Joho the Blog » wifi

January 25, 2012

States banning municipal wifi.

States are being pushed to pass legislation to prevent cities from offering municipal wifi, in order to preserve the current providers’ de facto monopolies. The latest are Georgia and South Carolina, because it would like be um terrible and, er, un-American to let localities experiment and maybe enter into private-public partnerships to speed more even distribution of Net access, or maybe even to view minimal Net access as some sort of public good or, well, do anything that doesn’t first of all maximize the profits of some large companies following a policy that has pushed America way down the global list of broadband access in terms of prices and speeds, because you know the Net is just used for porn and games and stuff and we have to PROTECT THE JOB CREATORS, yeah that’s it.

2 Comments »

December 22, 2009

[berkman] Brett Glass on the life of an ISP

Brett Glass is giving a Berkman lunchtime talk. Brett runs a Wireless Internet Service Provider (WISP) in Laramie, Wyoming. “Lessons from Laramie: Broadband Innovation on the Wireless Frontier” [his slides]

NOTE: Live-blogging. Getting things wrong. Missing points. Omitting key information. Introducing artificial choppiness. Over-emphasizing small matters. Paraphrasing badly. Not running a spellpchecker. Mangling other people’s ideas and words. You are warned, people.

Brett begins with a photo of him on a 50′ tower on top of a 6-story building, which is what you have to do to be a WISP in Wyoming. He’s going to talk about what it’s like to be a WISP. “My entire life brought me to this,” although he didn’t know it as the time. He had worked at TI designing chips, and got a masters at Stanford. He was a computer journalist for many years: more than 2,000 published articles. He moved to Laramie because he likes it there. But the only way to get the Internet was at the University of Wyoming which had a couple of T1 lines, or Compuserv at 2400 baud. So, he founded LARIAT as a user group that turned into a non-profit cooperative ISP that bought its own T1 (for $6K/month). He got early circuitry to build wireless connections for the other users. But the members eventually just wanted to be customers, not coop members. So, Brett and his wife took LARIAT private in 2003. He has 18 yrs of experience deploying high speed wireless Internet. It’s growing by about the size of Manhattan island every year.

“Our cost to deploy is less than $100 per sq mile” at DSL speeds. But FCC regulations prevent him from beating cable speeds. The latencies are lower than DSL and much lower than satellite. The big choke point is that he can only get to the backbone through the telephone company, which charges them 10x as much as the telephone company charges to bring it to the rest of the world. They can’t get licensed spectrum because it’s too expensive, and unlicensed has too much noise in it; every baby monitor and wireless mic can disrupt their signal if they’re close enough to the access point.

Fiber is $25/foot. Brett can cover 40 sq. miles for less than $3000 in capital. “Nobody has this sort of cost per sq mile except perhaps the satellite guys.” “We turned out to have invented a really really good way to cover rural areas, and it’s pretty good in urban areas.” He’ll do things like go to the guy with the “trophy house” on top of the hill and offer free wifi so long as they can also transmit from that site.

The primary constraints on his ability to provide coverage and to innovate are political, not technological. “Fiber is nothing but wireless inside an expensive tube. The physics are the same. You just put it in a tube to exclude interference.”

He bid on 700mz auction, and even a tiny sliver to cover a tiny bit of WY went for $3M. There’s no way, he says, the telco that bought it is going to make a profit by using it; they bought it to exclude other players. “The incumbent has so much to lose that they’re willing to bid many times what the independent operator can.” Brett would like “lightly licensed spectrum”: Not polluted by consumer devices. I.e., a wireless broadband band. “It seems perfectly reasonable but national policy doesn’t have anything like that.” He says that white spaces coming available aren’t right for this.

Q: Doesn’t the 1996 Telecommunications Act provide for competition?
A: Short answer: We watched the courts remove the provisions.

Q: The newly-free analog TV bands?
A: This is beachfront property spectrum. Down the frequency it’s easier to penetrate walls. But the FCC did the wrong thing: They allowed consumer devices on the band, which means they can go through the walls and interfere with your neighbors. But there were powerful lobbies. People didn’t think about the science. Only the politics. It should have been reserved for transmitting from towers to get through walls.

“I had a customer I served on the same band you use for your wireless PC. This customer his service was failing on bright sunny days. We came over to his house when he was having trouble. Nothing was blocking his antenna. But on the patio his daughter was sunbathing in a bikini, with a cordless phone positioned right in front of the antenna. Both were on 2.4gH. We got her a phone on a different phone and that solved the problem.”

And, he says, we need to look at regulating only when there are real problems to be solved. E.g., getting inexpensive backhaul to the Internet. But all the focus in DC is on addressing problems that don’t exist, e.g., Net Neutrality. “No one is engaging in the practices they’re talking about outlawing. But no one is addressing the problems that actually exist.” [paraphrasing throughout!]

He shows a graph of Shannon’s law: To get a lot of bandwidth to someone, you need the frequencies to be uncluttered. Get too far down “Shannon’s knee” and the ability to get broadband falls off, but above the knee, returns diminish as noise goes down. This is an argument for cognitive radios [unassigned frequencies negotiated in real time by transmitters and receivers], which Brett’s been working on for years, but doesn’t have spectrum to implement.

Policy recommendations:

Devote more nonexclusively licensed spetrum to wireless broadband, with mandatory “etiquette” to enable cognitive radio. E.g.,. use the 700 MHz “D” Block. Take back the “virtually unused MDS “A” band for local wireless.

Q: Use it or lose it licensing, like liquor licenses?
A: You do that when you want to restrict something, keeping them to a zero-sum number.

Next thing to do: Increase power limits on when the devices are doing broadband in rural areas, not when they’re a baby monitor, etc.

Increase the geographic granularity of spectrum licenses so “little guys” can bid on them. Right now, the FCC offers narrow slices of frequency for large geographic areas; the FCC ought to do the opposite.

We should have a doctrine of “adverse possession” for spectrum. Right now, we have a feudal system when it comes to spectrum. New doctrine would be one like homesteading: If you use the spectrum, you have a claim on it. This is to get past the current policy of hoarding.

Do not write regulations that assume only content proviers are innovators or that only ISPs can be gatekeepers. We should be more worried about Google. “I have lots of competition in many of the areas I operate.” There are 3 WISPs in Laramie. “You don’t have to worry about me being a gatekeeper. But if you can’t get something listed on Google, you’re basically off the Internet.” “It’s easy to hate the big guys. But not all of us are big guys.”

Finally, “fiux the broken middle mile (special access) market.” There’s no competition there. “ISPs have never filtered any content” except maybe with a couple of exceptions, including filtering VoIP but that was taken off the table. Some of the regulations would outlaw some of the most popular service plans Brett’s company offers. He offers basic service for $30/month [rate plan]; for that you’re not allowed to operate a server, because a lot of the bandwidth Brett buys is asymmetric. People can buy a business class connection that does allow more bandwidth.

Q: Who are you buying access from?
A: The local exchange carrier, the only game in town. The only other way is to tap into the Level 3 backbone that runs along the highway. Level 3 doesn’t want to open up service to Laramie, except for hundreds of thousands of dollars + a guarantee of $15,000/month right from the start, which is way beyond that LARIAT makes. And microwave spectrum is too crowded to enable to get to the backbone in Cheyenne. The government should consider telling the carriers that unless they drop their wholesale prices below their retail prices, there could be some federal price caps.

Q: Is Level 3 quoting you that fee because they have sweetheart fees with the incumbents?
A: I can’t speculate. But others have told me that Level 3 only wants to sell to densely populated areas, even though we’ll pay them more per megabit.

Q: You can’t run p2p apps on your network, right?
A: Yes, because they’re servers.

Q: Title 1 Section 1 of Comms Act says that all radio frequencies ought to be used for emergency use. Section 303G [?] requires the FCC to make the best use of the spectrum. Have you considered a First Amendment suit against the FCC to challenge its right to regulate spectrum since there is no longer a scarcity?
A: I don’t have the money to sue the federal government. Interesting idea.

Q: What do you think of LRE, etc.? Or are you happy with 802.11?
A: 802.11 is not ideal for outdoor use. It’s designed for when all the transmitters can hear one another. But it’s good in that environment anyway. Wimax at it’s best is maybe 10% better, and sometimes worse. We tweak 802.11 to make it work better.

Q: Spread spectrum?
A: 802.11 is sometimes spread spectrum [Techie answer. Couldn't follow.]

Q: [me] Your $30/month plan provides a guaranteed minimal connection rate? What is it?
A: We started as a coop, so we had to provide transparency. We have always offered a committed information rate: You can receive and send a particular amount of info. The plus is that if someone is really a bandwidth hog, I can tell them that this is what they’re buying for that price. For $30, you only get 256kbps. Might double during off-peak. We guarantee this by buying enough. We monitor that someone can’t cut into someone else’s guaranteed amount. And we prevent people from doing bursts; everyone gets a VPN tunnel that controls how much bandwidth is allocated to each tunnel to make sure it gets its share and can’t hog. The New America Foundations nutrition label for bandwidth isn’t a bad idea, although it can be hard to figure out what you should be measuring.

Q: Muniwifi?
A: There’s no such things as a free lunch. Very expensive to run a high quality broadband network. You can’t just give it away. People expect to be able to stream and do latency-sensitive things. The amount of taxes you’d have to pay is about what you’d have to pay to a private provider. And they expect it to be ubiquitous, but 2.4gH won’t go through many walls.

Q: Would you consider doing this in developing countries?
A: There’s an advantage. They’re often not deploying telephone infrastructures. You could locate net service with the cellphone towers.
Q: LTE?
A: It’s just a buzzword for whatever we develop next. Long Term Evolution is the cellphone companies’ word for whatever they build next. Watch out for the hype. No one can violate Shannon’s law.

Q: Do WISPs need to be small? Could they get big enough to get over your scale problems?
A: There are some roll-ups. Some achieve economies of scale. But they don’t come to our area because they couldn’t get the backhaul. And you’d really need a good person in each city, and this knowledge is not easy to come by. And it’s hard to get investors; they walk away when there’s a hint that we might get regulated. I’d love to do it, though.

Q: In Cambridge we have a single ISP…
A: There are some WISPs in Cambridge. WispDirectory.com. There are 4,000 in the US. They hide because they’re worried about being squashed by the big guys.

Q: Why aren’t the other WISPs lining up behind you, supporting your ideas?
A: WISPs are very independent people who climb up on rooftops.

Q: Are there common areas where you can work with people on “the other side”?
A: Depends what you mean by other side. I’ve worked with CTIA. But WISPs are small, homespun businesses. “We’d like to see ourselves enabled, rather than hobbled.”

[Posted without re-reading. All possible errors and stupidities are mine, not Brett's.]

3 Comments »

December 2, 2009

FCC moving on “white spaces” to make more spectrum usable

Harold Feld has a great post on movement at the FCC to make more spectrum available.

According to Harold, the FCC has requested proposals for databases to manage access to the “white spaces” between the frequencies assigned to TV stations. Those frequencies were left unused because analog TV originally needed lots of room between frequencies, which is why your analog stations tend to count by two’s. Plus, the switch to digital TV opened up some more frequencies. So, last year, the FCC voted 5-0 to make those frequencies available for unlicensed use. This will provide more room for innovation. It’s a very big deal.

The white spaces will be made available for fixed band devices, as well as for lower-power ad hoc usage. But, how will a device maker know what slice of spectrum is available? One approach would be to count on smart devices sensing which bands are uncongested and dynamically switch to them. But the FCC says that the sensing devices are not yet reliable enough. So, it is creating a database of white space spectrum usage. And it is allowing others to create databases as well. Those who create databases will be allowed to charge for allocating fixed spectrum and for accessing the database.

So, who gets to build and maintain these databases? How will they make money? How will they ensure accuracy? These and other questions are being left up to those who submit proposals. Harold Feld considers this to be a “good but weird” approach, since usually the FCC lays out the specifications before asking for proposals.

By the way, Harold’s preferred approach:

From my perspective, the most logical model is a non-profit operating on a non-exclusive basis and funded by the industries that benefit. The actual cost of running and managing this is pocket change to the likes of Google, Microsoft and Motorolla (which came up with this scheme in the first place). We shall have to see if they are that enlightened. But whoever is selected, it is important for the FCC to maintain a level of oversight that would prevent this from morphing into a bottleneck at some point in the future. Frankly, this is another reason why a coalition or non-profit with multiple stakeholders would be preferable to a single vendor/manager.

7 Comments »

May 8, 2009

Robin Chase on the smart grid, smart cars, and the power of mesh networks

Pardon the self-bloggery-floggery, but Wired.com has just posted an article of mine that presents Robin “ZipCar” Chase’s argument that the smart grid and smart cars need to be thought about together. Actually, she wants all the infrastructures we’re now building out to adopt open, Net standards, and would prefer that the Internet of Everything be meshed up together. (Time Mag just named Robin as one of the world’s 100 most influential people. We can only hope that’s true.)

The article is currently on Wired’s automotive page, but it may be moved to the main page today or tomorrow.

[Tags: ]

1 Comment »

March 31, 2009

[f2c] Grids and muni nets

Geoff Daily introduces a panel at Freedom to Connect. [Note: Live blogging. Unedited. Uncorrected. Incomplete. Flat out wrong. Thanks for playing.]

James Salter talks about the Smart Grid. The biggest problems on earth: Over-population and global warming. The second is a subset of the first. James at first thought Al Gore was a hypocrite, but now he’s convinced of the truth of what AG says. (James is a proud Republican.) American residential electric usage has tripled in the past 50 years, and the efficiency has gone down. (Efficiency = peak usage over average usage.) 40% of carbon comes from coal-fired power plants and 33% from cars. Obama says we should get greener by building windmills, etc. But the effective thing he’s doing is installing smart meters. Smart meters are networked. There are 140M lectric meters in the use. Only 6.7M are smart meters so far. He estimates it’d cost $2,500 per house — including fiber to the house — to lower the load factor significantly.

Q: Is fiber required for a smart grid?
A: Nope. But the apps will need more bandwidth over time.

Terry Huval of Lafayette, Louisiana tells about broadbanding the city. In 1998, the Lafayette Utilities System put in fiber for its utilities. In 2000, they were authorized to “establish a wholesale and governmental retail network.” Companies were allowed to resell access to private folks. In 2004, the city proposed fiber to home and business as its fourth utility. But then the “Local Government Fair Competition Act” passed, a bill favoring the incumbents. The Governor stepped in and negotiated a compromise. Then the private telcos successfully sued. In 2005, the public voted 62% in favor of the project. “It was looked upon as a huge benefit to local businesses.” It was viewed as being like electricity. Then, in 2006, tow unknown citizens filed suit. 2007, State Supreme Court ruled 7-0 in favor of the project. The whole process cost $3.5M. In 2009, they’ve started providing retail telecommunication services to residential and smaller business customers, at 20% less than the standard competitor. But the vision is to provide much more than basic TV and phone services. They provide the triple play for $85. For $138 you get 250 channels (including HD) and 30MB up and down Internet. Customers can build their own bundle. E.g., unlimited long distance for $31. Five cents a minute to reach much of the world. He stresses that they’ve listened to the community. So, they’ provide 100Mbps for peer-to-peer, free. “We think it opens up doors for all our citizens and businesses.” They enable Net access through your TV if you don’t have a computer. It’s limited, but they can Google… People love the service overall and consider it, proudly, to be “ours.”

Q: [bob frankston] Among the triple play, which funds what?
A: TV is the driver.

Q; [Todd of the Utopia project in Utah] Will you wholesale access to the network so that others can be ISPs.
A: No. At least not until our bonds are paid off.

Q: [brett glass] Where does Lafayette get its backbone connection?
A: AT&T and Quest, about $50-60/Mbps. It’s an over-subscription-based model. You assume you won’t have all of your sources using all of your resources at the same time.

[Terry now plays Cajun fiddle and sings. Awesome.]

Geoff Daily makes a quick announcement of a new alliance: “All Americans deserve equal access to the best broadband. The best broadband is fiber.” [I couldn't get the URL. Sorry.]

[Tags: ]

Be the first to comment »

March 30, 2009

[f2c] Politico-Regulatory talks

[Note: Live blogging. Sloppy. Incomplete. Unchecked. Wrong. Flee! Flee!]

Chris Savage talks about “The Re-Birth of Intelligent Regulation and the Chicago School.” The Chicago School overemphasizes the value of individual thought (= “revealed preference theory”). When people make choices, that’s the best way to know what’s good for them (Chris says). But how can people know which wireless plan they want? “Empirical studies of decision making show that people don’t know what they want.” They don’t act rationally. They have trouble when there are too many alternatives, need to assess risk, etc. But, if you can’t assume that people know what they want, there’s no reason to think that the results from markets are good results. Hence, we need to regulate. If there’s no factual basis to think open competition will lead to the best outcome, regulators may have a role in shaping the outcome. But, timing matters and now is the time to make a “more citizen-friendly regulatory system.”

Derek Slater, a policy person for Google (and a former Berkman Fellow). He’s going to talk about MLab. We have all asked “WTF?” he says, especially when an app starts running badly. We don’t know what’s going on. We don’t have the tools to get the data that would help us understand that. Broadband policy needs data. mLab provides end-user testing tools. (It’s not just a Google project.) “We call it beta but that’s only because most people don’t now what alpha means.” Thirty-six servers at the moment.

John Peha, chief technologist of the FCC, talks about the “Mythology of Rural Broadband.” Myth 1: There’s less interest in broadband in rural areas. Nope. The percentage of US households with Internet overall and rural are almost the same, but rural has less broadband. They probably don’t like their Internet slow. About one third of rural households have no access to broadband of any ttype (except satellite). Myth 2: Customers are unwilling to pay the cost of the buildout. But there are spill-over benefits, affecting the community and not just the individual subscribers. Myth 3: Rural communities may not gain from the broadband they don’t have access to, but it doesn’t hurt them. Nah. “Reducing the size of a network harms those who remain.” Broadband is becoming the norm, hurting those who do not have it. Myth 4: “Government involvement in infrastructure always helps.” Nope. No “one size fits all” solution. We shouldn’t have the gov’t replicate solutions the market is doing well already. We shouldn’t assume that the market solves all problems. We’re getting some more spectrum in 2009 as the switch to digital TV kicks in, and there’s a new national broadband plan under development.

Q: [tim denton, CRTC commissioner] Expand on your point that we don’t know what market conditions will work, Chris?
Chris: We don’t know. It’s important for people, esp. regulators, to remember that.

Q: How can regulators make policy and maintain technological neutrality since technologies offer different capabilities?
Jon: Tech neutrality is a good thing to aim at.
Chris: I want to challenge that. We’re not neutral about houses that have electricity or not, or cars with airbags or not. The market won’t figure this out correctly, necessarily.
Derek: We need to set the goals and look at the data at what different technologies bring to the table.
Jon: The setting of the goals is the key part of that.

[amy wohl] I am a recovering Chicago economist. When the gov’t tries to fix market mistakes, it often introduces a lag that can create a new mistake. How can we help the gov’t make good decisions?
Chris: Elect the right people.
Derek: Infrastructure is special. That’s the message we need to be building on.
David I: Say more …
Audience: Because infrastructure is being built now but not being designed. [Tags: ]

Be the first to comment »

[f2c] Muni Wifi

[Note: All of these conference bloggings are rough notes, wrong, incomplete, poorly paraphrased, full of spellping errors, etc.]

Esme Vos begins by saying that municipal wifi is far from dead. The companies that failed at it generally failed not because they were doing muni wifi (e.g., Earthlink). She talks about some cities where it’s working. E.g., Riverside, Minneapolis, Cleveland. Philadelphia is now succeeding; they got some muni “anchor applications” and is expanding from there. About 50% of logins to the Philadelphia system are Apple products; the Phila project is not a failure. Esme also talks about Lompoc CA, which had been considerd to be a failure, but it’s been turned around.

Sascha Meinrath says his role these days is “to translate geek into wonk.” He says we need “alternative media dissemination and through these networks institute fundamental changes to civil society before it collapses under the weight of its own inequity.” [approx] Public-private partnerships have placed communities in subservient relationships to corporations. “Our very lexicon” about muniwifi revolves around ROI instead of fostering a 21st century civil society.

Ken Biba of Novarum talks about “Municipal Wireless 2.0.” His company measures wifi. What went wrong with 1.0? There’s no such thing as a free lunch. Fantasy business models and overhyped products. What went right? When there was skin in the game, it worked It worked for things like public safety, parking meters, and internal municipal communications. Wireless works as an extension to wire. (Wifi 802.11n is beginning to beat Wimax for bandwidth, he says. Wimax is about as good as 3G. [I'm probably getting this wrong.]) He says “Cellular data has doubled in the last two years.” Now getting 1000-1500kbps download via cellular.

L. Aaron Kaplan (who gave a Berkman talk last week) is giving a presentation on Funkfeuer and community wifi networks in Europe. He shows maps of mesh networks in Vienna, highly scaled, 240 roofs. Repeated in Graz, Bad Ischl, Weinviertel. The longest links are 30km. It’s also happening in Guifi.net Barclona, Djursland, Berlin Freifunk, Athens, Paris Sans Fils, czfree nework.

Dewayne Hendricks says the biggest barrier to wireless is the regulatory environment. “The tools make the rules,” he says. E.g., if you have smart radios, they’re better able to tell what’s going on than rules written on tablets. Look at what’s happening at the grassroots level. What if we went back to the original vision and made the entire spectrum open? Reality is making it harder to stop this movement. The facts are on its side. Remember Metricom? They spent a billion dollars to deploy, and where it was deployed, it was great. They put their radios on light poles. But when muniwifi 2.0 started, no one went back and learned from Metricom’s efforts in getting permits.

Q: [harold feld] How can we talk about these things that doesn’t make it sound like you have to turn a profit in a year?
Esme: Cities like Rock Hill N. Carolina said that they’re installing a wireless meter-reading service, or some such…a muni service. It was easier to get the network in…
Ken: Someone has to pay for it. Find an app where you can show real economic return.
Sascha: I’m business-model agnostic. We just need to get this done.
Isenberg: From the chat: Why don’t we use Verizon or Sprint, etc., to provide muni services, i.e., in police cars or for public safety??
Ken: It’s too expensive.
David Young (Verizon): We’re looking at new pricing models for low-capacity networks.

Q: Will the telcos resurface as worthy adversaries?
Ken: The need for video surveillance is driving the creation of high-capacity networks. You can’t do that on cellular; there’s not enough bandwidth.

Q: What about privacy?
Ken: Once you move into an Internet-connected world, you’re doomed.
L. Aaron: If you import hardware from, say, China, how do you now it’s a secure? The only solution is to build it on your own.
Sascha: Privacy and security are not mutually inconsistent, but there are problems when companise are privatizing your identity and data.
Ken: You could do end-to-end encryption now, but no one chooses to do so. [Tags: ]

1 Comment »

[f2c] First panel

At Freedom to Connect, the opening panel, moderated by Joanne Hovis, is on municipal wifi. [Note: Liveblogging. Missing stuff. Typing too fast. Not spellpchecking. No rereading. This is a terribly incomplete and occasionally wrong set of notes.]

Tim Nulty is the former head of Burlington Telecom, and is now the head of a consortium bringing fiber to rural Vermont. He says there are about 45 municipal wifi companies in the US. We pretty much know how to do that. It’s different in rural areas, where the average density is 13 residences per linear mile. About 60% have no broadband. Why should it be harder to replace copper wire with glass the second time around? Why is there this myth that it’s impossible? Because there are incumbents who have a financial interest in saying that it’s impossible because they don’t want to do it [because the margins are lower than they want, which would drive down their overall margins, even while increasing their revenue].

Dirk Van der Woude, program manager for broadband in Amsterdam. They provide boradband as a public service such as garbage collection.

Lev Gonick, founder of One Community, has a million institutional users, via a community network, a 501C3. It has about 4,000 route miles. The governance model is mayor-proof because the infrastructure owns the governance. The goal was not to build-up fiber optics but to enable and transform their communty.

Bill Schrier works on getting Seattle fibered. He says that they’re spending $4B on highway infrastructure, which is 8x what it would cost to bring fiber everywhere.

First Joanne question: Fiber vs. Wireless [which is the topic burning up the backchannel]. Dirk says he pays for fiber at home. Wifi works but is slow, he says. For wifi, you need access points with backhaul that is likely to be fiber.

Bill: What’s the killer app for a network? HDTV. Video teleconferencing.

Tim: Fiber is cheaper and more economic if you intend to be universal. Bringing fiber to his neck of the woods (1,000 sq miles) is $69M. Doing this through wireless, with 2.3 or 2.5gH Wimax, to get close to universality, would be $35M. It costs half as much but brings 1/4 the revenue. The capacity is 1% of what you get with fiber. The right thing economically to do is to put the Wimax on top of the fiber network, at which point it costs $10M, which makes it a great business.

Dirk: In Amsterdam, dwellings are stacked. Getting the fiber to move vertically is a problem.

Mark Cooper: Which comes first, fixed or mobile computing? For connecting the underserved, the killer app isn’t HDTV. It’s connectivity. We want wireless: 1. It gets you further. 2. Mobile computing is a twofer: Mobile computing and basic connectivity that meets the need for connectivity. 3. Mobile computing is future-proof. For this project [stimulus package?] wireless is the right thing to do. 4. Public accountability.

Tim: Rural fiber does not need public money. It can pay its own way. Rural wireless does not pay its own way.

Lev: This is a family dispute. We have a once-in-a-generation opportunity. Let’s move ahead, be pragmatic, etc…

Bill: Wireless and fiber are synergistic, (David I. asks for a show of hands; everyone agrees.)

Q: Fiber is the foundation that supports wireless. Now: Go mesh!

Tim: Mesh is great for thin uses. But for carrying lots of data, it breaks down.

Bob Frankston: We need to change the dynamic. We’re stuck in railroads where you pay for each trip. We need to get to the point where assume connectivity at any speed. The question is the funding model.

Dirk: Cooperate with anyone who wants to cooperate with you, so long as you get the network you want…

Bice Wilson: “Designing the hidden public way,” i.e., the infrastructure of connectivity. There’s a vast network of services that needs connectivity to the entire community.

Lev: That’s what One Community is about.

Bill: In Seattle, that’s where we’re directing our efforts.

Roxanne Googin: Current status…?

Tim: The really important investment is in universal fiber.

Joanne wraps up reminding us of the sense of the room that we want universal connectivity and we want it yesterday. [Gross paraphrase] [Tags: ]

Be the first to comment »

Freedom to Connect stream

I’m at Freedom to Connect, David Isenberg‘s annual conference on building open, fast, dumb networks. If you go to the F2C site, there should be instructions about how to live stream the proceedings. The twitter hashtag is #f2c09. The room’s backchannel is here.

[Tags: ]

Be the first to comment »

December 17, 2008

Radio Berkman podcast: Free, national, and for five-year-olds

In this week’s Radio Berkman podcast, I interview Stephen Schultze about the FCC’s auctioning off spectrum to a national provider who would be required to use 25% of it for free, nationwide wifi. There’s only one catch: That wifi would have to only connect to sites and services that are safe for minors (defined as people between 5 and 18).

After we had recorded this interview last week, the FCC postponed voting on the proposal, and since it’s the baby of the outgoing Chair, it’s probably postponed forever. Still, the idea raises some really interesting issues. Steve and I focus on the free speech considerations, although the opposition from other spectrum-holders certainly could not have encouraged the FCC.

[Tags: ]

Be the first to comment »

Next Page »