Re: An Alternative To San Francisco's Wi-Fi Deal

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: Bob Frankston <Bob2-19-0501 () bobf frankston com>
Date: February 1, 2007 3:35:55 PM EST
To: dave () farber net, ip () v2 listbox com
Cc: dewayne () warpspeed com
Subject: RE: [IP] An Alternative To San Francisco's Wi-Fi Deal

This emphasizes that need to ask why Wi-Fi. As I pointed out in  
http://www.frankston.com/?name=WiFiEdge wouldn't it make more sense  
to help people share a connection using existing infrastructure than  
to deploy a new solution that is more expensive and comes with  
additional problems? The real challenge seems to be helping people  
understand why they need to be connected – the how part is relatively  
simple.



As SF looks at a new deal (http://www.californiachronicle.com/ 
articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=20011) I hope they consider an  
infrastructure approach for all connectivity rather than pursuing a  
subscription model with slow service for free. If the city wants to  
actually use the technology for “digital divide” then an  
infrastructure approach is necessary to avoid what amounts  
discriminatory access to basic facilities and services such as  
education. Of course if they do provide their own fiber it will be  
hard to have a uniform subscription model anyway because video bits  
would dominate.



If the costs are sufficiently low for the city to do FTTP then the  
local connectivity should be low. As an aside – does FFTP mean to  
each apartment or building. As infrastructure one only need connect  
the building rather than bearing the cost of running individual  
distribution lines to each drop (to use classic Bell parlance. Even  
more so if the subscription prices drive people to sharing using Wi- 
Fi anyway.



In reading this story we can interpret “phone” in the sense that one  
must choose to pay someone to get past the barrier to reach classic  
PSTN subscribers and I can interpret “cable” to mean access to the  
classic content we associated with cable.



But the concept of an Internet provider is a bit strange since one is  
“already connected” to the local segment of the Internet. Perhaps the  
model presumes one simply connects locally and then uses something  
like PPoE to get to the rest of the world. This is perverse – what is  
“out here” vs what is “in here”? If I want to reach the Palo Alto  
library do I need to have an “Internet Provider”.



Ultimately this issue will be forced – the first step would be direct  
connections among the communities in the Bay Area and that will  
provide enough buying power to extend the model further. I’ve  
suggested a similar approach among Boston Wi-Fi efforts – direct  
connections rather than paying a third party for regional traffic.



Broadband is a distribution model which increases the costs of  
deployment but the bigger problem is that it presumes all connections  
are expensive and thus makes it difficult to use abundant local  
connectivity for access to schools et al – the very rationale for  
deployment.



Of course with an infrastructure model instead of broadband we would  
simply leaky fiber to provide Wi-Fi coverage as a byproduct without  
having to first come up with a just-so story needed to justify  
deploying it before we’ve had a chance to find the real value using  
new devices and applications and services.



This is why I argue the CFR (Copper, Fiber and Radios) model (http:// 
www.frankston.com/?Name=OurCFR) is the stable model. Otherwise we  
have to infest the system will all sorts of mechanisms that serve no  
purpose other than collecting fees to cover the high cost of these  
additional mechanisms that service no purpose other than [repeat ad  
infinitum]. (This is the model for today’s Universal Service Fund –  
covering the high cost of covering the high cost of …)



SF has a real opportunity but can it step beyond the myopia of the  
broadband subscription model?





-----Original Message-----
From: David Farber [mailto:dave () farber net]
Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 12:22
To: ip () v2 listbox com
Subject: [IP] An Alternative To San Francisco's Wi-Fi Deal







Begin forwarded message:



From: Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne () warpspeed com>

Date: January 30, 2007 8:15:19 AM EST

To: Dewayne-Net Technology List <dewayne-net () warpspeed com>

Subject: [Dewayne-Net] An Alternative To San Francisco's Wi-Fi Deal

Reply-To: dewayne () warpspeed com



AN ALTERNATIVE TO SAN FRANCISCO'S WI-FI DEAL



[SOURCE: San Francisco Chronicle 1/29, AUTHOR: Becca Vargo Daggett,

Institute for Local Self-Reliance]



      [Commentary] San Francisco Supervisors who would reject the

Earthlink-Google deal now have an alternative. The central conclusion

of a recent report from the San Francisco budget analyst is that a

municipally owned wireless network is fiscally feasible. But equally

important for the upcoming Board of Supervisors' vote is the report's

conclusion: that the process leading to the Earthlink-Google deal was

profoundly flawed. The result of this flawed process is the

inadequate Earthlink-Google deal, which accomplishes little more than

the most basic goal of free Internet access. The free service is

decidedly slow: half the speed of the DSL access AT&T is now required

to sell for $10 per month, under terms imposed on its acquisition of

BellSouth, and one-third the speed available for free in neighboring

communities. The need for a wireless bridge device, to bring the

outdoor wireless signal indoors, forces low-income households either

to buy such a device for $80 to $200, or subscribe to the paid

service at $22 per month. Both these options limit the number of low-

income individuals who will use the network. The network also limits

potential competition.



<http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/

2007/01/29/EDGC7N72CM1.DTL>









-------------------------------------------

Archives: http://archives.listbox.com/247/

Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com



-------------------------------------------
Archives: http://archives.listbox.com/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com