education.)
Who says the government is going to be the ISP or build the network? What about the old public-private partnership models? Maybe--just maybe--they should see what the City of Philadelphia is proposing before they attack.
Biography Dianah Neff is chief information officer for the City of Philadelphia. The city plans to offer wireless broadband access to residents by the summer of 2006.
Citywide Wi-Fi? Sounds great. But what is the REAL story?
I think Diana's (Wi-Fi) arguments are pure baloney. In the first place, I think it is much more than just "tax exempt funding" that concerns the phone companies. And it should concern EVERYONE!
No business can compete, on equal footing, with a government. Not even Wal-Mart could compete with a municipal government. TALK ABOUT A MONOPOLY! A municipal government is a MONOPOLY with LAW-MAKING POWER!
Read my detailed discussion of this subject at: <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.ncns.com/" target="_newWindow">http://www.ncns.com/</a>
Governments are controlled in the long wrong by the votes of what is hopefully an informed and consciencious public. Lobbies underhandedly bribe and bend those same elected officials. Would your tone be the same if Evian or Dasani was trying to shut down all park water fountains?
You have a strange understanding of what government is. Government (in a democracy) is the collective will of the people. The people should rightly have a "monopoly" over their own lives. Let's replace "government" with "people" and see how your reply reads:
"No business can compete, on equal footing, with the people. Not even Wal-Mart could compete with the local people. TALK ABOUT A MONOPOLY! The people are a MONOPOLY with LAW-MAKING POWER!"
Would you prefer that corporations wielded the law -making power instead of the people? Libertarian extremism is not the way to lasting freedom.
The local government is not a monopoly. They are a group of ELECTED officals. (Elected means chosen by the people) So YES the local government is inclined to do what the community wants or else the ELECTED officals will find themselfs no longer apart of local government. IMHO your post was just an advertisement for your website. That just makes me sick.
Is this person simply rabidly anti-government (which can be understood and even sympathized with), or is he astroturfing for the phone companies.
It is hard to see the logic of this argument, when previous city interventions have been so successful.
Look at the case of Tacoma Washington and the cable provider. The company refused to provide high speed internet, so the city developed their own system and offered cable television to boot. The cable company sued the "illegal" competition for an area they refused to serve. They lost and Tacoma now has a municipal board controlling its cable system, which is cheaper and more reliable than the surrounding areas.
your contention is that the piblic sector can't compete with government?
UPS? FedEx? do these companies ring a bell?
While it makes the standard of service that much more difficult to attain, most people contend that Government tends to impliment and deploy services inefficiantly.
The Incumbant's don't want to do this in the 802.11b (2.4Ghz) spectrum. They are concerned that without control of the spectrum, they can't provide quality garentees or maintain a monopoly.
If Phili wants to short-ciruit the debate, I feel the only things that will be achieved will be to prove that a market exists. Highlight the problems with Wi-Fi as a public utility, and hopefully help quite a few Philadelphians in the short term.
With Government and Business working side-by-side, Phili could be a great test case for the FCC, and act as an example of what needs to be done in opening up spectrum for ubiquitous high- speed data.
Having read your webpage comment on this issue I get the impression that you make a living directly or indirectly from some wireless carrier. Or perhaps you have an ideological axe to grind. It was a classic FUD attack. If Philly wants to foot the bill for a wireless network more power to them. Comparing that to getting your news from the govt is disingenuous, at best. They aren't providing content, just the pipe. The parallel drawn between that and the placement of cell towers in Jackson, Miss was puzzlingly unrelated. The call to "support your cellular company" was amusing. Well at least you made me smile. :)
Citywide Wi-Fi? Sounds great. But what is the REAL story?
I think Diana's (Wi-Fi) arguments are pure baloney. In the first place, I think it is much more than just "tax exempt funding" that concerns the phone companies. And it should concern EVERYONE!
No business can compete, on equal footing, with a government. Not even Wal-Mart could compete with a municipal government. TALK ABOUT A MONOPOLY! A municipal government is a MONOPOLY with LAW-MAKING POWER!
Read my detailed discussion of this subject at: <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.ncns.com/" target="_newWindow">http://www.ncns.com/</a>
Governments are controlled in the long wrong by the votes of what is hopefully an informed and consciencious public. Lobbies underhandedly bribe and bend those same elected officials. Would your tone be the same if Evian or Dasani was trying to shut down all park water fountains?
You have a strange understanding of what government is. Government (in a democracy) is the collective will of the people. The people should rightly have a "monopoly" over their own lives. Let's replace "government" with "people" and see how your reply reads:
"No business can compete, on equal footing, with the people. Not even Wal-Mart could compete with the local people. TALK ABOUT A MONOPOLY! The people are a MONOPOLY with LAW-MAKING POWER!"
Would you prefer that corporations wielded the law -making power instead of the people? Libertarian extremism is not the way to lasting freedom.
The local government is not a monopoly. They are a group of ELECTED officals. (Elected means chosen by the people) So YES the local government is inclined to do what the community wants or else the ELECTED officals will find themselfs no longer apart of local government. IMHO your post was just an advertisement for your website. That just makes me sick.
Is this person simply rabidly anti-government (which can be understood and even sympathized with), or is he astroturfing for the phone companies.
It is hard to see the logic of this argument, when previous city interventions have been so successful.
Look at the case of Tacoma Washington and the cable provider. The company refused to provide high speed internet, so the city developed their own system and offered cable television to boot. The cable company sued the "illegal" competition for an area they refused to serve. They lost and Tacoma now has a municipal board controlling its cable system, which is cheaper and more reliable than the surrounding areas.
your contention is that the piblic sector can't compete with government?
UPS? FedEx? do these companies ring a bell?
While it makes the standard of service that much more difficult to attain, most people contend that Government tends to impliment and deploy services inefficiantly.
The Incumbant's don't want to do this in the 802.11b (2.4Ghz) spectrum. They are concerned that without control of the spectrum, they can't provide quality garentees or maintain a monopoly.
If Phili wants to short-ciruit the debate, I feel the only things that will be achieved will be to prove that a market exists. Highlight the problems with Wi-Fi as a public utility, and hopefully help quite a few Philadelphians in the short term.
With Government and Business working side-by-side, Phili could be a great test case for the FCC, and act as an example of what needs to be done in opening up spectrum for ubiquitous high- speed data.
Having read your webpage comment on this issue I get the impression that you make a living directly or indirectly from some wireless carrier. Or perhaps you have an ideological axe to grind. It was a classic FUD attack. If Philly wants to foot the bill for a wireless network more power to them. Comparing that to getting your news from the govt is disingenuous, at best. They aren't providing content, just the pipe. The parallel drawn between that and the placement of cell towers in Jackson, Miss was puzzlingly unrelated. The call to "support your cellular company" was amusing. Well at least you made me smile. :)
The telecom providers' actions in this case are despicable. Since when does a corporation get to override the wishes of the people? This is what government is all about -- people getting together to build up their community in any way they see fit. Telecom corporations have no business telling the people they cannot build their own infrastructure. Their actions are undemocratic and un-American.
Have you seen the wonderful works that the government has brought us? Public schools that folks want to abandon. Roads that cost way too much, and are in disrepair anyway? Brides that cant pass even basic third party safety inspections? If we follow your train of thought here, government should also take over electrical generation, Telco service, everything the community needs. As a business, the government has shown time and time again that it just cant handle the task. You end up with a crippling bureaucracy, wasted effort and money.
That having been said, there does need to be a counter-point to what is currently happening in internet service. Here in rural Vermont, many areas are without any broadband (well, satellite could be used, but is prohibitively expensive), and no one is willing to lay out the lines to bring it.
Communities do need more leverage against those that provide Internet Access, but having the government step in to do it is asking for trouble.
The telecom providers' actions in this case are despicable. Since when does a corporation get to override the wishes of the people? This is what government is all about -- people getting together to build up their community in any way they see fit. Telecom corporations have no business telling the people they cannot build their own infrastructure. Their actions are undemocratic and un-American.
Have you seen the wonderful works that the government has brought us? Public schools that folks want to abandon. Roads that cost way too much, and are in disrepair anyway? Brides that cant pass even basic third party safety inspections? If we follow your train of thought here, government should also take over electrical generation, Telco service, everything the community needs. As a business, the government has shown time and time again that it just cant handle the task. You end up with a crippling bureaucracy, wasted effort and money.
That having been said, there does need to be a counter-point to what is currently happening in internet service. Here in rural Vermont, many areas are without any broadband (well, satellite could be used, but is prohibitively expensive), and no one is willing to lay out the lines to bring it.
Communities do need more leverage against those that provide Internet Access, but having the government step in to do it is asking for trouble.
The recent on-line furor over municipal wireless projects brings important themes into focus. Why are so many people SHOUTING? Quite simply, it's because the stakes are so high. An important aspect of our national economic future is on the line as we watch a new vital infrastructure being born - ubiquitous broadband is a transforming technology. We should all keep in mind that we are very fortunate to have choices in the U.S. - we have capitalism AND representative democracy.
A grand American tradition is a huge middle class with moderate views. Another tradition is vocal minorities that express LOUD POLARIZED OPINIONS!! Most Americans have pretty good *** detectors and they know most issues are gray, not black and white, and they can tell when they're being led down the garden path by disingenous smooth talkers. Online journalism, most especially blogs, have become a tool for loud fringe voices and "astroturf" (I love that term!) front organizations for vested interests.
In the U.S., we still "vote" in the commercial sector with our pocketbooks, just as we vote - in or out - our representatives in government, who appoint professional staff like the CIO of Philadelphia. (I saw her speak in Corpus Christi in October and I believe she has a reasonable approach and is open to creative private/public sector solutions).
In the end, municipal infrastructure belongs to the people - you can argue with how effectively it is managed by our public servants, but the fact remains that city ROWs and municipal infrastructures already belong to us (We the People) - to have such vital assets as dark fiber or pole attachments, or for that matter, new Wi Fi infrastructure, sidelined or mothballed by the pre-emptive actions of large, well-funded private commercial entities who seek to maintain their monopoly or duopoly status is suspicious, at the very least.
As the debate continues, we should all keep in mind that the general trend in our economy is for more choice and competition, not less. Beware of those who would attempt to steer the debate and manage the political process to limit, rather than expand our choices.
If objections to municipal Wi Fi are that government has an unfair advantage, or that government will do a poor job of managing such projects - we should talk about guiding them to address these shortcomings, not take such drastic steps as precluding them from fully leveraging the very assets we have already paid for, or from meeting the needs of the citizenry that are not being met by the private sector.
I'm hoping to see the voices of the informed middle road enter this debate soon. Here's my vote for private/public sector collaboration and cooperation, and a national broadband infrastructure built on the foundation of the "middle way" that has served us so well in the past.
I think, the telco's might actually be looking ahead. They have bid large amounts of money to expand their cell service to handle data services while their POTS service has been declining. If they don't stop this trend of metro WiFi's there are looking to a world of trouble down the road. as more and more cities get metro wifi voip will start take off for mobile users, there goes their cell revenue, and metro will cut into their celluar data revenue. Metro wifi will also cut into their broadband revenus, as well as blunt their push into TV develiry via broandband since fewer people will be signing up for broadband, leaving them declining revenue for all their markets.
Yeah, John, you DEFINITELY fit in with those "smooth talkers" you mentioned!
MAKE NO MISTAKE, there CAN BE NO "private/public sector collaboration". More correctly, you BETTER RUN when government starts collaborating with business. GOVERNMENT passes LAWS, and COLLECTS TAXES. BUSINESSES make and sell products and services. SEE THE DIFFERENCE?
Apparently you are trying equate "ALL CAPS" with SHOUTING and ATTEMPTING to USE THAT to discredit my FACTUAL STATEMENTS as radical, or extreme. I equate it with EMPHASIZING a POINT. And I see right through your CHEESY TACTICS!
The recent on-line furor over municipal wireless projects brings important themes into focus. Why are so many people SHOUTING? Quite simply, it's because the stakes are so high. An important aspect of our national economic future is on the line as we watch a new vital infrastructure being born - ubiquitous broadband is a transforming technology. We should all keep in mind that we are very fortunate to have choices in the U.S. - we have capitalism AND representative democracy.
A grand American tradition is a huge middle class with moderate views. Another tradition is vocal minorities that express LOUD POLARIZED OPINIONS!! Most Americans have pretty good *** detectors and they know most issues are gray, not black and white, and they can tell when they're being led down the garden path by disingenous smooth talkers. Online journalism, most especially blogs, have become a tool for loud fringe voices and "astroturf" (I love that term!) front organizations for vested interests.
In the U.S., we still "vote" in the commercial sector with our pocketbooks, just as we vote - in or out - our representatives in government, who appoint professional staff like the CIO of Philadelphia. (I saw her speak in Corpus Christi in October and I believe she has a reasonable approach and is open to creative private/public sector solutions).
In the end, municipal infrastructure belongs to the people - you can argue with how effectively it is managed by our public servants, but the fact remains that city ROWs and municipal infrastructures already belong to us (We the People) - to have such vital assets as dark fiber or pole attachments, or for that matter, new Wi Fi infrastructure, sidelined or mothballed by the pre-emptive actions of large, well-funded private commercial entities who seek to maintain their monopoly or duopoly status is suspicious, at the very least.
As the debate continues, we should all keep in mind that the general trend in our economy is for more choice and competition, not less. Beware of those who would attempt to steer the debate and manage the political process to limit, rather than expand our choices.
If objections to municipal Wi Fi are that government has an unfair advantage, or that government will do a poor job of managing such projects - we should talk about guiding them to address these shortcomings, not take such drastic steps as precluding them from fully leveraging the very assets we have already paid for, or from meeting the needs of the citizenry that are not being met by the private sector.
I'm hoping to see the voices of the informed middle road enter this debate soon. Here's my vote for private/public sector collaboration and cooperation, and a national broadband infrastructure built on the foundation of the "middle way" that has served us so well in the past.
I think, the telco's might actually be looking ahead. They have bid large amounts of money to expand their cell service to handle data services while their POTS service has been declining. If they don't stop this trend of metro WiFi's there are looking to a world of trouble down the road. as more and more cities get metro wifi voip will start take off for mobile users, there goes their cell revenue, and metro will cut into their celluar data revenue. Metro wifi will also cut into their broadband revenus, as well as blunt their push into TV develiry via broandband since fewer people will be signing up for broadband, leaving them declining revenue for all their markets.
Yeah, John, you DEFINITELY fit in with those "smooth talkers" you mentioned!
MAKE NO MISTAKE, there CAN BE NO "private/public sector collaboration". More correctly, you BETTER RUN when government starts collaborating with business. GOVERNMENT passes LAWS, and COLLECTS TAXES. BUSINESSES make and sell products and services. SEE THE DIFFERENCE?
Apparently you are trying equate "ALL CAPS" with SHOUTING and ATTEMPTING to USE THAT to discredit my FACTUAL STATEMENTS as radical, or extreme. I equate it with EMPHASIZING a POINT. And I see right through your CHEESY TACTICS!
I'm not sure I've ever seen this much criticism of a plan that has yet to be announced. Ms. Neff continues to be the lightening rod for what (on the surface) looks like a collision course between the public and private sector, the future of the broadband market, the impact of local/state/federal polcy and the socio-economic trends in our major cities. Tough job, but somebody's....
Since I am generally accepted as a "moderate" in this debate, and since I don't believe in insulting commentary such as Mr. Smirk's "pure baloney" comment, I will stick with the facts. That said, Mr. Smirk's post deserves a candid reply as it is typical of the kind of rhetoric voiced on his side of the debate.
First, Mr. Smirk needs to re-visit his history books and check his facts. Specifically:
1) Were it not for the "big brother, monopoly" he refers to in his post, the DARPA initiative of Internet lore, whereby government acted as a catalyst for what eventually became today's Internet would surely not have happened. Further, when the time came for government to move aside and commercialize what had been created, it did so. And broadband services have been one of the least regulated services of any type, ever.
2) On the point of franchise fees, Mr. Smirk points out "that this is what this is really all about". That is factually incorrect since broadband services are not subject to franchise fees. So this argument makes no sense. Further, franchise fees are not a burden of the private companies who pay them to the city (a common misconception), but are in fact passed along to subscribers on a monthly bill.
3) Referring to Wi-Fi as a "cheap home networking technology" is grounded in naivety. Again, looking at this historically, I could refer to Ethernet (the 802.3 predecessor to Wi-Fi) as a "cheap local area, workgroup technology". Just as Ethernet has continued to evolve, now supporting multi-gigabit speeds, and used as the backbone technology by many large enterprises, so too does Wi-Fi continue to evolve beyond it's initial use.
I would encourage Mr. Smirk to do a site visit or two to cities (granted they are smaller than Philadelphia today) where metro-scale Wi-Fi has been deployed and is delivering value. When a technology becomes a breakaway success and ubiquitous like Wi-Fi has, increasing returns are possible through the armies of engineers around the world who continue to refine, enhance and build on its underpinnings. Remember Linux being scoffed at by certain software companies? Remember the Web browser being considered a toy? Remember how Client/Server ruled and Web architectures were a joke? Were Kodak and Nikon worried about camera phones before the number of them sold annually became greater than all digital cameras combined? I've learned that scoffing at technologies based on their roots, where they came from, is a dangerous practice.
4) Ask the FCC to lower the cost of licenses? Mr. Smirk apparently doesn't understand that the licenses I believe he is referring to were auctioned. The price was set by the market based on their perceived value.
5) Lastly, suggesting that people who need broadband should "support their cellular company" completely ignores two facts; first, many people can't afford an $80 per month charge for cellular/PCS data and second, these technologies are fragmented, have difficult provisioning processes and are NOT embedded in PCs, laptops and other mobile devices the way Wi-Fi is today.
Mr. Smirk's commentary is typical of the false assumption made by many about municipal wireless initiatives; that it always involves taxpayer funds, that it is owned and operated by a city like a public utility and that local government officials are greedily trying to make money on public rights of way.
Having met and worked with many elected and appointed officials in major cities on this topic, nothing could be further from the truth. They are focused on 1) decreasing the cost of government, 2) bringing affordable services to low-income and disadvantaged residents and businesses and 3) working to foster higher rates of economic development. Those are three things that shareholders in private organizations are not directly incented to do (which is understandable), therefore elected officials must take up the charge.
Lastly, assuming that major cities will adopt a public utility model based on the fact that some smaller, under-served, rural communities have done that is naive and out-of-touch with reality. The private sector companies operating in major cities are critical to these communities, invest heavily in them, have great influence, and I suspect that is appreciated by public officials. Cooperation is the name of the game in these major cities, but (unfortunately) local governments have to act as a catalyst today to force the private sector to recognize the opportunity. For now, hold your tomatoes.. there will be plenty of time to throw them after Philadelphia and other major cities announces their plans.
You miss the point about franchise fees. You stated that there are no franchise fees on broadband (so that couldn't be a city's motivation for providing Wi-Fi). THINK about that a minute. IT IS EXACTLY the reason. THERE ARE NO FRANCHISE FEES. SO LETS (the city) PROVIDE IT AND COLLECT TAXES AND FEES FROM THE PUBLIC!
You also must have missed the rest of my comments on the subject. Cities try to force (spoken in "hints") cellular carriers and tower owners to use city properties so the CITY WILL GET RENT in lieu of "franchise fees".
I'm not sure I've ever seen this much criticism of a plan that has yet to be announced. Ms. Neff continues to be the lightening rod for what (on the surface) looks like a collision course between the public and private sector, the future of the broadband market, the impact of local/state/federal polcy and the socio-economic trends in our major cities. Tough job, but somebody's....
Since I am generally accepted as a "moderate" in this debate, and since I don't believe in insulting commentary such as Mr. Smirk's "pure baloney" comment, I will stick with the facts. That said, Mr. Smirk's post deserves a candid reply as it is typical of the kind of rhetoric voiced on his side of the debate.
First, Mr. Smirk needs to re-visit his history books and check his facts. Specifically:
1) Were it not for the "big brother, monopoly" he refers to in his post, the DARPA initiative of Internet lore, whereby government acted as a catalyst for what eventually became today's Internet would surely not have happened. Further, when the time came for government to move aside and commercialize what had been created, it did so. And broadband services have been one of the least regulated services of any type, ever.
2) On the point of franchise fees, Mr. Smirk points out "that this is what this is really all about". That is factually incorrect since broadband services are not subject to franchise fees. So this argument makes no sense. Further, franchise fees are not a burden of the private companies who pay them to the city (a common misconception), but are in fact passed along to subscribers on a monthly bill.
3) Referring to Wi-Fi as a "cheap home networking technology" is grounded in naivety. Again, looking at this historically, I could refer to Ethernet (the 802.3 predecessor to Wi-Fi) as a "cheap local area, workgroup technology". Just as Ethernet has continued to evolve, now supporting multi-gigabit speeds, and used as the backbone technology by many large enterprises, so too does Wi-Fi continue to evolve beyond it's initial use.
I would encourage Mr. Smirk to do a site visit or two to cities (granted they are smaller than Philadelphia today) where metro-scale Wi-Fi has been deployed and is delivering value. When a technology becomes a breakaway success and ubiquitous like Wi-Fi has, increasing returns are possible through the armies of engineers around the world who continue to refine, enhance and build on its underpinnings. Remember Linux being scoffed at by certain software companies? Remember the Web browser being considered a toy? Remember how Client/Server ruled and Web architectures were a joke? Were Kodak and Nikon worried about camera phones before the number of them sold annually became greater than all digital cameras combined? I've learned that scoffing at technologies based on their roots, where they came from, is a dangerous practice.
4) Ask the FCC to lower the cost of licenses? Mr. Smirk apparently doesn't understand that the licenses I believe he is referring to were auctioned. The price was set by the market based on their perceived value.
5) Lastly, suggesting that people who need broadband should "support their cellular company" completely ignores two facts; first, many people can't afford an $80 per month charge for cellular/PCS data and second, these technologies are fragmented, have difficult provisioning processes and are NOT embedded in PCs, laptops and other mobile devices the way Wi-Fi is today.
Mr. Smirk's commentary is typical of the false assumption made by many about municipal wireless initiatives; that it always involves taxpayer funds, that it is owned and operated by a city like a public utility and that local government officials are greedily trying to make money on public rights of way.
Having met and worked with many elected and appointed officials in major cities on this topic, nothing could be further from the truth. They are focused on 1) decreasing the cost of government, 2) bringing affordable services to low-income and disadvantaged residents and businesses and 3) working to foster higher rates of economic development. Those are three things that shareholders in private organizations are not directly incented to do (which is understandable), therefore elected officials must take up the charge.
Lastly, assuming that major cities will adopt a public utility model based on the fact that some smaller, under-served, rural communities have done that is naive and out-of-touch with reality. The private sector companies operating in major cities are critical to these communities, invest heavily in them, have great influence, and I suspect that is appreciated by public officials. Cooperation is the name of the game in these major cities, but (unfortunately) local governments have to act as a catalyst today to force the private sector to recognize the opportunity. For now, hold your tomatoes.. there will be plenty of time to throw them after Philadelphia and other major cities announces their plans.
You miss the point about franchise fees. You stated that there are no franchise fees on broadband (so that couldn't be a city's motivation for providing Wi-Fi). THINK about that a minute. IT IS EXACTLY the reason. THERE ARE NO FRANCHISE FEES. SO LETS (the city) PROVIDE IT AND COLLECT TAXES AND FEES FROM THE PUBLIC!
You also must have missed the rest of my comments on the subject. Cities try to force (spoken in "hints") cellular carriers and tower owners to use city properties so the CITY WILL GET RENT in lieu of "franchise fees".
Having allowed copmpetition only long enough to obtain long distance approval, the ILECs are now attacking unregulated wireless wi-fi providers. When will it stop? When will Washington stop selling out to the big campaign contributors of telco land? Bravo Philadelphia and every other municipality that is forging ahead with wwireless networks. As long as the President and Capitol require the FCC to be castrated, the best chance for competition is going to be regulation free overlying wi-fi and wi-max networks. Unregulated bands should be increased to accomodate them, hopefully before the FCC totally loses it's manhood.
Having allowed copmpetition only long enough to obtain long distance approval, the ILECs are now attacking unregulated wireless wi-fi providers. When will it stop? When will Washington stop selling out to the big campaign contributors of telco land? Bravo Philadelphia and every other municipality that is forging ahead with wwireless networks. As long as the President and Capitol require the FCC to be castrated, the best chance for competition is going to be regulation free overlying wi-fi and wi-max networks. Unregulated bands should be increased to accomodate them, hopefully before the FCC totally loses it's manhood.
Incumbent carriers have been saying for years that they will bring high-speed networks to their customers. Very few have been successful.
Sprint tried it in Phoenix. Experiment failed. Project Cancelled. Customers were left in the lurch.
The bottom line is ubiquitous network access is essential for business today. Speeds of over 3 Mbps are not only necessary but required in many cases. ILECS, PCS, and A-B Cellular carriers have all failed bringing this necessary ubiquity to the masses.
There are many reasons for this including the CAPEX required to build the network, and the questionability of a viable financial market in the short (or even medium) term. All of these reasons add up to the carriers not wanting to push ahead.
Why shouldn't cities with geographic advantages like Phili (or New York, or Chicago, or Las Vegas, or Phoenix) pick up and serve the public good.
Bring bandwidth to low-income users who can't afford $50/ month (or more). Provide access to mobile businesses who can flourish (and pay more in sales tax, etc.) in a low-cost high- bandwidth ubiquitous environment.
When the carriers are ready, let's talk... until then... beam me my network Ms Neff!
I can easily see both sides of this issue, but you have provided evidence that conflicts with your position. Consider,
<<Sprint tried it in Phoenix. Experiment failed. Project Cancelled.>>
Yet then you ask,
<<Why shouldn't cities . . . pick up and serve the public good.>>
You answered your own question. Because it is a money-losing proposition. If businesses can't make it work, then it will be a drain on individual taxpayers to keep it going. Quite simply, the service cannot sustain itself. Therefore, we will all be paying for a communications system that only a few people use, and is managed by low-salary or part-time government employees.
The market doesn't exist because people do not want it enough. If people don't want a service enough to support the market, there is no reason for the government to try an push it upon the people who obviously won't take advantage of it anyhow.
This is a classic case of "It sounds good" conflicting with market demand.
Incumbent carriers have been saying for years that they will bring high-speed networks to their customers. Very few have been successful.
Sprint tried it in Phoenix. Experiment failed. Project Cancelled. Customers were left in the lurch.
The bottom line is ubiquitous network access is essential for business today. Speeds of over 3 Mbps are not only necessary but required in many cases. ILECS, PCS, and A-B Cellular carriers have all failed bringing this necessary ubiquity to the masses.
There are many reasons for this including the CAPEX required to build the network, and the questionability of a viable financial market in the short (or even medium) term. All of these reasons add up to the carriers not wanting to push ahead.
Why shouldn't cities with geographic advantages like Phili (or New York, or Chicago, or Las Vegas, or Phoenix) pick up and serve the public good.
Bring bandwidth to low-income users who can't afford $50/ month (or more). Provide access to mobile businesses who can flourish (and pay more in sales tax, etc.) in a low-cost high- bandwidth ubiquitous environment.
When the carriers are ready, let's talk... until then... beam me my network Ms Neff!
I can easily see both sides of this issue, but you have provided evidence that conflicts with your position. Consider,
<<Sprint tried it in Phoenix. Experiment failed. Project Cancelled.>>
Yet then you ask,
<<Why shouldn't cities . . . pick up and serve the public good.>>
You answered your own question. Because it is a money-losing proposition. If businesses can't make it work, then it will be a drain on individual taxpayers to keep it going. Quite simply, the service cannot sustain itself. Therefore, we will all be paying for a communications system that only a few people use, and is managed by low-salary or part-time government employees.
The market doesn't exist because people do not want it enough. If people don't want a service enough to support the market, there is no reason for the government to try an push it upon the people who obviously won't take advantage of it anyhow.
This is a classic case of "It sounds good" conflicting with market demand.
I have been using the free municipal Wi-Fi service in my city (Fredericton, NB, Canada) for a year. Although the core areas initially set-up with Wi-Fi coverage were the downtown core and business districts, this also covered large residential areas. Residential coverage is increasing at a steady rate to eventually cover the entire city.
The main impetus for the city's creation of the Wi-Fi network was to attract businesses to the city. This increases the tax base, which offsets the costs of set-up and maintenance. So far, this has been a great success. There has not been a need for an increase in the tax rate (or for a diversion of funds from other services) to fund this project.
In Fredericton, the city has integrated traditional and wireless technologies to create what they call the Fred-eZone, a free, community-wide Wi-Fi network providing residents, visitors and businesses with mobile broadband access from virtually anywhere within the city. The network enables Fredericton to better differentiate itself from other cities and towns, increasing its ability to attract and retain knowledge industries looking for a location that offers an innovative, productive and exciting environment.
From reading the article, it sounds like Philadelphia is creating the network to enable low-income access to technology.
For further details, please visit: <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.fred-ezone.ca/fred-ezone/" target="_newWindow">http://www.fred-ezone.ca/fred-ezone/</a>
I forgot to mention that there was strong opposition to the creation of the Fredericton Wi-Fi network from local telecommunication and cable television providers.
Their argument being that they would lose existing customers to the free Wi-Fi service. Since its inception, informal studies show the telephone and cable companies have not lost customers in the covered areas. The companies themselves have remained quiet.
"From reading the article, it sounds like Philadelphia is creating the network to enable low-income access to technology."
Well, if it is FREE to both residents and tourists (and requires no authentication), it sounds like it would be EXCELLENT for TERRORISTS! You better keep an eye on "strangers in town"!
I have been using the free municipal Wi-Fi service in my city (Fredericton, NB, Canada) for a year. Although the core areas initially set-up with Wi-Fi coverage were the downtown core and business districts, this also covered large residential areas. Residential coverage is increasing at a steady rate to eventually cover the entire city.
The main impetus for the city's creation of the Wi-Fi network was to attract businesses to the city. This increases the tax base, which offsets the costs of set-up and maintenance. So far, this has been a great success. There has not been a need for an increase in the tax rate (or for a diversion of funds from other services) to fund this project.
In Fredericton, the city has integrated traditional and wireless technologies to create what they call the Fred-eZone, a free, community-wide Wi-Fi network providing residents, visitors and businesses with mobile broadband access from virtually anywhere within the city. The network enables Fredericton to better differentiate itself from other cities and towns, increasing its ability to attract and retain knowledge industries looking for a location that offers an innovative, productive and exciting environment.
From reading the article, it sounds like Philadelphia is creating the network to enable low-income access to technology.
For further details, please visit: <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.fred-ezone.ca/fred-ezone/" target="_newWindow">http://www.fred-ezone.ca/fred-ezone/</a>
I forgot to mention that there was strong opposition to the creation of the Fredericton Wi-Fi network from local telecommunication and cable television providers.
Their argument being that they would lose existing customers to the free Wi-Fi service. Since its inception, informal studies show the telephone and cable companies have not lost customers in the covered areas. The companies themselves have remained quiet.
"From reading the article, it sounds like Philadelphia is creating the network to enable low-income access to technology."
Well, if it is FREE to both residents and tourists (and requires no authentication), it sounds like it would be EXCELLENT for TERRORISTS! You better keep an eye on "strangers in town"!
Philly is trying to do something which for the most part has already been done and done well by local private groups. The best thing the cities could do is provide a subsidy for the broadband access of these wifi networks if needed. The local network providers may be helpful and receptive to the idea of attaching their name and resources to such projects.
Washington, New York and other cities have dedicated people providing these networks free of charge in some cases. This model is working well in Australian outback locations.
There is no reason a city should be directly involved with these networks unless it means allowing a group to gain free access to poles or a library rooftop for the nodes when necessary.
Doing as much as possible privately without involving the city government, FCC or the cell companies will provide the greatest insulation from monopolistic self-interest degradation of the use of what is still "Unlicensed" spectrum!
And yes these networks can perform very well indeed when designed well - especially when the largest motivating factor is performance and wide availability rather than profit.
"Doing as much as possible privately without involving the city government, FCC or the cell companies will provide the greatest insulation from monopolistic self-interest degradation of the use of what is still "Unlicensed" spectrum!"
Exactly correct, but, do YOU, PERSONALLY, want to be responsible for what I (or someone else) may be doing on YOUR network? Just FOR INSTANCE, do YOU want to provide your server logs to (or argue in court against) special interests like THE MUSIC INDUSTRY?
The bottom line is that anyone who thinks they're going to get something for nothing NEEDS TO THINK AGAIN! You can trade your money for a monthly service. Or you can trade your privacy, personal security, NATIONAL security, or etc. for a "so-called" free service. I say JUST PAY YOUR BILL and tell the cities to stay out of broadband. THE BIG MISTAKE people make is in equating DATA with WATER (the individual's safety, security, etc. are not compromised BY WATER - well, we probably don't want to GO THERE, but at least not compromised in the same ways).
Philly is trying to do something which for the most part has already been done and done well by local private groups. The best thing the cities could do is provide a subsidy for the broadband access of these wifi networks if needed. The local network providers may be helpful and receptive to the idea of attaching their name and resources to such projects.
Washington, New York and other cities have dedicated people providing these networks free of charge in some cases. This model is working well in Australian outback locations.
There is no reason a city should be directly involved with these networks unless it means allowing a group to gain free access to poles or a library rooftop for the nodes when necessary.
Doing as much as possible privately without involving the city government, FCC or the cell companies will provide the greatest insulation from monopolistic self-interest degradation of the use of what is still "Unlicensed" spectrum!
And yes these networks can perform very well indeed when designed well - especially when the largest motivating factor is performance and wide availability rather than profit.
"Doing as much as possible privately without involving the city government, FCC or the cell companies will provide the greatest insulation from monopolistic self-interest degradation of the use of what is still "Unlicensed" spectrum!"
Exactly correct, but, do YOU, PERSONALLY, want to be responsible for what I (or someone else) may be doing on YOUR network? Just FOR INSTANCE, do YOU want to provide your server logs to (or argue in court against) special interests like THE MUSIC INDUSTRY?
The bottom line is that anyone who thinks they're going to get something for nothing NEEDS TO THINK AGAIN! You can trade your money for a monthly service. Or you can trade your privacy, personal security, NATIONAL security, or etc. for a "so-called" free service. I say JUST PAY YOUR BILL and tell the cities to stay out of broadband. THE BIG MISTAKE people make is in equating DATA with WATER (the individual's safety, security, etc. are not compromised BY WATER - well, we probably don't want to GO THERE, but at least not compromised in the same ways).
The problem Phili is seeing, like everywhere else, is what I call 'skimming the cream'. A company comes into a market, say a large city or a rural county with a couple of towns or even a small to mid-sized city. They set up their wires and or towers in the cities/towns or in the case of big cities, the more affluent neighborhoods. Skim the market for the cream, the high profit market, and leave everyone else in the cold. There is no incentive to push into the lower profit markets, even though with the fortunes they are pulling in from the high profit markets they could easily afford to provide service to these markets. What I see here is a failure of the politicians in the first place, contracts not being worded strongly enough. I see it this way, if a company is given access to a community to provide services for profit, they should be required to service the ENTIRE community. Written so in the contract. The company is allowed to go into the high profit markets before the other markets, to gain revenue to help offset the costs of providing to the lesser profit markets. But within a certain amount of time, service must be rendered to the entire market. If they fail to do so, ownership of the fiber or towers or what have you reverts to the community to use. Most corporations don't live up to their end of the implied bargain when allowed to do business somewhere. If corporation says "We want to serve Phili" then the corporation must be made to serve ALL of Phili. If they don't think they can make any money serving Phili, don't bid on the right to provide service or contract for it or whatever. If they don't live up to their end of the bargain, then the city should get the wire/towers so they can attempt to do so. And, if the politicians don't begin ENFORCING the rules to serve ALL of the community, then maybe it's time for some new politicians? And, they make enough profit off of the higher income customers to provide free service to those without the means to purchase service at the higher rates.
The problem Phili is seeing, like everywhere else, is what I call 'skimming the cream'. A company comes into a market, say a large city or a rural county with a couple of towns or even a small to mid-sized city. They set up their wires and or towers in the cities/towns or in the case of big cities, the more affluent neighborhoods. Skim the market for the cream, the high profit market, and leave everyone else in the cold. There is no incentive to push into the lower profit markets, even though with the fortunes they are pulling in from the high profit markets they could easily afford to provide service to these markets. What I see here is a failure of the politicians in the first place, contracts not being worded strongly enough. I see it this way, if a company is given access to a community to provide services for profit, they should be required to service the ENTIRE community. Written so in the contract. The company is allowed to go into the high profit markets before the other markets, to gain revenue to help offset the costs of providing to the lesser profit markets. But within a certain amount of time, service must be rendered to the entire market. If they fail to do so, ownership of the fiber or towers or what have you reverts to the community to use. Most corporations don't live up to their end of the implied bargain when allowed to do business somewhere. If corporation says "We want to serve Phili" then the corporation must be made to serve ALL of Phili. If they don't think they can make any money serving Phili, don't bid on the right to provide service or contract for it or whatever. If they don't live up to their end of the bargain, then the city should get the wire/towers so they can attempt to do so. And, if the politicians don't begin ENFORCING the rules to serve ALL of the community, then maybe it's time for some new politicians? And, they make enough profit off of the higher income customers to provide free service to those without the means to purchase service at the higher rates.
I am dumbfounded that Verizon's lobbiests can make this sort of thing happen. As a Wi-Fi enthusiast, I say go build it -- and we'll have quite blatant proof of their dastardly tactics. View Wi-Fi in your neighborhood at WiFiMaps.com
I am dumbfounded that Verizon's lobbiests can make this sort of thing happen. As a Wi-Fi enthusiast, I say go build it -- and we'll have quite blatant proof of their dastardly tactics. View Wi-Fi in your neighborhood at WiFiMaps.com
Here is my dilemna. I am interested in setting open access high speed wireless as part of a roving open air "Public Markets" project aimed at low-income at-risk folks. I am therefore all in favor of free public access to high speed wireless internet connections. I have never had a cell phone. At this point I can really see some advantages to having one. The service with the best coverage is leading the charge against public WIFI systems. I don't think I want to be sending $40.00 or more per month to a corporation that is anti-public service. First I tried to find a service provider that met some social screening filters. I couldn't find any.
Then I thought "what about VoIP phones that can hook into internet connections? With a little research I ran into this :
{NexLink is a mesh-based broadband network that can carry data, VoIP calls, and streaming video at broadband connection speeds of up to 1.5 Mbps, while traveling at multi-lane highway velocities, according to NexGen. It is based on 2.4GHz wireless networking, but is not 802.11 compliant. Instead, NexCity implemented a proprietary networking protocol, for greater security and privacy.
Both mobile and fixed infrastructure devices in the NexLink network can act as repeaters and routers. This capability allows each unit to extend the network with self-forming and self-healing networks based on ad hoc, peer-to-peer networking. In the event of a major emergency that disables local fixed devices, first responders arriving on the scene can form a network "automatically and seamlessly," Farley says, using mobile NexLink devices.}
These "self-forming and self-healing networks" really intrigue me. I like the language and the concept, a sort of public service blob that forms around networks of public service people on the move.
So my question: Is there anybody out there working on similar open source type versions of this that would might work in Northern California? Specifically integrating cell phones? Can the "hot spots" be mobil? Can we start small and make it work? Can we make it affordable? Can everybody in the neighborhood use it?
Interested, but in the dark,
Richard Roth <www.cChaos.org> <cChaosBroadcast.blogspot.com>
Here is my dilemna. I am interested in setting open access high speed wireless as part of a roving open air "Public Markets" project aimed at low-income at-risk folks. I am therefore all in favor of free public access to high speed wireless internet connections. I have never had a cell phone. At this point I can really see some advantages to having one. The service with the best coverage is leading the charge against public WIFI systems. I don't think I want to be sending $40.00 or more per month to a corporation that is anti-public service. First I tried to find a service provider that met some social screening filters. I couldn't find any.
Then I thought "what about VoIP phones that can hook into internet connections? With a little research I ran into this :
{NexLink is a mesh-based broadband network that can carry data, VoIP calls, and streaming video at broadband connection speeds of up to 1.5 Mbps, while traveling at multi-lane highway velocities, according to NexGen. It is based on 2.4GHz wireless networking, but is not 802.11 compliant. Instead, NexCity implemented a proprietary networking protocol, for greater security and privacy.
Both mobile and fixed infrastructure devices in the NexLink network can act as repeaters and routers. This capability allows each unit to extend the network with self-forming and self-healing networks based on ad hoc, peer-to-peer networking. In the event of a major emergency that disables local fixed devices, first responders arriving on the scene can form a network "automatically and seamlessly," Farley says, using mobile NexLink devices.}
These "self-forming and self-healing networks" really intrigue me. I like the language and the concept, a sort of public service blob that forms around networks of public service people on the move.
So my question: Is there anybody out there working on similar open source type versions of this that would might work in Northern California? Specifically integrating cell phones? Can the "hot spots" be mobil? Can we start small and make it work? Can we make it affordable? Can everybody in the neighborhood use it?
Interested, but in the dark,
Richard Roth <www.cChaos.org> <cChaosBroadcast.blogspot.com>
Municipal WiFI services are being introduced in rural communities across America to provide residents, visitors and businesses with high-speed wireless Internet access. Reliable and affordable access to the Internet is becoming a public utility as important as gas, electric, and water. What's next, you ask...how about Municipal VoIP?
Web giant is spending $120 million to beef up its Mountain View, Calif., headquarters, according to filings with the city reviewed by the San Jose Mercury News.
Tor's "obfsproxy" technology would make encrypted data look innocuous and let it dodge government censors. That could help citizens in Iran reach blocked sites as antigovernment protests reportedly loom.
MIT creates a simulation to celebrate the 50th anniversary of Spacewar. A relic of the early days of minicomputers, it was one of the first computer video games and set the stage for many others, including Asteroids.
No business can compete, on equal footing, with a government. Not even Wal-Mart could compete with a municipal government. TALK ABOUT A MONOPOLY! A municipal government is a MONOPOLY with LAW-MAKING POWER!
Read my detailed discussion of this subject at: <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.ncns.com/" target="_newWindow">http://www.ncns.com/</a>
"No business can compete, on equal footing, with the people. Not even Wal-Mart could compete with the local people. TALK ABOUT A MONOPOLY! The people are a MONOPOLY with LAW-MAKING POWER!"
Would you prefer that corporations wielded the law -making power instead of the people? Libertarian extremism is not the way to lasting freedom.
It is hard to see the logic of this argument, when previous city interventions have been so successful.
Look at the case of Tacoma Washington and the cable provider. The company refused to provide high speed internet, so the city developed their own system and offered cable television to boot. The cable company sued the "illegal" competition for an area they refused to serve. They lost and Tacoma now has a municipal board controlling its cable system, which is cheaper and more reliable than the surrounding areas.
This sounds strangely similar.
Do the math.
your contention is that the piblic sector can't compete with
government?
UPS? FedEx? do these companies ring a bell?
While it makes the standard of service that much more difficult
to attain, most people contend that Government tends to
impliment and deploy services inefficiantly.
The Incumbant's don't want to do this in the 802.11b (2.4Ghz)
spectrum. They are concerned that without control of the
spectrum, they can't provide quality garentees or maintain a
monopoly.
If Phili wants to short-ciruit the debate, I feel the only things
that will be achieved will be to prove that a market exists.
Highlight the problems with Wi-Fi as a public utility, and
hopefully help quite a few Philadelphians in the short term.
With Government and Business working side-by-side, Phili could
be a great test case for the FCC, and act as an example of what
needs to be done in opening up spectrum for ubiquitous high-
speed data.
Then I bet Verizon, Quest, etc... jump on board.
- matthewk (MSK2)
No business can compete, on equal footing, with a government. Not even Wal-Mart could compete with a municipal government. TALK ABOUT A MONOPOLY! A municipal government is a MONOPOLY with LAW-MAKING POWER!
Read my detailed discussion of this subject at: <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.ncns.com/" target="_newWindow">http://www.ncns.com/</a>
"No business can compete, on equal footing, with the people. Not even Wal-Mart could compete with the local people. TALK ABOUT A MONOPOLY! The people are a MONOPOLY with LAW-MAKING POWER!"
Would you prefer that corporations wielded the law -making power instead of the people? Libertarian extremism is not the way to lasting freedom.
It is hard to see the logic of this argument, when previous city interventions have been so successful.
Look at the case of Tacoma Washington and the cable provider. The company refused to provide high speed internet, so the city developed their own system and offered cable television to boot. The cable company sued the "illegal" competition for an area they refused to serve. They lost and Tacoma now has a municipal board controlling its cable system, which is cheaper and more reliable than the surrounding areas.
This sounds strangely similar.
Do the math.
your contention is that the piblic sector can't compete with
government?
UPS? FedEx? do these companies ring a bell?
While it makes the standard of service that much more difficult
to attain, most people contend that Government tends to
impliment and deploy services inefficiantly.
The Incumbant's don't want to do this in the 802.11b (2.4Ghz)
spectrum. They are concerned that without control of the
spectrum, they can't provide quality garentees or maintain a
monopoly.
If Phili wants to short-ciruit the debate, I feel the only things
that will be achieved will be to prove that a market exists.
Highlight the problems with Wi-Fi as a public utility, and
hopefully help quite a few Philadelphians in the short term.
With Government and Business working side-by-side, Phili could
be a great test case for the FCC, and act as an example of what
needs to be done in opening up spectrum for ubiquitous high-
speed data.
Then I bet Verizon, Quest, etc... jump on board.
- matthewk (MSK2)
As a business, the government has shown time and time again that it just cant handle the task. You end up with a crippling bureaucracy, wasted effort and money.
That having been said, there does need to be a counter-point to what is currently happening in internet service. Here in rural Vermont, many areas are without any broadband (well, satellite could be used, but is prohibitively expensive), and no one is willing to lay out the lines to bring it.
Communities do need more leverage against those that provide Internet Access, but having the government step in to do it is asking for trouble.
As a business, the government has shown time and time again that it just cant handle the task. You end up with a crippling bureaucracy, wasted effort and money.
That having been said, there does need to be a counter-point to what is currently happening in internet service. Here in rural Vermont, many areas are without any broadband (well, satellite could be used, but is prohibitively expensive), and no one is willing to lay out the lines to bring it.
Communities do need more leverage against those that provide Internet Access, but having the government step in to do it is asking for trouble.
A grand American tradition is a huge middle class with moderate views. Another tradition is vocal minorities that express LOUD POLARIZED OPINIONS!! Most Americans have pretty good *** detectors and they know most issues are gray, not black and white, and they can tell when they're being led down the garden path by disingenous smooth talkers. Online journalism, most especially blogs, have become a tool for loud fringe voices and "astroturf" (I love that term!) front organizations for vested interests.
In the U.S., we still "vote" in the commercial sector with our pocketbooks, just as we vote - in or out - our representatives in government, who appoint professional staff like the CIO of Philadelphia. (I saw her speak in Corpus Christi in October and I believe she has a reasonable approach and is open to creative private/public sector solutions).
In the end, municipal infrastructure belongs to the people - you can argue with how effectively it is managed by our public servants, but the fact remains that city ROWs and municipal infrastructures already belong to us (We the People) - to have such vital assets as dark fiber or pole attachments, or for that matter, new Wi Fi infrastructure, sidelined or mothballed by the pre-emptive actions of large, well-funded private commercial entities who seek to maintain their monopoly or duopoly status is suspicious, at the very least.
As the debate continues, we should all keep in mind that the general trend in our economy is for more choice and competition, not less. Beware of those who would attempt to steer the debate and manage the political process to limit, rather than expand our choices.
If objections to municipal Wi Fi are that government has an unfair advantage, or that government will do a poor job of managing such projects - we should talk about guiding them to address these shortcomings, not take such drastic steps as precluding them from fully leveraging the very assets we have already paid for, or from meeting the needs of the citizenry that are not being met by the private sector.
I'm hoping to see the voices of the informed middle road enter this debate soon. Here's my vote for private/public sector collaboration and cooperation, and a national broadband infrastructure built on the foundation of the "middle way" that has served us so well in the past.
MAKE NO MISTAKE, there CAN BE NO "private/public sector collaboration". More correctly, you BETTER RUN when government starts collaborating with business. GOVERNMENT passes LAWS, and COLLECTS TAXES. BUSINESSES make and sell products and services. SEE THE DIFFERENCE?
Apparently you are trying equate "ALL CAPS" with SHOUTING and ATTEMPTING to USE THAT to discredit my FACTUAL STATEMENTS as radical, or extreme. I equate it with EMPHASIZING a POINT. And I see right through your CHEESY TACTICS!
A grand American tradition is a huge middle class with moderate views. Another tradition is vocal minorities that express LOUD POLARIZED OPINIONS!! Most Americans have pretty good *** detectors and they know most issues are gray, not black and white, and they can tell when they're being led down the garden path by disingenous smooth talkers. Online journalism, most especially blogs, have become a tool for loud fringe voices and "astroturf" (I love that term!) front organizations for vested interests.
In the U.S., we still "vote" in the commercial sector with our pocketbooks, just as we vote - in or out - our representatives in government, who appoint professional staff like the CIO of Philadelphia. (I saw her speak in Corpus Christi in October and I believe she has a reasonable approach and is open to creative private/public sector solutions).
In the end, municipal infrastructure belongs to the people - you can argue with how effectively it is managed by our public servants, but the fact remains that city ROWs and municipal infrastructures already belong to us (We the People) - to have such vital assets as dark fiber or pole attachments, or for that matter, new Wi Fi infrastructure, sidelined or mothballed by the pre-emptive actions of large, well-funded private commercial entities who seek to maintain their monopoly or duopoly status is suspicious, at the very least.
As the debate continues, we should all keep in mind that the general trend in our economy is for more choice and competition, not less. Beware of those who would attempt to steer the debate and manage the political process to limit, rather than expand our choices.
If objections to municipal Wi Fi are that government has an unfair advantage, or that government will do a poor job of managing such projects - we should talk about guiding them to address these shortcomings, not take such drastic steps as precluding them from fully leveraging the very assets we have already paid for, or from meeting the needs of the citizenry that are not being met by the private sector.
I'm hoping to see the voices of the informed middle road enter this debate soon. Here's my vote for private/public sector collaboration and cooperation, and a national broadband infrastructure built on the foundation of the "middle way" that has served us so well in the past.
MAKE NO MISTAKE, there CAN BE NO "private/public sector collaboration". More correctly, you BETTER RUN when government starts collaborating with business. GOVERNMENT passes LAWS, and COLLECTS TAXES. BUSINESSES make and sell products and services. SEE THE DIFFERENCE?
Apparently you are trying equate "ALL CAPS" with SHOUTING and ATTEMPTING to USE THAT to discredit my FACTUAL STATEMENTS as radical, or extreme. I equate it with EMPHASIZING a POINT. And I see right through your CHEESY TACTICS!
Since I am generally accepted as a "moderate" in this debate, and since I don't believe in insulting commentary such as Mr. Smirk's "pure baloney" comment, I will stick with the facts. That said, Mr. Smirk's post deserves a candid reply as it is typical of the kind of rhetoric voiced on his side of the debate.
First, Mr. Smirk needs to re-visit his history books and check his facts. Specifically:
1) Were it not for the "big brother, monopoly" he refers to in his post, the DARPA initiative of Internet lore, whereby government acted as a catalyst for what eventually became today's Internet would surely not have happened. Further, when the time came for government to move aside and commercialize what had been created, it did so. And broadband services have been one of the least regulated services of any type, ever.
2) On the point of franchise fees, Mr. Smirk points out "that this is what this is really all about". That is factually incorrect since broadband services are not subject to franchise fees. So this argument makes no sense. Further, franchise fees are not a burden of the private companies who pay them to the city (a common misconception), but are in fact passed along to subscribers on a monthly bill.
3) Referring to Wi-Fi as a "cheap home networking technology" is grounded in naivety. Again, looking at this historically, I could refer to Ethernet (the 802.3 predecessor to Wi-Fi) as a "cheap local area, workgroup technology". Just as Ethernet has continued to evolve, now supporting multi-gigabit speeds, and used as the backbone technology by many large enterprises, so too does Wi-Fi continue to evolve beyond it's initial use.
I would encourage Mr. Smirk to do a site visit or two to cities (granted they are smaller than Philadelphia today) where metro-scale Wi-Fi has been deployed and is delivering value. When a technology becomes a breakaway success and ubiquitous like Wi-Fi has, increasing returns are possible through the armies of engineers around the world who continue to refine, enhance and build on its underpinnings. Remember Linux being scoffed at by certain software companies? Remember the Web browser being considered a toy? Remember how Client/Server ruled and Web architectures were a joke? Were Kodak and Nikon worried about camera phones before the number of them sold annually became greater than all digital cameras combined? I've learned that scoffing at technologies based on their roots, where they came from, is a dangerous practice.
4) Ask the FCC to lower the cost of licenses? Mr. Smirk apparently doesn't understand that the licenses I believe he is referring to were auctioned. The price was set by the market based on their perceived value.
5) Lastly, suggesting that people who need broadband should "support their cellular company" completely ignores two facts; first, many people can't afford an $80 per month charge for cellular/PCS data and second, these technologies are fragmented, have difficult provisioning processes and are NOT embedded in PCs, laptops and other mobile devices the way Wi-Fi is today.
Mr. Smirk's commentary is typical of the false assumption made by many about municipal wireless initiatives; that it always involves taxpayer funds, that it is owned and operated by a city like a public utility and that local government officials are greedily trying to make money on public rights of way.
Having met and worked with many elected and appointed officials in major cities on this topic, nothing could be further from the truth. They are focused on 1) decreasing the cost of government, 2) bringing affordable services to low-income and disadvantaged residents and businesses and 3) working to foster higher rates of economic development. Those are three things that shareholders in private organizations are not directly incented to do (which is understandable), therefore elected officials must take up the charge.
Lastly, assuming that major cities will adopt a public utility model based on the fact that some smaller, under-served, rural communities have done that is naive and out-of-touch with reality. The private sector companies operating in major cities are critical to these communities, invest heavily in them, have great influence, and I suspect that is appreciated by public officials. Cooperation is the name of the game in these major cities, but (unfortunately) local governments have to act as a catalyst today to force the private sector to recognize the opportunity. For now, hold your tomatoes.. there will be plenty of time to throw them after Philadelphia and other major cities announces their plans.
You miss the point about franchise fees. You stated that there are no franchise fees on broadband (so that couldn't be a city's motivation for providing Wi-Fi). THINK about that a minute. IT IS EXACTLY the reason. THERE ARE NO FRANCHISE FEES. SO LETS (the city) PROVIDE IT AND COLLECT TAXES AND FEES FROM THE PUBLIC!
You also must have missed the rest of my comments on the subject. Cities try to force (spoken in "hints") cellular carriers and tower owners to use city properties so the CITY WILL GET RENT in lieu of "franchise fees".
Since I am generally accepted as a "moderate" in this debate, and since I don't believe in insulting commentary such as Mr. Smirk's "pure baloney" comment, I will stick with the facts. That said, Mr. Smirk's post deserves a candid reply as it is typical of the kind of rhetoric voiced on his side of the debate.
First, Mr. Smirk needs to re-visit his history books and check his facts. Specifically:
1) Were it not for the "big brother, monopoly" he refers to in his post, the DARPA initiative of Internet lore, whereby government acted as a catalyst for what eventually became today's Internet would surely not have happened. Further, when the time came for government to move aside and commercialize what had been created, it did so. And broadband services have been one of the least regulated services of any type, ever.
2) On the point of franchise fees, Mr. Smirk points out "that this is what this is really all about". That is factually incorrect since broadband services are not subject to franchise fees. So this argument makes no sense. Further, franchise fees are not a burden of the private companies who pay them to the city (a common misconception), but are in fact passed along to subscribers on a monthly bill.
3) Referring to Wi-Fi as a "cheap home networking technology" is grounded in naivety. Again, looking at this historically, I could refer to Ethernet (the 802.3 predecessor to Wi-Fi) as a "cheap local area, workgroup technology". Just as Ethernet has continued to evolve, now supporting multi-gigabit speeds, and used as the backbone technology by many large enterprises, so too does Wi-Fi continue to evolve beyond it's initial use.
I would encourage Mr. Smirk to do a site visit or two to cities (granted they are smaller than Philadelphia today) where metro-scale Wi-Fi has been deployed and is delivering value. When a technology becomes a breakaway success and ubiquitous like Wi-Fi has, increasing returns are possible through the armies of engineers around the world who continue to refine, enhance and build on its underpinnings. Remember Linux being scoffed at by certain software companies? Remember the Web browser being considered a toy? Remember how Client/Server ruled and Web architectures were a joke? Were Kodak and Nikon worried about camera phones before the number of them sold annually became greater than all digital cameras combined? I've learned that scoffing at technologies based on their roots, where they came from, is a dangerous practice.
4) Ask the FCC to lower the cost of licenses? Mr. Smirk apparently doesn't understand that the licenses I believe he is referring to were auctioned. The price was set by the market based on their perceived value.
5) Lastly, suggesting that people who need broadband should "support their cellular company" completely ignores two facts; first, many people can't afford an $80 per month charge for cellular/PCS data and second, these technologies are fragmented, have difficult provisioning processes and are NOT embedded in PCs, laptops and other mobile devices the way Wi-Fi is today.
Mr. Smirk's commentary is typical of the false assumption made by many about municipal wireless initiatives; that it always involves taxpayer funds, that it is owned and operated by a city like a public utility and that local government officials are greedily trying to make money on public rights of way.
Having met and worked with many elected and appointed officials in major cities on this topic, nothing could be further from the truth. They are focused on 1) decreasing the cost of government, 2) bringing affordable services to low-income and disadvantaged residents and businesses and 3) working to foster higher rates of economic development. Those are three things that shareholders in private organizations are not directly incented to do (which is understandable), therefore elected officials must take up the charge.
Lastly, assuming that major cities will adopt a public utility model based on the fact that some smaller, under-served, rural communities have done that is naive and out-of-touch with reality. The private sector companies operating in major cities are critical to these communities, invest heavily in them, have great influence, and I suspect that is appreciated by public officials. Cooperation is the name of the game in these major cities, but (unfortunately) local governments have to act as a catalyst today to force the private sector to recognize the opportunity. For now, hold your tomatoes.. there will be plenty of time to throw them after Philadelphia and other major cities announces their plans.
You miss the point about franchise fees. You stated that there are no franchise fees on broadband (so that couldn't be a city's motivation for providing Wi-Fi). THINK about that a minute. IT IS EXACTLY the reason. THERE ARE NO FRANCHISE FEES. SO LETS (the city) PROVIDE IT AND COLLECT TAXES AND FEES FROM THE PUBLIC!
You also must have missed the rest of my comments on the subject. Cities try to force (spoken in "hints") cellular carriers and tower owners to use city properties so the CITY WILL GET RENT in lieu of "franchise fees".
Incumbent carriers have been saying for years that they will
bring high-speed networks to their customers. Very few have
been successful.
Sprint tried it in Phoenix. Experiment failed. Project Cancelled.
Customers were left in the lurch.
The bottom line is ubiquitous network access is essential for
business today. Speeds of over 3 Mbps are not only necessary
but required in many cases. ILECS, PCS, and A-B Cellular
carriers have all failed bringing this necessary ubiquity to the
masses.
There are many reasons for this including the CAPEX required to
build the network, and the questionability of a viable financial
market in the short (or even medium) term. All of these reasons
add up to the carriers not wanting to push ahead.
Why shouldn't cities with geographic advantages like Phili (or
New York, or Chicago, or Las Vegas, or Phoenix) pick up and
serve the public good.
Bring bandwidth to low-income users who can't afford $50/
month (or more). Provide access to mobile businesses who can
flourish (and pay more in sales tax, etc.) in a low-cost high-
bandwidth ubiquitous environment.
When the carriers are ready, let's talk... until then... beam me
my network Ms Neff!
- matthewk (MSK2)
<<Sprint tried it in Phoenix. Experiment failed. Project Cancelled.>>
Yet then you ask,
<<Why shouldn't cities . . . pick up and serve the public good.>>
You answered your own question. Because it is a money-losing proposition. If businesses can't make it work, then it will be a drain on individual taxpayers to keep it going. Quite simply, the service cannot sustain itself. Therefore, we will all be paying for a communications system that only a few people use, and is managed by low-salary or part-time government employees.
The market doesn't exist because people do not want it enough. If people don't want a service enough to support the market, there is no reason for the government to try an push it upon the people who obviously won't take advantage of it anyhow.
This is a classic case of "It sounds good" conflicting with market demand.
Incumbent carriers have been saying for years that they will
bring high-speed networks to their customers. Very few have
been successful.
Sprint tried it in Phoenix. Experiment failed. Project Cancelled.
Customers were left in the lurch.
The bottom line is ubiquitous network access is essential for
business today. Speeds of over 3 Mbps are not only necessary
but required in many cases. ILECS, PCS, and A-B Cellular
carriers have all failed bringing this necessary ubiquity to the
masses.
There are many reasons for this including the CAPEX required to
build the network, and the questionability of a viable financial
market in the short (or even medium) term. All of these reasons
add up to the carriers not wanting to push ahead.
Why shouldn't cities with geographic advantages like Phili (or
New York, or Chicago, or Las Vegas, or Phoenix) pick up and
serve the public good.
Bring bandwidth to low-income users who can't afford $50/
month (or more). Provide access to mobile businesses who can
flourish (and pay more in sales tax, etc.) in a low-cost high-
bandwidth ubiquitous environment.
When the carriers are ready, let's talk... until then... beam me
my network Ms Neff!
- matthewk (MSK2)
<<Sprint tried it in Phoenix. Experiment failed. Project Cancelled.>>
Yet then you ask,
<<Why shouldn't cities . . . pick up and serve the public good.>>
You answered your own question. Because it is a money-losing proposition. If businesses can't make it work, then it will be a drain on individual taxpayers to keep it going. Quite simply, the service cannot sustain itself. Therefore, we will all be paying for a communications system that only a few people use, and is managed by low-salary or part-time government employees.
The market doesn't exist because people do not want it enough. If people don't want a service enough to support the market, there is no reason for the government to try an push it upon the people who obviously won't take advantage of it anyhow.
This is a classic case of "It sounds good" conflicting with market demand.
I have been using the free municipal Wi-Fi service in my city (Fredericton, NB, Canada) for a year. Although the core areas initially set-up with Wi-Fi coverage were the downtown core and business districts, this also covered large residential areas. Residential coverage is increasing at a steady rate to eventually cover the entire city.
The main impetus for the city's creation of the Wi-Fi network was to attract businesses to the city. This increases the tax base, which offsets the costs of set-up and maintenance. So far, this has been a great success. There has not been a need for an increase in the tax rate (or for a diversion of funds from other services) to fund this project.
In Fredericton, the city has integrated traditional and wireless technologies to create what they call the Fred-eZone, a free, community-wide Wi-Fi network providing residents, visitors and businesses with mobile broadband access from virtually anywhere within the city. The network enables Fredericton to better differentiate itself from other cities and towns, increasing its ability to attract and retain knowledge industries looking for a location that offers an innovative, productive and exciting environment.
From reading the article, it sounds like Philadelphia is creating the network to enable low-income access to technology.
For further details, please visit: <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.fred-ezone.ca/fred-ezone/" target="_newWindow">http://www.fred-ezone.ca/fred-ezone/</a>
Regards,
Brian
Their argument being that they would lose existing customers to the free Wi-Fi service. Since its inception, informal studies show the telephone and cable companies have not lost customers in the covered areas. The companies themselves have remained quiet.
"From reading the article, it sounds like Philadelphia is creating the network to enable low-income access to technology."
Well, if it is FREE to both residents and tourists (and requires no authentication), it sounds like it would be EXCELLENT for TERRORISTS! You better keep an eye on "strangers in town"!
I have been using the free municipal Wi-Fi service in my city (Fredericton, NB, Canada) for a year. Although the core areas initially set-up with Wi-Fi coverage were the downtown core and business districts, this also covered large residential areas. Residential coverage is increasing at a steady rate to eventually cover the entire city.
The main impetus for the city's creation of the Wi-Fi network was to attract businesses to the city. This increases the tax base, which offsets the costs of set-up and maintenance. So far, this has been a great success. There has not been a need for an increase in the tax rate (or for a diversion of funds from other services) to fund this project.
In Fredericton, the city has integrated traditional and wireless technologies to create what they call the Fred-eZone, a free, community-wide Wi-Fi network providing residents, visitors and businesses with mobile broadband access from virtually anywhere within the city. The network enables Fredericton to better differentiate itself from other cities and towns, increasing its ability to attract and retain knowledge industries looking for a location that offers an innovative, productive and exciting environment.
From reading the article, it sounds like Philadelphia is creating the network to enable low-income access to technology.
For further details, please visit: <a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.fred-ezone.ca/fred-ezone/" target="_newWindow">http://www.fred-ezone.ca/fred-ezone/</a>
Regards,
Brian
Their argument being that they would lose existing customers to the free Wi-Fi service. Since its inception, informal studies show the telephone and cable companies have not lost customers in the covered areas. The companies themselves have remained quiet.
"From reading the article, it sounds like Philadelphia is creating the network to enable low-income access to technology."
Well, if it is FREE to both residents and tourists (and requires no authentication), it sounds like it would be EXCELLENT for TERRORISTS! You better keep an eye on "strangers in town"!
Washington, New York and other cities have dedicated people providing these networks free of charge in some cases. This model is working well in Australian outback locations.
There is no reason a city should be directly involved with these networks unless it means allowing a group to gain free access to poles or a library rooftop for the nodes when necessary.
Doing as much as possible privately without involving the city government, FCC or the cell companies will provide the greatest insulation from monopolistic self-interest degradation of the use of what is still "Unlicensed" spectrum!
And yes these networks can perform very well indeed when designed well - especially when the largest motivating factor is performance and wide availability rather than profit.
Exactly correct, but, do YOU, PERSONALLY, want to be responsible for what I (or someone else) may be doing on YOUR network? Just FOR INSTANCE, do YOU want to provide your server logs to (or argue in court against) special interests like THE MUSIC INDUSTRY?
The bottom line is that anyone who thinks they're going to get something for nothing NEEDS TO THINK AGAIN! You can trade your money for a monthly service. Or you can trade your privacy, personal security, NATIONAL security, or etc. for a "so-called" free service. I say JUST PAY YOUR BILL and tell the cities to stay out of broadband. THE BIG MISTAKE people make is in equating DATA with WATER (the individual's safety, security, etc. are not compromised BY WATER - well, we probably don't want to GO THERE, but at least not compromised in the same ways).
Washington, New York and other cities have dedicated people providing these networks free of charge in some cases. This model is working well in Australian outback locations.
There is no reason a city should be directly involved with these networks unless it means allowing a group to gain free access to poles or a library rooftop for the nodes when necessary.
Doing as much as possible privately without involving the city government, FCC or the cell companies will provide the greatest insulation from monopolistic self-interest degradation of the use of what is still "Unlicensed" spectrum!
And yes these networks can perform very well indeed when designed well - especially when the largest motivating factor is performance and wide availability rather than profit.
Exactly correct, but, do YOU, PERSONALLY, want to be responsible for what I (or someone else) may be doing on YOUR network? Just FOR INSTANCE, do YOU want to provide your server logs to (or argue in court against) special interests like THE MUSIC INDUSTRY?
The bottom line is that anyone who thinks they're going to get something for nothing NEEDS TO THINK AGAIN! You can trade your money for a monthly service. Or you can trade your privacy, personal security, NATIONAL security, or etc. for a "so-called" free service. I say JUST PAY YOUR BILL and tell the cities to stay out of broadband. THE BIG MISTAKE people make is in equating DATA with WATER (the individual's safety, security, etc. are not compromised BY WATER - well, we probably don't want to GO THERE, but at least not compromised in the same ways).
What I see here is a failure of the politicians in the first place, contracts not being worded strongly enough. I see it this way, if a company is given access to a community to provide services for profit, they should be required to service the ENTIRE community. Written so in the contract.
The company is allowed to go into the high profit markets before the other markets, to gain revenue to help offset the costs of providing to the lesser profit markets. But within a certain amount of time, service must be rendered to the entire market.
If they fail to do so, ownership of the fiber or towers or what have you reverts to the community to use. Most corporations don't live up to their end of the implied bargain when allowed to do business somewhere. If corporation says "We want to serve Phili" then the corporation must be made to serve ALL of Phili.
If they don't think they can make any money serving Phili, don't bid on the right to provide service or contract for it or whatever. If they don't live up to their end of the bargain, then the city should get the wire/towers so they can attempt to do so.
And, if the politicians don't begin ENFORCING the rules to serve ALL of the community, then maybe it's time for some new politicians?
And, they make enough profit off of the higher income customers to provide free service to those without the means to purchase service at the higher rates.
What I see here is a failure of the politicians in the first place, contracts not being worded strongly enough. I see it this way, if a company is given access to a community to provide services for profit, they should be required to service the ENTIRE community. Written so in the contract.
The company is allowed to go into the high profit markets before the other markets, to gain revenue to help offset the costs of providing to the lesser profit markets. But within a certain amount of time, service must be rendered to the entire market.
If they fail to do so, ownership of the fiber or towers or what have you reverts to the community to use. Most corporations don't live up to their end of the implied bargain when allowed to do business somewhere. If corporation says "We want to serve Phili" then the corporation must be made to serve ALL of Phili.
If they don't think they can make any money serving Phili, don't bid on the right to provide service or contract for it or whatever. If they don't live up to their end of the bargain, then the city should get the wire/towers so they can attempt to do so.
And, if the politicians don't begin ENFORCING the rules to serve ALL of the community, then maybe it's time for some new politicians?
And, they make enough profit off of the higher income customers to provide free service to those without the means to purchase service at the higher rates.
I have never had a cell phone. At this point I can really see some advantages to having one. The service with the best coverage is leading the charge against public WIFI systems. I don't think I want to be sending $40.00 or more per month to a corporation that is anti-public service. First I tried to find a service provider that met some social screening filters. I couldn't find any.
Then I thought "what about VoIP phones that can hook into internet connections? With a little research I ran into this :
{NexLink is a mesh-based broadband network that can carry data, VoIP calls, and streaming video at broadband connection speeds of up to 1.5 Mbps, while traveling at multi-lane highway velocities, according to NexGen. It is based on 2.4GHz wireless networking, but is not 802.11 compliant. Instead, NexCity implemented a proprietary networking protocol, for greater security and privacy.
Both mobile and fixed infrastructure devices in the NexLink network can act as repeaters and routers. This capability allows each unit to extend the network with self-forming and self-healing networks based on ad hoc, peer-to-peer networking. In the event of a major emergency that disables local fixed devices, first responders arriving on the scene can form a network "automatically and seamlessly," Farley says, using mobile NexLink devices.}
These "self-forming and self-healing networks" really intrigue me. I like the language and the concept, a sort of public service blob that forms around networks of public service people on the move.
So my question: Is there anybody out there working on similar open source type versions of this that would might work in Northern California? Specifically integrating cell phones?
Can the "hot spots" be mobil?
Can we start small and make it work?
Can we make it affordable?
Can everybody in the neighborhood use it?
Interested, but in the dark,
Richard Roth
<www.cChaos.org>
<cChaosBroadcast.blogspot.com>
I have never had a cell phone. At this point I can really see some advantages to having one. The service with the best coverage is leading the charge against public WIFI systems. I don't think I want to be sending $40.00 or more per month to a corporation that is anti-public service. First I tried to find a service provider that met some social screening filters. I couldn't find any.
Then I thought "what about VoIP phones that can hook into internet connections? With a little research I ran into this :
{NexLink is a mesh-based broadband network that can carry data, VoIP calls, and streaming video at broadband connection speeds of up to 1.5 Mbps, while traveling at multi-lane highway velocities, according to NexGen. It is based on 2.4GHz wireless networking, but is not 802.11 compliant. Instead, NexCity implemented a proprietary networking protocol, for greater security and privacy.
Both mobile and fixed infrastructure devices in the NexLink network can act as repeaters and routers. This capability allows each unit to extend the network with self-forming and self-healing networks based on ad hoc, peer-to-peer networking. In the event of a major emergency that disables local fixed devices, first responders arriving on the scene can form a network "automatically and seamlessly," Farley says, using mobile NexLink devices.}
These "self-forming and self-healing networks" really intrigue me. I like the language and the concept, a sort of public service blob that forms around networks of public service people on the move.
So my question: Is there anybody out there working on similar open source type versions of this that would might work in Northern California? Specifically integrating cell phones?
Can the "hot spots" be mobil?
Can we start small and make it work?
Can we make it affordable?
Can everybody in the neighborhood use it?
Interested, but in the dark,
Richard Roth
<www.cChaos.org>
<cChaosBroadcast.blogspot.com>