Re: [nycwireless] throughput & range question

[Dustin Goodwin]

You only have a few options for throughput as I see it.
1. Convert all clients to 802.11G
2. Setup 3 APs in the same area  on channel 1, 6, 11 respectively
3. Move to a 802.11G plus 802.11A design.
   a. 5ghz clients and APs all support 54mbps without worrying about 
backwards compatibility with 11mbps
   b. 5ghz has more available channels, so you can place more APs 
overlapping covering the same space. But you have be careful with how 
close together 5ghz transmitters will be to each other in an overlap design.


- Dustin


william estrada wrote:

Message: 1
Date: Thu, 3 May 2007 10:18:13 -0400
From: "kati london" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [nycwireless] throughput & range question
To: 
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain;charset="us-ascii"

Hi,
 
I'm trying to expand on a current hardware platform which includes:


Network card: EMP-8602 6G: 802.11a/b/g 400mW High Power mini PCI Card
Antenna: 1 x 8 dBi Fiberglass Omni N Female
Board: Soekris Net4801

Here are the issues:
I am interested in maximizing range over a flat, concentric circle area
- I want the biggest radius possible. I have a relatively large space to
cover.


  Get bigger antennas.


I want to maximize throughput -- in internal tests, I've seen about
2.2MB/s cumulatively, testing with a single client downloading a large
binary file and with several clients downloading a large binary
simultaneously. This is the crux of the issue -- wifi usage is generally
about several clients downloading small files at different times, so you
can support relatively large numbers of connected clients without
throughput bogging down. Since usecase is specifically about several
people downloading large files at the same time, it's very affected by
WiFi's theoretical and practical throughput limits. 


  The source of the WiFi traffic is not important.  One big file or
  many little files makes little difference.  They are all broken
  down to packets.  You can twick MTU ( Maxim Transfer Unit )?

  Transport method will make a difference ( TCP or UDP ).  FTP uses
  TCP and SCP will use UDP.  UDP traffic will be faster.


There's a chance I'm CPU limited on the Soekris board with several
clients connected at once -- this might be affecting our practical
throughput limits.


  Don't think so?  You can use my monitoring program to see what kind of
  load you are putting on your Soekris:
 http://64.124.13.3/projects/pfss/
  It will show you a real time plot of your CPU and network load.

  Install pfssh on the Soekris, pfssg on your monitoring PC, then run it
  with 'ssh [EMAIL PROTECTED]  pfssh | pfssg'.  You will need gnuplot
  installed on your local PC for pfssg.


I want to deal with the 802.11b/g situation: I'd like to mitigate the
effect of a b client connecting to the network. So far the proposed
solution is two wifi cards per access point: one pinned at G (which b
clients won't see), the other supporting B and G. 


  You need to be careful here.  802.11B and 802.11G use the same 
frequencies.

  So the two radios will interact with each other.  If you are using them
  in a 'concentric circle' pattern, you will need to separate them both
  psychically and by channel.  Vertical is the best psychically 
separation,

  say may be 15 feet.  Use good coax, LMR400 or better, in short runs.
  Channel separation will be determined by your site survey.  Some people
  say 4 channel separation is required?  I use a 3 channel difference, 
but

  I am also using directional antennas.

  You may not get any better transfer rate using 'G' mode.


Any suggestions to deal with the above, additional gotchas we may not
have thought of, etc.


  A network topology would be helpful.  How many APs are you using?  How
  are they connected?  What kind of traffic ( http, ftp, etc. ) do you
  expect?

 
Kati




--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

Re: [nycwireless] EVDO Rev A Feedback....

[Dustin Goodwin]

Did you try Skype over it?

- Dustin

Ben R. Serebin wrote:

Hello All,
 
** EVDO Primer for EVDO Feedback **

EVDO Rev 0 - original version of Verizon/Sprint cellular broadband.
EVDO Rev A - version 2 of Verizon/Sprint cellular broadband
1xRTT - 1st Verizon/Sprint broadband* cellular marketed as
NationalAccess from Verizon. * = broadband is a push.
 
** EVDO Rev A Feedback **

I've been using EVDO Rev A for about 2 weeks now (Manhattan, Brooklyn,
Westchester, and on the Harlem MetroNorth line). I had previously used
EVDO Rev 0 for about 2 years. So, a month ago, I bought a new laptop
with the option for integrated EVDO (thank goodness I didn't get the kit
when I bought the laptop). I scrapped the idea of integrated since Rev A
since my laptop vendor doesn't plan to support integrated Rev A. So, I
bought a standard Rev A PC card.
 
** Hardware Used **

Rev 0 - Kyocera KPC-650 [2 years of usage]
Rev A - Verizon PC7550 [2 weeks of usage so far. Currently using this.]
 
** The Real Feedback... **

- vast majority of latency is under 100ms. Rev 0 typically was over
200ms.
- bandwidth... down I've seen 1012kbps and uploads of 750kbps. Up is
about double (100%) faster than Rev 0. Down is about 20-30% (200-300k)
faster.
- card stays on Rev A a lot more than Rev 0 did before switching to
1xRTT
- when on 1xRTT, Rev A switches back to Rev A (Rev 0 didn't that)
- quoted battery life is supposedly worse, but not noticeable
 
** Feedback Summary **

- highly recommended for heavy or latency sensitive users
- upload increase in bandwidth is noticeable and welcome
 
-Ben

--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
  


--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

[nycwireless] Femto Cells

[Dustin Goodwin]

I am a die hard advocate of unlicensed wireless and IP in general and 
love the dual mode story (so don't flame me for this post). But I have 
to tell you I need one of these femto cell gizmo's yesterday. Cell 
service in my Brooklyn apartment totally sucks. It seems like these 
devices would need to have significant active RF monitoring and power 
control intelligence to prevent interference with your neighbors that 
might be using the neighborhood cell tower or another femto cell. Any 
idea whether or not these are practical in apartment block-urban 
deployments? Rural and residential deployments are much simpler 
deployments from an interference point of view.


Om article:
http://gigaom.com/2006/12/10/femto-cellular/

Devices:
http://www.ubiquisys.com/ubiquisys2/zonegate.php
http://radioframe.com/americas/products/sseries/sseries.htm
http://www.ipaccess.com/products/femto3G.htm
http://www.3waynetworks.com/mobile_prod01.htm

- Dustin


--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

[nycwireless] Thanks to the CA site survey team

[Dustin Goodwin]

Now that dry wall has been hung in the new Davidson ave building our 
volunteer team was able to complete the wireless site survey today. 
Tests result revealed that initial design and AP platform should provide 
sufficient coverage for all apartments. While a lot remains to be done 
before the building is ready we are one step closer.


- Dustin -
--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

[nycwireless] Formal disaster response capabilities?

[Dustin Goodwin]

Rising Seas and Stronger Storms Threaten New York City
http://news.yahoo.com/s/space/20061025/sc_space/risingseasandstrongerstormsthreatennewyorkcity

At various times we have discussed building a more formal disaster 
response capability as part of NYCwireless. I was thinking some of the 
aspect of the program could be:
1. NYCw volunteers trained to deploy mobile wireless kits to provide 
emergency comms after a disaster.
2. Getting cross trained on Ham emergency response operations. Learn how 
to do coordinated disaster response with NYC A.R.E.S. district.
3. Development of web tools that assist with emergency communication 
during a disaster.
4. Running a field day where we participate with local authorities 
disaster response simulation.


Thoughts? Seems like a perfect project for Terry to lead . :-)

- Dustin -

--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

[nycwireless] Call for volunteers - Wireless Site Survey for Community Access

[Dustin Goodwin]

I will be performing a wireless site survey for a new Community Access 
low income housing building in the Bronx. I would like to take a group 
of 5 volunteers that are interested in learning the procedure. The 
Davidson Ave. CA building will be the 4th low income housing site that 
receives free Internet access via the NYCw NeedyNets program.  When 
Davidson ave is occupied NYCw will be serving over 200 units.


The first requirement for participation in the survey is a willingness 
to assist with network setup that will occur when the building is 
complete. The second requirement is a desire to help provide support to 
NeedyNet locations in the future.  The building is located in the Bronx 
and transportation is your responsibility. I can squeeze 4 people into 
my car but obviously not everyone will fit. Please email me with a brief 
description yourself, why your interested, and your availability next 
week. We should be on-site for 1-2 hours. There are no technical 
prerequisites for participation.


- Dustin -
--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

[nycwireless] article: Spammer kills coffee shop's connection

[Dustin Goodwin]

So there are many good reasons to use a NYCwireless Supernode to offer 
wireless access in your business (http://www.nycwireless.net/SuperNode). 
But after reading this article I am struck by the fact that none 
technical users should use some sort of purpose built solution to avoid 
getting bitten by this kind of problem.


http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061022-8046.html

- Dustin -




--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

Re: [nycwireless] List of VPN providers

[Dustin Goodwin]

Hamachi is a cool  app. But this is more of a peer to peer VPN? Meaning 
every host you want secure communications must be running Hamachi also?


- Dustin -

Jon Baer wrote:

Another ...

http://www.hamachi.cc/

There is also a good quick comparison PDF located @ 
http://www.infosecwriters.com/texts.php?op=display&id=450 which does 
include the drawbacks on the Iopus client.


- Jon

On Oct 20, 2006, at 1:19 PM, Dustin Goodwin wrote:

I assume your saying that all shell servers are also VPN providers by 
assuming that SSH redirection is acceptable. IMHO SSH based port 
redirect or socks proxy is not really a VPN. By my definition a VPN 
consists of client software that provides a network driver shim that 
encrypts all traffic leaving you computer.  There is a small group of 
VPN to Internet to providers that just provide specialized service 
that provide VPN services from and to the Internet. So that list 
would be pretty short.


The list so far:
http://www.hotspotvpn.com/
http://wifi.google.com/gsa/faq.html (Free google VPN if your using a 
Google hotspot)

http://www.jiwire.com/hotspot-helper.htm

- Dustin -

Robin-David Hammond %KB3IEN wrote:



Most ISPs provide this via thier shell servers.

I know from experience that nando.net and bestweb.net had/have a 
shell servers avail at no additional cost for thier ISP customers. I 
think this is an essential service for all ISPs to offer, take heed!


No need for an isp? google "unix shell servers".

Most of these vendors will setup whatever proxy you need for a fee.

I think the proposed list would be too huge and basicaly redundant, 
its not realy worth anyone compiling one. It would be like having a 
list of 'residential light bulb installers' under 'electricians' in 
the phone book. Not everyone can install a light bulb true, but all 
electricians can (i hope).


Maybe we can encourage accesspoint providers to offer such service 
localy and freely, by standardising this offering we can make it 
more accessable:


I would suggest providing a standard FQDN for this service perhaps 
$(AP_HW_ADDR).freeproxy.nycwireless.net. , and a standardised 
username "proxy:proxy" for ssh logins. The colons would have to be 
removed from the hardware address, to prevent the parser thinking it 
a malformed ip6 addy.


This o/c protect's the user from the fellow user, but the AP admin 
can still see all, but then again, some one some where, always can.





On Thu, 19 Oct 2006, Dustin Goodwin wrote:


Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 10:24:24 -0400
From: Dustin Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net
Subject: [nycwireless]  List of VPN providers (was:  Secure your 
Public Wi-Fi

Connections)

Does someone have a list of all the VPN to Internet providers?

- Dustin -

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Wow, great resource!

http://wifidefense.cuzuco.com/

Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]:

There was a nycwirless presentation given two years ago on some
ways to secure connections. Mainly it describes how to
create ssh tunnels, but has other information as well.
PDF of the slides are at http://wifidefense.cuzuco.com/




--NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: 
http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/

Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/


--NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: 
http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/

Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/




Robin-David Hammond KB3IEN
+1 347 350 34 00



--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/




--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

Re: [nycwireless] MTA/Siemens vaporware ...

[Dustin Goodwin]

Now this is funny. I had the privilege to see the new all digital
dispacth center the MTA built. When I got a peek it looked operational
from technology perspective but was not yet staffed. Every single car on
ever single train on the covered lines  was tracked down to the track
segment (point and click switching, signal status, train communication,
etc). I am not sure how hard it is to go from knowing exactly where a
train is to displaying an estimated arrival time on a sign board. But my
informed guess is, not that hard.

- Dustin -

Jon Baer wrote:
Saw this in the NYPost this morning ... I find it really hard to 
believe that between RFID, WiFi, WiMax, etc that no technology can 
tell me simply when the next train is arriving.  The question is what 
the real problem is?  Since Siemens has been in the rail business for 
a long time ... makes me wonder if there will ever be wide area signal 
coverage underground.


http://www.railway-technology.com/contractors/signal/siemens/

- Jon

http://www.nypost.com/seven/10202006/news/regionalnews/no_eta__firm_flubs_160m_subway_tech_regionalnews_jeremy_olshan__transit_reporter.htm 



NO ETA: FIRM FLUBS $160M SUBWAY TECH
By JEREMY OLSHAN Transit Reporter

October 20, 2006 -- When is the next train coming? Don't ask the MTA.

The $160 million digital message boards that transit officials have 
long promised will take the guesswork out of the platform waiting game 
do not work, The Post has learned.


MTA leaders are furious at German technology powerhouse Siemens, which 
has already been paid $45.2 million since getting the contract in 2003.


Siemens has been unable to deliver on promises to fix its software, 
forcing the MTA to consider looking for another company to finish the 
job.


There has not been "any tangible evidence that the fixes we have been 
promised are in fact fixes and can work going forward," New York City 
Transit spokesman Paul Fleuranges said. "We have begun the process to 
explore whether we should pursue a different course of action with 
other parties."


Despite several delays, a separate system using a different technology 
has been installed on the L train. That system does work and will be 
up and running by "year's end," Fleuranges said.


Subway systems in cities such as Paris and London have been able to 
provide passengers arrival information for years, note transit 
advocates, who say the MTA has a lousy track record when it comes to 
bringing in new technology.


"It's really disappointing. With the exception of the MetroCard, they 
have a terrible history with anything that needs software," said 
Beverly Dolinksy, director of the Permanent Citizens Advisory Council 
to the MTA.


In 2000, the MTA scrapped a contract with Orbital to provide a 
satellite bus-location system, which failed to work around Manhattan's 
skyscrapers. "That contract is 10 years old, and we still don't have 
that system," Dolinsky said.


Since May, the MTA has stopped paying any invoices for work related to 
the Siemens software, according to a report by the agency's 
independent consulting firm, Carter Burgess.


"Payments to the contractor for software-related work are being held 
pending resolution of which direction the software development will 
proceed," the report said.


Though the contractor may have failed to deliver, Gene Russianoff, of 
the Straphangers Campaign, contends the MTA has only itself to blame.


"The buck stops with transit officials, because they are the ones who 
drew up the specs," he said. "They spend tens of millions of dollars 
and promise their customers real-time information. Their own studies 
and polls show riders crave knowing what is going on - even more so in 
a 9/11 world."


Siemens contends it will resolve the problems.

"Siemens is confident that we have the solution," spokeswoman Paula 
Davis said. The project will be completed to "the satisfaction of the 
New York City Transit and New York City commuters."


In the meantime, riders can still employ the more low-tech method of 
staring into the void for signs of that telltale light at the end of 
the tunnel.

--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/



--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

Re: [nycwireless] List of VPN providers

[Dustin Goodwin]

I assume your saying that all shell servers are also VPN providers by 
assuming that SSH redirection is acceptable. IMHO SSH based port 
redirect or socks proxy is not really a VPN. By my definition a VPN 
consists of client software that provides a network driver shim that 
encrypts all traffic leaving you computer.  There is a small group of 
VPN to Internet to providers that just provide specialized service that 
provide VPN services from and to the Internet. So that list would be 
pretty short.


The list so far:
http://www.hotspotvpn.com/
http://wifi.google.com/gsa/faq.html (Free google VPN if your using a 
Google hotspot)

http://www.jiwire.com/hotspot-helper.htm

- Dustin -

Robin-David Hammond %KB3IEN wrote:



Most ISPs provide this via thier shell servers.

I know from experience that nando.net and bestweb.net had/have a shell 
servers avail at no additional cost for thier ISP customers. I think 
this is an essential service for all ISPs to offer, take heed!


No need for an isp? google "unix shell servers".

Most of these vendors will setup whatever proxy you need for a fee.

I think the proposed list would be too huge and basicaly redundant, 
its not realy worth anyone compiling one. It would be like having a 
list of 'residential light bulb installers' under 'electricians' in 
the phone book. Not everyone can install a light bulb true, but all 
electricians can (i hope).


Maybe we can encourage accesspoint providers to offer such service 
localy and freely, by standardising this offering we can make it more 
accessable:


I would suggest providing a standard FQDN for this service perhaps 
$(AP_HW_ADDR).freeproxy.nycwireless.net. , and a standardised username 
"proxy:proxy" for ssh logins. The colons would have to be removed from 
the hardware address, to prevent the parser thinking it a malformed 
ip6 addy.


This o/c protect's the user from the fellow user, but the AP admin can 
still see all, but then again, some one some where, always can.





On Thu, 19 Oct 2006, Dustin Goodwin wrote:


Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 10:24:24 -0400
From: Dustin Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net
Subject: [nycwireless]  List of VPN providers (was:  Secure your 
Public Wi-Fi

Connections)

Does someone have a list of all the VPN to Internet providers?

- Dustin -

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Wow, great resource!

http://wifidefense.cuzuco.com/

Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]:

There was a nycwirless presentation given two years ago on some
ways to secure connections. Mainly it describes how to
create ssh tunnels, but has other information as well.
PDF of the slides are at http://wifidefense.cuzuco.com/




--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: 
http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/

Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/


--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/




Robin-David Hammond KB3IEN
+1 347 350 34 00



--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

[nycwireless] List of VPN providers (was: Secure your Public Wi-Fi Connections)

[Dustin Goodwin]

Does someone have a list of all the VPN to Internet providers?

- Dustin -

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Wow, great resource!

http://wifidefense.cuzuco.com/

Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]:

There was a nycwirless presentation given two years ago on some
ways to secure connections. Mainly it describes how to
create ssh tunnels, but has other information as well.
PDF of the slides are at http://wifidefense.cuzuco.com/




--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/


--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

Re: [nycwireless] Fwd: WSJ Editorial: Wi-Fi to the Max

[Dustin Goodwin]

Cellular broadband will someday be a viable alternative to wired 
broadband. That said, it is highly doubtful wireless cellular broadband 
will ever be as fast as wired solutions. So for the foreseeable future 
we will be stuck with the cable/telco duopoloy. While a robust free and 
open market place for broadband services may or may not lead to the 
ability to choose a  neutral carrier it is by no means guaranteed. The 
article is operating on a false premise.


- Dustin -

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
WSJ has a right-leaning editorial board and the snark in this article 
shows it.   They're talking about how Sprint taking up Wimax negates 
the whole idea of net neutrality or Internet regulation.


MY question is:  will WiMax really enable fair competition?  Or will 
it just make the duopoly into an oligopoly?  What does WiMax really 
represent?


Rob
---

From the Wall Street Journal --
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115508153993630488.html?mod=opinion_main_review_and_outlooks 




--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/


--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

Re: [nycwireless] Parks Dept. Wifi... Will it be free?

[Dustin Goodwin]

So Parks department wants you to pay them an annual fee, share a cut of 
any revenue, pay to install the equipment and operate the network. Is it 
me or is this going to make it hard for anyone to do deploy a service?


- Dustin -

Dana Spiegel wrote:


On May 17, 2006, at 2:33 PM, Dustin Goodwin wrote:

I have been reading all the stories around the Parks Dept. plans  and 
franchise they granted to Wifi Salon etc.


1. I was surprised that the franchise agreement from the city to  the 
providers set deadline for turning on service. It does not  seems 
that the light poll franchise has any similar stipulation as  there 
appears to be zero usage of those franchises. The quote from  Wifi 
Salon is telling:
"Marshall W. Brown, the owner of Wi-Fi Salon, said: "That's the  
timetable set forth by Parks. Let's see if that's attainable."  Later 
he added, "It's obviously going to be tight, but I'm  confident we'll 
be able to pull it off.""
Not clear to me the city can do anything to force them to go into  
service. Other then revoke the franchise?




That's right. Though truth be told, Marshall has had 2 years to make  
this work so far. The current RFP has defined delivery dates in it to  
maintain the exclusivity of the franchise. If you miss the date  
(presumably without working with the Parks Department), they have the  
right to revoke the franchise they've granted you.


This is something they learned from their awful experience with  
Marshal. It was mentioned at the hearing that the extension was so  
WiFi Salon could purchase more equipment, but I think that's just  
Marshall making excuses. Most of the parks should have been up by now.


Incidentally, WiFi Salon pays a _minimum_ of $30,000 to the parks  
department per year. They like that money, and I'm sure that they  
believe (rightly so) that if they pulled the contract, they'd never  
get as sweet a deal from anyone else. So their interests are aligned  
with the service provider, which goes against the public's interest.


2. Lots of these articles mention free wifi in the parks. I doubt  
the parks franchise agreement dictates free.. I am certain the  light 
poll franchise had nothing similar.



The current RFP requires free end user service. The light pole  
franchise had no such requirement because DOITT expected no Wi-Fi to  
be deployed, only cell based wireless. Even with Wi-Fi, they never  
expected anything except the extension of an existing network.




Dana Spiegel
Executive Director
NYCwireless
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.NYCwireless.net
+1 917 402 0422

Read the Wireless Community blog: http://www.wirelesscommunity.info





--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

[nycwireless] Parks Dept. Wifi... Will it be free?

[Dustin Goodwin]

I have been reading all the stories around the Parks Dept. plans and 
franchise they granted to Wifi Salon etc.


1. I was surprised that the franchise agreement from the city to the 
providers set deadline for turning on service. It does not seems that 
the light poll franchise has any similar stipulation as there appears to 
be zero usage of those franchises. The quote from Wifi Salon is telling:
"Marshall W. Brown, the owner of Wi-Fi Salon, said: "That's the 
timetable set forth by Parks. Let's see if that's attainable." Later he 
added, "It's obviously going to be tight, but I'm confident we'll be 
able to pull it off.""
Not clear to me the city can do anything to force them to go into 
service. Other then revoke the franchise?


2. Lots of these articles mention free wifi in the parks. I doubt the 
parks franchise agreement dictates free.. I am certain the light poll 
franchise had nothing similar.


- Dustin -

--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

Re: [nycwireless] NYCw Network Neutrality challenges continues

[Dustin Goodwin]

A) NYCwireless isn't "moving" anywhere. We support and encourage the
marketplace and fair competition as the primary tools to creating better
broadband services for everyone.
B) This isn't regulation and it's not a contract. We expect companies
that publicly support these principles to conduct business so that they
maximize profit, customer satisfaction, security and innovation. The
goal is too encourage a free and open marketplace for content and
applications. If you took these principles and ran your business into
the ground because of it, um, well I can't help you. But beware those
that intentionally wish to mislead the public. There will be consequences.
C) Is that a yes?
D) Come on say yes, you know you want to.

- Dustin -

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


On Mon, 15 May 2006, Dustin Goodwin wrote:

 


While Washington DC types try to figure out a solution to the Network
Neutrality problem. NYCwireless continues to drive the industry towards
NN via the NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge Please
contact your ISP and ask them to pledge their support. Link:
http://www.nycwireless.net/tiki-index.php?page=BroadbandChallenge
Government regulation is the wrong solution! Consumers must speak up and
drive change from within the industry.

The first 2 ISPs that have pledge to support the NN principles are NYC
based. This is a great example of the tremendous courage and vision of
NYC based businesses. Please reward them with your business: Bway.net
(http://www.bway.net) Panix (http://www.panix.com)
   


Where do I register my agreement to the "4 principles" with
a note that "You will take the right to control traffic on my network from
of my cold dead hands"?

My customer's right to use my network end right where my right to control
what goes on my network begins. You don't like it - use someone else's 
network. 

The principles are hollow, as there are loads of things that are 
*bad*, and that everyone filters, yet they remain lawful.


Examples:

1) CAN-SPAM compliant bulk mail - technically, it is legal, and would be
covered by your principle #1. So, should I be able to send "CAN-SPAM" 
compliant mail through any ISP subscribing to your policy?


I can list many things that are filtered by most ISPs as a matter of 
course:


a) NetBIOS traffic (tcp port 137-139) - that'll block "applications and
services of their choice", if this application is netbios filesharing.  
However, every ISP recognizes that few people use insecure filesharing and

that blocking of junk traveling on port 139 is more important.

b) Blocking of MS-SQL port 1434 - while I'm sure its a legitimate 
application to connect to a remote ms-sql server, it is also an attack 
vector of sql-slammer worm, and has been blocked for past 3 years by every 
ISP with clue.


I'm sure if I check more filters, I'll find more examples of "things that 
are perfectly legal but commonly blocked".


2) Bway's anonymous DSL http://www.bway.net/bway/dsl/anondsl.html flies in 
the face on #2 - anonymous access is designed to stifle law enforcement.


3) While I have no real opposition to #3, I believe that 'do not harm the
network' is a vague and hollow standard. Who determines what harms the
network or not? If it is ISP, how is it different from controlling what 
CPE can and cannot be used on the network.


Remember, Ma Bell's original justification for not permitting
customer-owned phones is that they the phones would "hurt the network"

Don't get me wrong, I have respect for bway and for panix - but I think 
their support of this misguided initiative is wrong.


For one, I'm saddened that nycwireless is moving to the bandcamp of 
'consumer protection' instead of promoting competition between the ISPs so 
consumer can choose wisely. 


The bottom line is, you will never be able to write rules that are both
"protecting the consumer's right to use network as they see fit" and
"protecting the ISP officers' fiduciary responsibility to use the network
to obtain highest return for the shareholders", so the only logical
consequence is to "let ISPs do whatever they want, and let consumers
choose wisely".

-alex


--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
 




--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

[nycwireless] NYCw Network Neutrality challenges continues

[Dustin Goodwin]

While Washington DC types try to figure out a solution to the Network 
Neutrality problem. NYCwireless continues to drive the industry towards 
NN via the NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge   Please 
contact your ISP and ask them to pledge their support.

Link: http://www.nycwireless.net/tiki-index.php?page=BroadbandChallenge
Government regulation is the wrong solution! Consumers must speak up and 
drive change from within the industry.


The first 2 ISPs that have pledge to support the NN principles are NYC 
based. This is a great example of the tremendous courage and vision of 
NYC based businesses. Please reward them with your business:

Bway.net (http://www.bway.net)
Panix (http://www.panix.com)

Full results: 
http://www.nycwireless.net/tiki-index.php?page=BroadbandChallengeScoreCard


- Dustin -
--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

Re: [nycwireless] FW: BREAKING NEWS: Commisso Takes Aim at Net Neutrality

[Dustin Goodwin]

Ok got the history. But today I don't pay for Internet so I can be 
connected to your home PC. I pay so I have access to the content 
providers in your colo.


- Dustin -

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


On Mon, 15 May 2006, Dustin Goodwin wrote:

 


Since you seems to work with the cable guys. Is the group think
occurring here that consumers would pay for broadband services if there
were no content providers? That we all just paying to connect to each
other? And content providers need to pay beyond basic peering to provide
content to us? It seems to me that the telcos and cableco have forgotten
we as consumers pay every month to fund the network. That expression
"renting their networks" really gets under my skin. If I and everyone
else didn't pay a hefty sum every month there would be no network. What
do I get out of this? It seems I am investor in network the providers
are going to rent to content companies. When do I start getting paid for
my investment?
   

hello, please to read history of the intarweb. Back in the day, there 
*were no content providers* even at the time intarweb was mostly 
commercialized (no nsfnet, etc).


-alex

 



--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

Re: [nycwireless] FW: BREAKING NEWS: Commisso Takes Aim at Net Neutrality

[Dustin Goodwin]

Jim,
Since you seems to work with the cable guys. Is the group think 
occurring here that consumers would pay for broadband services if there 
were no content providers? That we all just paying to connect to each 
other? And content providers need to pay beyond basic peering to provide 
content to us? It seems to me that the telcos and cableco have forgotten 
we as consumers pay every month to fund the network. That expression 
"renting their networks" really gets under my skin. If I and everyone 
else didn't pay a hefty sum every month there would be no network. What 
do I get out of this? It seems I am investor in network the providers 
are going to rent to content companies. When do I start getting paid for 
my investment?


- Dustin -

Jim Henry wrote:


I thought folks would find this of interest..

 


-Original Message-
From: BroadcastingCable 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, May 
08, 2006 4:43 PM

To: Henry, James
Subject: BREAKING NEWS: Commisso Takes Aim at Net Neutrality

===
Broadcasting & Cable ALERT
http://www.broadcastingcable.com
May 8, 2006
===

B R E A K I N G   N E W S

Commisso Takes Aim at Net Neutrality

By John M. Higgins
Broadcasting & Cable
5/8/2006 4:07 PM

In a stark departure from the cable industry's public position, 
Mediacom

Communications Corp. CEO Rocco Commisso decried proposed
"net-neutrality" rules Monday by saying that they keep cable 
operators
from deciding how to "rent" their networks to Web-content 
providers.


"The government is coming and telling us how we can rent our
infrastructure," Commisso told around 200 cable executives at the 
annual
meeting of the American Cable Association, a lobbying group for 
small

cable operators, in Washington, D.C.

The comments are very close to the controversial position of AT&T 
Inc.

chairman Ed Whitacre, who has alarmed Web companies and consumer
advocates by openly declaring that he wants to charge the likes 
of
Google Inc. and Yahoo! Inc. for access to AT&T's customers. For 
more, click below (no subscription required) . . . 
http://email.BroadcastingCable.com/cgi-bin2/DM/y/eqVa0Mc4Kk0Olt0CoY60Ab



==
CONTACT INFO:

Editorial:
John Eggerton (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED])
or call 202-659-3852

Advertising:
Larry Dunn (mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]) or call 646-746-6572

Customer Service:
PHONE: 800-554-5729
FAX:   712-733-8019
E-MAIL:mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
==

Your E-mail Address: [EMAIL PROTECTED] is in our 
mailing

list.
You are receiving this email because you have either requested a
newsletter or a magazine from Reed Business Information.

To view our privacy policy, visit
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/privacy.

SUBSCRIPTIONS:

To unsubscribe:
Go to
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/optout.asp?nid=2228&rid=186794611.

To subscribe to our web site, our magazine or FREE daily e-mail
newsletter:
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/newsletters

Copyright 2006 Reed Business Information, a division of Reed 
Elsevier

Inc.  All rights reserved.



   




--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
   



--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

Re: [nycwireless] NY Press: NEW YORK: NOT-SO-WIRED CITY

[Dustin Goodwin]

Alex,
I have been working  on:
http://www.nycwireless.net/unwireapt

I didn't know what to put in for a realistic estimate on cabling costs 
per AP. $300-$1000 is too large of a range to be useful. What do you 
think the average would be?


- Dustin -

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


On Thu, 6 Apr 2006, Hammond, Robin-David %KB3IEN wrote:

 


The most rediculously over engineered router I ever built was barely
over 1000. The least functional probably about 5000 cents. 50 usd. Im
presuming the 5k figure represents at most seven hundred for a router,
leaving 4300 for access points, wire and various frobs. So if 3km of
cat5e goes for $400, there is 3900 remaining in budget. At $40 usd for a
wrt54g, that limits you to 90 something access points, at 2 per floor a
45 storey building is unwired for $5k usd. With enough change left over
for rj45 heads, a spiffy hub or six and a new crimping tool, you will
need one when all is said and done.
   


I encourage my competitors to budget like that.

There's a difference between 'works for me after weeks of hacking' setup
and a deployable solution that works right on day one, and on day 1000 
without maintenance.


You need:

a) enclosures etc to make sure stuff doesn't get jacked.

b) pay for labor to run the wire around. It could be 300-1000$ for that.

c) non-ghetto APs. I encourage competitors to build their business based 
on wrt54g and unofficial firmware


-alex

--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
 



--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

[nycwireless] Article: Trouble on the line (About vonage be blocked/degraded by ISPs)

[Dustin Goodwin]

Anyone had to drop Vonage because of suspicious quality issues?

- Dustin -

http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,1747343,00.html

*hursday April 6, 2006
The Guardian *

Theodore Peckler lives in Monrovia, California, and is one of the 1.5 
million people in the US who uses Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) 
systems to make cheap phone calls via his cable modem connection. But 
last year, after five months using the VoIP service from the US provider 
Vonage without problems, he noticed an abrupt deterioration. "The line 
was choppy, very choppy and you could not understand any words spoken," 
he recalls. Puzzled, Peckler ran pingplotter - a program to detect 
problems such as packet loss and latency (delays in sending over the 
separate "packets" of internet traffic). It revealed major latency 
between his cable modem and local internet service provider (ISP).


--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

[nycwireless] Article: Telecompetition or Binary Bureaucracy?

[Dustin Goodwin]

/http://www.freedomworks.org/informed/issues_template.php?issue_id=2541
Telecompetition or Binary Bureaucracy?/
/Do we want more government control of technology, or do we want less?
I love the subtitle of this article /because it raises an interesting 
question about Network Neutrality. The article proposes that all 
government regulation is bad for innovation. Which probably sounds good 
in an article but ultimately doesn't address the the issue at the center 
of the debate. Is a monopoly or government worse for innovation? 
Regulation specifically designed to encourage competition probably may 
or may not encourage innovation. Often regulation misses the mark. What 
about monopolies? What is their historical performance on innovation. If 
I look at telecom services it appears to me that for the last 25 years 
regular old pots telephone service provided by the incumbent providers 
has not change significantly.  So I would say that's a big strike 
against monopolies in the telecom business being good for innovation.  
Thoughts?


- Dustin -
--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

Re: [nycwireless] New Yorker Article [was: Multichannel News -AnalystsQuestionBellInvestments]

[Dustin Goodwin]

This thread has stopped being productive.

- Dustin -
--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

[nycwireless] NYCwireless mailing list etiquette

[Dustin Goodwin]

There have been several heated exchanges on the list recently. As far as 
I am concerned, the rules of polite debate have been wildly violated. I 
am working on a list etiquette document that I will send out shortly. I 
hope we can raise the level of civil dialogue on the list.


- Dustin -
--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

[nycwireless] re:Network Neutrality and QOS

[Dustin Goodwin]

If network providers implement a form of QOS that includes a scavenger 
class in their network it will be very temping to direct competitive 3rd 
party products into it. Any traffic placed into a scavenger class will 
receive less then best effort delivery.  A major problem being in either 
case how can one prove that poor call quality is the result of best 
effort or less then best effort? From a competitive point of view it 
makes most sense for a provider to send competitive traffic to scavenger 
while publicly claiming poor call quality is the result of best effort.


The definition of "best effort" becomes critical and I guarantee the 
lawyers can turn a paragraph into 50 pages on what best effort is or is 
not.  Let's not forget the customers. They are paying for "access to the 
Internet" which is poorly defined. What is included in "access"? We need 
a better definition so that we can  understand what "tiered" Internet 
access would really mean. Does "access" mean best effort service for all 
Interconnected networks? Will "tiered access" mean that content provider 
paying a network access priority fee will receive a guaranteed bandwidth 
into my home? There is only so much real estate on my residential 
services so what are they really selling? Can they both sell priority to 
my home while at the same time oversubscribing my link?


I am very interested in the technical details because it feeds back into 
what is and is not damaging to free market principles. There are lot of 
tools in the QOS bucket they could offer to content providers. For 
instance they could offer discard eligibility tweaking.. At  given level 
of congestion on network port the provider can control which traffic is 
more likely to be dropped. This discard threshold is an easy way to 
provide better then best effort to traffic without committing to a 
particular traffic level. To further define this example:


Congestion Level 1:  Any traffic  without QOS marking can be considered 
for random discard (DSCP=0). This could included Vonage and everyone 
else that does pay them beyond mutual peering.
Congestion Level 2:  Consider all traffic from level 1 plus Google.com 
(assuming they paid) and all others marked for level 2
Congestion Level 3:  Consider all traffic for random drop including any 
native services on the providers network.


In this simple example the carriers sell QOS without guaranteed latency, 
jitter or bandwidth. They only have ensure that your traffic will get 
dropped in the event of congestion only after other non-prioritized 
traffic get dropped first. This is only one option available. If anyone 
has any direct exposure to what network providers are proposing share it 
with the list.


- Dustin -

Jim Henry wrote:


I think the only fair way to treat VOIP is for a provider to prioritize
their own VOIP packets, not lower the priority of VOIP packets from other
providers, or worse, block ports that competitors use for the service. That
way if I own a network I can fairly insure QOS for my VOIP customers and
give all competitors "best effort" service just like any other data
traversing the network. 
Jim


 


-Original Message-
From: Hammond, Robin-David%KB3IEN [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 3:20 AM

To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Dana Spiegel; nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net; Jim Henry
Subject: Re: [nycwireless] New Yorker Article [was: 
Multichannel News -AnalystsQuestionBellInvestments]




I realy dont see the need for an ISP to promote one set of 
voip over another as a matter of course. How does it serve 
any of the stake holders?


Granted there may be times of crisis when demand is very 
high, and there is not enough pipe to go around. Any fool can 
see that priority should be given to emergency calls exchange 
'999' and 'x11' in these cases. The unwillingness of verizon 
to allow anyone access to the 911 system results in me having 
to dial around it most of the time, i often call my local 
precinct on its 718.xxx. number...


I would say that non-emergency voip links should be given 
round-robin priority, such that a user who picks up every 
minute and hits redial will soon get through regardless of 
who the voip carrier is, remain network neutral. Granted 
there may be a higher bandwidth cost of routing some other 
companies voip packets rather than using your own compressed 
data streams, some disparity may be in the interests of all.


Ultimately some segment of the market is likely to demand 
neutrality of providers in the end. But it would be nice to 
be a consultant in a position to point a client company to an 
ISP and say, these guys are commited to as level a playing 
field as servs everyone's interests. EULAs that prohibited 
use of wireless technology prevented me from recomending 
verizon or cablevision for example.


What I am truly against is the practice of failing to promote 
a 'rival' voip packets to provide QOS when QOS will not 
threaten network cap

[nycwireless] A new poll is up - Have you ever used free Wifi?

[Dustin Goodwin]

Have you ever used free Wifi in NYC? Goto the NYCwireless homepage and 
tell us about it http://www.nycwireless.net .


- Dustin -
--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

[nycwireless] Details on Philly network out

[Dustin Goodwin]

With all the speculation and hand wringing surrounding the Philly 
project it's nice to get a few details. I am curious to know what the 
ISPs on the list think of the $12 wholesale price? Also it is 
fascinating to read that instead of just renting out their pole tops to 
the highest bidder and throwing the funds into the general revenues 
(Hello NYC?) they are taking a different approach. Granted the devil is 
in the details but it is a strong foundation. Increasing broadband 
competition while also serving the public good and to boot providing 
telecom services to the city... smart? I hope they can deliver on these 
ambitions. NYC and the rest of the country is badly in need of a 
sensible model to follow.


I hope everyone on the list takes note of one more important fact. The 
Philly plan calls for little free Wifi. Municipal broadband has been 
mistakenly identified as free Wifi many times on this list and 
elsewhere. While NYCwireless has been involved in my "free Wifi and free 
beer" projects it is not necessarily the sensible way to implement 
municipal broadband. My standard disclaimer applies... PLEASE don't go 
off topic into a political rant. The list seems to be degrading into 
political mud slinging contest and I would rather shutdown the list then 
have it become that annoying. Also there are plenty of appropriate 
places on the Internet to have those debates..


- Dustin -

ps. I am hoping one of the 22 free hotspots is situated between Pat and 
Ginos. Free Wifi and good Cheese steaks. Yum!


http://wifinetnews.com/archives/006332.html


   Phila. Closes Deal with EarthLink, Releases Terms

By Glenn Fleishman

*The AP reports that Philadelphia has signed its contracts with 
EarthLink 
*: 
(http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/business/13992299.htm )The 
deal includes 4,000 utility poles and $300,000 in utility payments from 
EarthLink per year plus $2 million in advance payments against revenue. 
These funds will be used to purchase 10,000 computers and training for 
low-income families; Phila. has a huge computer ownership gap as well as 
broadband and Internet access gap. The non-profit Wireless Philadelphia 
will receive five percent of EarthLink’s revenue, which is roughly the 
same as cable franchise fees. EarthLink will also provide $9.95 per 
month accounts for up to 25,000 low-income households, and 22 free Wi-Fi 
hotspots around down.


The contract spans 10 years and is estimated to cost $20 to $22 million 
to fulfill. Note that this isn’t a different number from earlier 
expectations. The network was originally expected to cost $10 to $12 
million to build and $1m per year to maintain. Over 10 years, an 
estimated $20-$22m conforms to that range.


The city government will receive 3,000 accounts—noted as free or 
discounted—and 700 discounted “T-1” accounts, the AP reports, which are 
really point-to-multipoint broadband wireless connections over the 
Motorola Canopy aggregation network. Not mentioned here is Philadelphia 
moving other chunks of its existing data and telecom spending to 
Wireless Philadelphia and EarthLink; that amount was once estimated in 
the millions per year.


EarthLink’s wholesale rate will be higher than originally projected at 
$12 per month rather than $9 per month. Retail pricing isn’t noted here, 
although $20 per month was the original target. However, EarthLink under 
provisions of network-neutrality shouldn’t be able to underprice other 
retail partners.


The next step? A 15-square-mile test network.


--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

Re: [nycwireless] Wifi Site Survey Tools, Spectrum Analyzers, etc

[Dustin Goodwin]

I haven't read the article but in my own experience the best tools for 
the price are Airmagnet Surveyor for site survey and Cognio for spectrum 
analysis.


- Dustin -


Rob Kelley (yahoo) wrote:


Network Computing has a series of reviews about WLAN tools for
administrators.   Some of them are expensive, but the reviews are
interesting, particularly those on graphical site survey tools.  They also
devote a page to open-source tools (netstumbler, kismet):

[http://www.networkcomputing.com/showitem.jhtml?articleID=174402549&pgno=1 ]

Rob


--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
 



--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

[nycwireless] Panix supports Network Neutrality

[Dustin Goodwin]

NYers looking for a broadband provider that will allow access to content
and applications of their choosing now have two providers to choose
from. I am very excited to report that the oldest ISP in NYC Panix.com
supports Network Neutrality. Please reward these companies for
supporting fair and open access by considering them for your home and
business Internet needs.

For a full list of fair and open ISPs:
http://www.nycwireless.net/BroadbandChallengeScoreCard

More about the NYCwireless Network Neutrality Broadband Challenge
http://www.nycwireless.net/BroadbandChallenge . Please contact your ISP
about supporting Network Neutrality. A great way to speak directly to
your ISP in a public setting is to use the forums on
http://www.dslreports.com/forums/25 . I am currently lobbying Speakeasy
my DSL provider to support our challenge. If you are also using
Speakeasy and would like to have them publicly support Network
Neutrality add your voice to my thread on the SE forum
http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,1526973 .

- Dustin -

--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

[nycwireless] Our first poll up - Voip-Wifi

[Dustin Goodwin]

To go with this weeks meeting we have posted our first online poll. When 
do you think Voip-Wifi will become popular?

Goto: http://www.nycwireless.net

- Dustin -
--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

[nycwireless] Monthly Mtg Jan 25th -> Designing Wifi Network for Voip

[Dustin Goodwin]

So you think you can just buy a couple of Wifi Voip phones and start 
using them on your office network? Well unfortunately it's not that 
easy. Wifi networks designed for data are probably not well enough 
engineered to handle Voip phones with a high degree of quality. If you 
want to learn about design factors for Voip over Wifi come to our 
monthly meeting, details below.


- Dustin -

January Meeting: This Wednesday, Jan. 25th at 7:15 PM
NYCwireless January Meeting Announcement
All are invited - please re-post everywhere!

Wednesday, January 25th, 2006 at 7:15pm

Bway.net
568 Broadway at Prince St, NE corner
Suite 404
New York, NY 10012


Agenda:
1. TBA

2. a big surprise

3. watch this space!!


NYCwireless is a non-profit organization that advocates for, and enables 
the growth of free, public wireless networks.


NYCw monthly meetings are held on the last Wednesday of the month. They 
are free, and open to all, RSVP not required.

--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

Re: [nycwireless] Google: We Won't Pay Broadband Cyberextortion

[Dustin Goodwin]

I pay a lot extra for Speakeasy DSL today because of the unfiltered 
services they provide. Of course when Verizon rips out all copper my 
choices will be gone.  Why anyone... fed, state or municipal is letting 
Verizon decommission copper so they can only have monopoly fiber to 
everyone is beyond me. I have always felt that government agencies were 
fine with telecom monopolies. Just so long as they can broadcast the 
impression of being concerned about competition.


- Dustin -

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



I'd like to see someone getting more upset about the ongoing outright 
censorship on the part of the carrier monopolies. Several carriers 
block access to certain IPs, ports and protocols. Im looking at cable 
modem carrier companies in particular, for some reason they realy dont 
like thier customers using SMTP, or HTTP. Fortuneately those of us who 
are in possesion of rackspace and know how to run SLIP over UDP DNS 
datagrammes, or savy enough to setup an account at HE.net can bypass 
this rotten censorship. But why should we have to? How is the non-savy 
end user even suposed to know how to solve this problem?





On Wed, 18 Jan 2006, Dustin Goodwin wrote:


Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 16:08:05 -0500
From: Dustin Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net" 


Subject: [nycwireless] Google: We Won't Pay Broadband Cyberextortion

January 18, 2006
Google: We Won't Pay Broadband Cyberextortion

BellSouth and Verizon have been trying to force big Web sites to pay 
extortion-type fees 
<http://www.networkingpipeline.com/blog/archives/2006/01/bellsouth_cyber.html>if 
the sites want adequate bandwidth, with Google a prime target. But 
Google has news for them: It won't pay.


Google told Networking Pipeline's Paul Kapustka in no uncertain terms 
that it won't give in to the cyberextortion. And despite reports to 
the contrary, Google says, it isn't talking with any carriers about 
the issue.


Google's Barry Schnitt told Paul in an email: "Google is not 
discussing sharing of the costs of broadband networks with any 
carrier. We believe consumers are already paying to support broadband 
access to the Internet through subscription fees and, as a result, 
consumers should have the freedom to use this connection without 
limitations."


Google has that absolutely right. We're all already paying through 
the nose for Internet access, especially compared with the low access 
prices in the rest of the world. Good for Google for standing up to 
this cyberextortion.


The BellSouths and Verizons of the world should focus on offering 
better services at lower prices -- not trying to fine-tune the Tony 
Soprano business model. That's been tried already, by a company you 
may have heard of, called Enron. And look where it got them.


Posted by Preston Gralla at 11:16 AM | Permalink 
<http://www.networkingpipeline.com/blog/archives/2006/01/google_we_wont.html> 



http://www.networkingpipeline.com/blog/archives/2006/01/google_we_wont.html;jsessionid=MEM0JX0NOBYLYQSNDBOCKHSCJUMEKJVN 
--

NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/



 Microsoft: Where do you want to go tomorrow?
 Linux: Where do you want to go today?
 BSD: Are you guys coming, or what?


Robin-David HammondKB3IEN
www.aresnyc.org.



--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

[nycwireless] Google: We Won't Pay Broadband Cyberextortion

[Dustin Goodwin]

January 18, 2006
Google: We Won't Pay Broadband Cyberextortion

BellSouth and Verizon have been trying to force big Web sites to pay 
extortion-type fees 
if 
the sites want adequate bandwidth, with Google a prime target. But 
Google has news for them: It won't pay.


Google told Networking Pipeline's Paul Kapustka in no uncertain terms 
that it won't give in to the cyberextortion. And despite reports to the 
contrary, Google says, it isn't talking with any carriers about the issue.


Google's Barry Schnitt told Paul in an email: "Google is not discussing 
sharing of the costs of broadband networks with any carrier. We believe 
consumers are already paying to support broadband access to the Internet 
through subscription fees and, as a result, consumers should have the 
freedom to use this connection without limitations."


Google has that absolutely right. We're all already paying through the 
nose for Internet access, especially compared with the low access prices 
in the rest of the world. Good for Google for standing up to this 
cyberextortion.


The BellSouths and Verizons of the world should focus on offering better 
services at lower prices -- not trying to fine-tune the Tony Soprano 
business model. That's been tried already, by a company you may have 
heard of, called Enron. And look where it got them.


Posted by Preston Gralla at 11:16 AM | Permalink 
 




http://www.networkingpipeline.com/blog/archives/2006/01/google_we_wont.html;jsessionid=MEM0JX0NOBYLYQSNDBOCKHSCJUMEKJVN 


--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

Re: [nycwireless] BellSouth wants new Net Fees

[Dustin Goodwin]

Getting your broadband provider to support the NYCwireless Network 
Neutrality Broadband Challenge is becoming more important with each 
passing day. If your a independent broadband provider that wants to 
allow customers unfettered access to the content of their choosing 
please visit our challenge homepage right away.

http://www.nycwireless.net/tiki-index.php?page=BroadbandChallenge

My provider is Speakeasy.net... hello anyone listening at Speakeasy?

So far only our friends Bway.net have responded. Keep an eye on the 
result on our scorecard page: 
http://www.nycwireless.net/tiki-index.php?page=BroadbandChallengeScoreCard.


- Dustin -


Dana Spiegel wrote:

Posted on: http://www.wirelesscommunity.info/2006/01/17/bellsouth- 
wants-new-net-fees-2/


According to an article on MarketWatch (http://www.marketwatch.com/ 
news/story.asp?guid=%7B02432D2D-1EE0-4037-A15F-54B748D6CF26%7D):


BellSouth Corp. confirmed Monday that it is pursuing discussions  
with

Internet content companies to levy charges to reliably and speedily
deliver their content and services.

Bill Smith, chief technology officer at BellSouth, justified  content
charging companies by saying they are using the telco’s network
without paying for it.

"Higher usage for broadband services drives more costs that we have
to recover," he said in a telephone interview.

He suggested that Apple Computer might be asked to pay a nickel  or a
dime to insure the complete and rapid transmission of a song via  the
Internet, which is being used for more and more content-intensive
purposes. He cited Yahoo Inc.’s plans to stream reality TV shows  
as an

example.

"It’s the shipping business of the digital age," Smith said,  arguing
that consumers should welcome the pay-for-delivery concept.

So, let me get this straight. Right now, I buy my internet service  
from an ISP, and while that ISP doesn’t guarantee that I will be able  
to access every single site, they do ensure that I am able to get  
onto the internet completely, and that any generally available web  
page will be available to me. This is the definition of how the  
internet works. This also means that if Apple’s iTunes online store  
is online and generally accessible, it will be accessible to me just  
like anyone else on the internet.


Now, Bill Smith and BellSouth are saying that, maybe, if I use  
BellSouth as my ISP, I won’t be able to get at any generally  
available internet site that hasn’t paid them to access their network— 
a network for which I’m already paying a monthly fee. They are saying  
that, just because I’ve paid them $50 or $100 for internet access,  
that this fee doesn’t give me access to the internet in general? They  
are saying that, once I’ve paid them to access their “pipes”, that I  
should have no expectation to be able to get to any website that I  
want, or get service from a third party at best-effort broadband speeds?


Normally, such a statement is just hot air, since BellSouth just  
provides the last mile. But they are the provider of most internet  
connections in the southeast. And Verizon and AT&T (SBC) have been  
saying the same thing, and they actually control the pipes that make  
up the infrastructure of the internet.


So, if Apple doesn’t play along, does that mean that Verizon and AT&T  
will start refusing to carry their traffic on the internet’s  
backbone, thereby affecting many more people than just Verizon and  
AT&T customers?


Seems like this is a great time for the FTC (not even the FCC) to  
step in. If this were any other industry, this would be considered  
extortion and racketeering, both very serious crimes in our country.



Dana Spiegel
Executive Director
NYCwireless
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.NYCwireless.net
+1 917 402 0422

Read the Wireless Community blog: http://www.wirelesscommunity.info


--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/



--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

Re: [nycwireless] Light Reading poll on Net Neutrality - Vote Today!

[Dustin Goodwin]

The telcos have been publicly talking about charging content providers 
for use of their networks. This translates to higher costs for content 
to the end user.


http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/15/business/yourmoney/15digi.html?oref=login

- Dustin -

Jim Henry wrote:


Well hopefully the RBOCs will take the approach that Comcast has.  They have
implemented QOS on their own CDV (Comcast Digital Voice) product but will
not degrade other VOIP services nor block ports. So if you use Vonage or
whatever,  your voice traffic is handled just like all your other data.
Having QOS on the CDV should ensure better service for their own product
without actively degrading anyone elses.

Jim

 


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf 
Of Dustin Goodwin

Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2006 8:27 PM
To: nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net
Subject: [nycwireless] Light Reading poll on Net Neutrality - 
Vote Today!



Please share your opinions on your DSL or Cable provider charging 
content providers to deliver voip, video and gaming to your broadband 
connection.

http://www.lightreading.com/survey.asp?doc_id=86706
Remember you will still pay for your broadband every month 
but providers 
will just be putting more money in their pockets. No benefit 
to you but 
higher costs from the content providers. It is another 
monopoly tax you 
will be paying. Just like the over priced broadband your 
using right now.


- Dustin -
--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: 
http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/

Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/



--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.14.17/228 - Release 
Date: 1/12/2006



   



 



--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

Re: [nycwireless] www.nycwireless.net down, being looked at

[Dustin Goodwin]

We are back online.

- Dustin -

Rob Kelley wrote:


Hi all:

www.nycwireless.net is currently inaccessible.  A database connection
problem has surfaced.  We're investigating the problem and will update
the group as more news happens. 


Thanks,

Rob Kelley


__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
--

NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
 



--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

[nycwireless] Light Reading poll on Net Neutrality - Vote Today!

[Dustin Goodwin]

Please share your opinions on your DSL or Cable provider charging 
content providers to deliver voip, video and gaming to your broadband 
connection.

http://www.lightreading.com/survey.asp?doc_id=86706
Remember you will still pay for your broadband every month but providers 
will just be putting more money in their pockets. No benefit to you but 
higher costs from the content providers. It is another monopoly tax you 
will be paying. Just like the over priced broadband your using right now.


- Dustin -
--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

[nycwireless] [Fwd: [CYBERTEL] FW: the fiction zone that DC has become]

[Dustin Goodwin]

Oh wait! Even the Wall Street Journal thinks broadband in the US sucks!

"We are somewhere between 12th and 19th in the world, depending upon 
whose scale you use. As the Wall Street Journal reported 
 two months ago, 
broadband in the US is “slow and expensive.” Verizon’s entry-level 
broadband is $14.95 for 786 kbs. That about $20 per megabit. In FRANCE, 
for $36/m, you get 20 megabits/s — or about $1.80 per megabit. "


- Dustin -

 Original Message 
Subject:[CYBERTEL] FW: the fiction zone that DC has become
Date:   Sat, 14 Jan 2006 11:57:41 -0500
From:   Roland Cole <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: 	Telecom Regulation & the Internet 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Organization:   Software Patent Institute
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



To quote Larry Lessig (below):



Roland J. Cole, J.D., Ph.D.

Executive Director

Software Patent Institute

5315 Washington Blvd

INDIANAPOLIS IN 46220-3062

317-727-8940; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; www.spi.org

 _  

From: Lessig Blog [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Posted At: Friday, January 13, 2006 11:32 PM

Posted To: Lessig Blog
Conversation: the fiction zone that DC has become
Subject: the fiction zone that DC has become
 


http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/003290.shtml

The Washington Internet Daily (which apparently is not on the Internet) has a story predicting the Telecom Bill will pass the House this year. The only sticking point seems to be the “controversial” “net neutrality” proposal. Says Howard Waltzman, the committee’s majority chief telecom counsel, and “net neutrality” opponent: “We’re going to rely on the market to regulate these services and not have a heavy hand in government regulation.” Waltzman thinks net neutrality regulation would turn “broadband pipes into railroads and regulating them under common carriage.” As he explains: 


“The reason the Internet has thrived is because it’s existed in an 
unregulated environment. Regulating… under common carriage would be a complete 
step backward for the Internet.”

So half right, but wholly wrong. For of course, when the Internet first reached beyond research facilities to the masses, it did so on   regulated lines — telephone lines. Had the telephone companies been free of the “heavy hand” of government regulation, it’s quite clear what they would have done — they would have killed it, just as they did when Paul Baran first proposed the idea in 1964. It was precisely because they were not free to kill it, because the “heavy hand[ed]” regulation required them to act neutrally, that the Internet was able to happen, and then flourish. 

So Waltzman’s wrong about the Internet’s past. But he’s certainly right about what a mandated net neutrality requirement would be. It would certainly be a “complete step backward for the Internet” — back to the time when we were world leaders in Internet penetration, and competition kept prices low and services high. Today, in the world where the duopoly increasingly talks about returning us to the world where innovation is as the network owners says, broadband in the US sucks. We are somewhere between 12th and 19th in the world, depending upon whose scale you use. As the Wall Street Journal reported   two months ago, broadband in the US is “slow and expensive.” Verizon’s entry-level broadband is $14.95 for 786 kbs. That about $20 per megabit. In FRANCE, for $36/m, you get 20 megabits/s — or about $1.80 per megabit. 

How did France get it so good? By following the rules the US passed in 1996, but that telecoms never really followed (and cable companies didn’t have to follow): “strict unbundling.” That’s the same in Japan — fierce competition induced by “heavy handed” regulation producing a faster, cheaper Internet. Now of course, no one is pushing “open access” anymore. Net neutrality is a thin and light substitute for the strategy that has worked in France and Japan. But it is regulation, no doubt. 

So while it is true that we have had both: 

(a) common carrier like regulation applied to the Internet, and 
(b) basically no effective regulation applied to the Internet


and it is true that we have had both:

(c) fast, fierce competition to provide Internet service and
(d) just about the worst broadband service of the developed world

it is not true that we had (c) when we had (b). 

We had (c) when we had (a), and we have (d) now that we have (b). 

But in the world where the President has the inherent authority to wiretap telephones, who would be surprised if facts didn’t matter much. 


Broadband is infrastructure 
  — like highways, 
if not railroads. If you rely upon “markets” alone to provide infrastructure, you’ll 
get less of it, and at a higher price. (See, e.g., the United States, today.)

Related... 

[nycwireless] Verizon Fiber to the home - Terms of Service = awesomely bad

[Dustin Goodwin]

The Verizon FIOS Terms of Service are really awesomely bad. Bravo Verizon!

Dustin: Ok this is the only section found in my scan that would address 
wireless sharing. Does sharing your broadband for free constitute 
non-commercial resale?
3.6.1 You may not resell the Broadband Service, use it for high volume 
purposes, or engage in similar activities that constitute resale

(commercial or non-commercial), as determined solely by Verizon.

Dustin: What the hell am I going to do with 5mbps upstream if I don't 
have a server of sort? What does Verizon count as a server?
3.6.5 You may not use the Broadband Service to host any type of server 
personal or commercial in nature.


Dustin: Don't even think about using Skype, Vonage or a cell phone 
(???). We will shutdown your broadband if you don't buy a phone line 
from Verizon. We don't care if you use it but we are going to charge you 
for it if you want broadband. THIS IS THE WINNER! The most awesomely bad 
portion of the this awesomely bad Verizon FIOS Terms of Service is 8.3! 
Don't use a cell phone or we will shut off your broadband! Round of 
applause please.
8.3 Changes to your local voice telephony service. If you change your 
local telephone company, or move your local telephone service to a 
wireless or Internet telephony service provider, we may in our 
discretion either terminate your Service or continue to provide 
Broadband without local service at the then-current rates, terms and 
conditions applicable to your new Service arrangement. You agree to pay 
any higher monthly fee that may apply to your new Service arrangement. 
Please see Paragraph 13.1.1 for additional terms relating to price 
changes. If we elect to terminate your Service under this Paragraph 8.3, 
then we reserve the right to charge any early termination fees that may 
apply, and you will be required to return any Equipment you received at 
no charge

from Verizon or an Equipment fee will apply.

Dustin: WE ARE GOING TO RIP OUT THE COPPER TO YOUR HOME. DON'T BOTHER 
TRYING TO SWITCH BACK TO BWAY.NET YOU BASTARDS!
8.4 Conversion from DSL Service to Verizon Fios Internet Service. If 
your local Verizon telephone company provisions transport service to 
your location utilizing fiber optic technologies, we may in our 
discretion terminate your DSL Service and no longer make DSL service 
available to your location. In cases of such termination, we will offer 
to you Verizon Fios Internet Service and we will disclose to you 
applicable rates and additional terms, if any, that may differ from the 
DSL Services provided under this Agreement.


Dustin: Wed don't actually provide Internet access. If you accidentally 
get Internet access good for you.
15.2 You agree that the Internet is not owned, operated or managed by, 
or in any way affiliated with Verizon and Verizon is not responsible and 
has no control over the information or materials accessible via the 
Internet through use of the Service. You further agree that Verizon does 
not own or control all of the various facilities and communications 
lines through which access may be provided, nor does Verizon guarantee 
access to or through websites, servers or other facilities on the 
Internet, whether or not such facilities are owned or controlled by 
Verizon. Verizon cannot and does not guarantee that the Service will 
provide Internet access that meets your needs.


Dustin: Our employees like to go on strike. Plan on going to starbucks 
when that happens.
19.2 Verizon will not be liable for delays, damages or failures in 
performance due to causes beyond its reasonable control, including, but 
not limited to, acts of a governmental body, acts of God, acts of third 
parties, fires, floods, strikes or other labor-related disputes, of 
other things we do not control, or an inability to obtain

necessary equipment or services.

Dustin: "is objectionable for any reason" Objectionable to whom? Could I 
write this about Verizon over Verizon FIOS? Would that be objectionable?
AUP 2. Verizon reserves the right to deny Service to you, or immediately 
to terminate your Service for material breach, if your use of the 
Service or your use of an alias or the aliases of additional users on 
your account, whether explicitly or implicitly, and in the sole 
discretion of Verizon: (a) is obscene, indecent, pornographic, sadistic, 
cruel or racist in nature, or of a sexually explicit or graphic nature; 
(b)  espouses, promotes or incites bigotry, hatred or racism; (c)
might be legally actionable for any reason, (d) is objectionable for any 
reason, or (e) in any manner violates the terms of this Acceptable Use 
Policy.


Dustin: Ok so far this is my favorite for reasons I am sure some of you 
will understand.
AUP 3. You may NOT use the Service as follows:  (g) to post 
information on newsgroups which is not in the topic area or charter 
(e.g. off-topic posting) of the newsgroup; (h) to interfere with another 
person's usage or enjoyment of the Internet o

Re: [nycwireless] Governement run telecom and broadband

[Dustin Goodwin]

Back to the actual technology-public policy debate. Why can't US 
broadband companies offer 100mbps full duplex residential services for 
$40 a month? You have heard all my reasons. What is the alternate 
explanation?


ps. Using the word left or socialism in your response will cause you 
broadband connection to reduce in speed and your monthly charge to go up 
by 20 dollars. This is not a political list and this is not a political 
debate.


In the immortal words of Ferris Buerller :-)
"It's on European socialism. I mean, really. What's the point? I'm not 
European. I don't plan to be European. So, who gives a shit if they're 
socialists?  They could be fascist anarchists and it still wouldn't 
change the fact that I don't own a car. Not that I condone fascism. Or 
and "isms". "Isms", in my opinion are not good. A person should not 
believe in an "ism". He should believe in himself. John Lennon said it 
on his first solo album. "I don't believe in Beatles, I just believe in 
me." A good point there. After all, he was the Walrus."

"FERRIS BUELLER'S DAY OFF" by John Hughes

- Dustin -

Jim Henry wrote:


Frank,
  Thank you for the intelligent, real world points you brought up.

Jim

 


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf 
Of Frank Coluccio

Sent: Friday, January 13, 2006 1:20 AM
To: nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net
Subject: Re: [nycwireless] Governement run telecom and broadband


On the matter of some networks working and some not, where is 
the board going


with this line of discussion? Does anyone here seriously 
think that either the


left or the right has a lock against this phenomenon from 
occurring? Sure, first


rounds of anything have their fair share of flops. Look at 
IPTV, as initially


announced by the RBOCs, for example.



In order to remain on course, Verizon has had to launch its 
first video program


services through the use of cable TV industry's  "analog" RF 
(radio frequency)


technologies. What this means is that Verion is now sending 
video to residences


over a third optical signal (wavelength) in its fiber to the 
home network, which


they call FiOS, instead of using an all-digital, all-IP 
format as originally


planned. Why? Because the combination IP TV software from 
Microsoft and the other


network elements used in FiOS are not yet working 
satisfactorily together,


rendering unfit for prime time, yet. 




Also consider, AT&T (nee SBC + AT&T) is in worse shape than 
Verizon. They are


using FTTNode/Curb, i.e., AT&T is not installing fiber all 
the way to the home,


but only part way, and using twisted copper pairs for the 
remainder of the


distance to the home. What this means is that AT&T doesn't 
even have a third


optical wavelength to use for an analog video fix, like 
Verizon does, so they're


sucking wind for the moment, and not delivering "any" video 
services, at all. 




Neither of these examples, however, is indicative that in a 
year's time both


won't be up and flying. They surely will. This is how 
progress is made, one step


at a time, no matter what the presumed persuasion might be. 




Frank 


--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: 
http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/

Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/



--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.14.17/228 - Release 
Date: 1/12/2006



   



--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
 



--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

Re: [nycwireless] Governement run telecom and broadband

[Dustin Goodwin]

Jim,
Freepress must be terrible because they are not a mouthpiece for huge
telecom corporations. Your right they can't be trusted. Personally I
would describe Freepress as politically progressive. I am not sure it
matters as they mostly seemed interested in good public policy.
Socialism, leftists... is everything political? Or do some people just
care about running a better country?

- Dustin -

Jim Henry wrote:


Dana,
  I've read the article you reference, and, like the one I provided a link
to, it is interesting.  They make some good points. However, like the PFF
paper, it's an advocacy document. I found no mention of municipalities
failing, or at least not doing as well, as commercial enterprises in
delivering critical services. There are certainly examples, such as
Philadelphia's PGW or NYC's water utility (nowhere near as bad as PGW I'm
sure, but failing to meter water is still pretty bad). No mention of a
possible negative outcome from a municipal offering.
  I am not too familiar with freepress.net but from checking their web
site, even though they claim to be non-partisan  the stories they offer seem
to be coming from a leftist point of view.

Jim

 


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf 
Of Dana Spiegel

Sent: Tuesday, January 10, 2006 11:06 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net
Subject: Re: [nycwireless] Governement run telecom and broadband


Jim,

Perhaps you should do a bit more research.

The PFF is well known to rely on half-truths and misrepresentations  
of fact to support their anti-municipal agenda.


Free Press has released a white paper that provides the whole story,  
and if you look at government broadband initiatives, they are  
overwhelmingly cost saving and beneficial to local communities.


http://www.freepress.net/docs/mb_white_paper.pdf

Also, PFF's supporters include (and are primarily) every incumbent  
telecom and cable company: http://www.pff.org/about/supporters.html


While this isn't a problem in and of itself, it should make you  
wonder where their views and motivations are coming from.



Dana Spiegel
Executive Director
NYCwireless
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.NYCwireless.net
+1 917 402 0422

Read the Wireless Community blog: http://www.wirelesscommunity.info


On Jan 9, 2006, at 10:04 PM, Jim Henry wrote:

   


Here's an interesting study on government going into the telecom
business.

http://www.pff.org/issues-pubs/pops/pop11.3govtownership.pdf

Jim

--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/
nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
 


--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: 
http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/

Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/



--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.14.14/222 - Release 
Date: 1/5/2006



   



--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
 




--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

Re: [nycwireless] Governement run telecom and broadband

[Dustin Goodwin]

Jim,
Maybe making everything political is just a way to distract people from 
the real  issue.  The lack of properly functioning free market in 
broadband has led to crappy over-priced services for American consumers 
and businesses. The lack of public policy that encourages competition in 
broadband hurts American in the long run.


- Dustin -

Jim Henry wrote:


Dustin,
   "Now that Jim Henry has shown his true colors nothing he says can be
taken seriously."

Now was that nice?  What ARE my true colors?  Did you miss my message
criticizing Verizon?

As to PFF, better check them out. Go to www.pff.org. Click on the "About
PFF" link. (Hint: If you do that, it will tell you what they say they are
about!)
They seem to be pretty upfront about their mission, what they promote and
where they are coming from.  I happen to agree with a lot of that. They ALSO
tell you who they are and who their supporters are.

Is public policy advocacy only OK with you when it is promoting leftist
policy?

Jim


 


-Original Message-
From: Dustin Goodwin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2006 12:51 PM

To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net
Subject: Re: [nycwireless] Governement run telecom and broadband


This report is authored by the Progress & Freedom people that 
have been 
widely outed as "Astroturf" outfit. Astroturf is new use of 
the term to 
describe fake consumer groups and think tanks that are just 
funded with 
money from Verizon and the like. These firms are nothing but 
a new form 
of lobbying by the incumbents meant to look like real 
research. If you 
like to get a list of firms that produced industry funded papers and 
research. Check out this article in which Progress & Freedom is 
specifically outed. Now that Jim Henry has shown his true 
colors nothing 
he says can be taken seriously. He is a mouthpiece for the 
telecom lobby 
and supporter of telecom monopolies. I thought the quick turn to 
shouting about socialism made him suspect in the first place.


*Bell SkunkWorks* *101*

*/What is Astroturf? Skunk Works?/* 
<http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Astroturf>*/ ---/*/The 
secret workings to deceive the public./


http://www.newnetworks.com/skunkworks101.html


http://muniwireless.com/municipal/504

"Sascha Meinrath posted 
<http://www.saschameinrath.com/?q=node/view/57> 
a list of members of the boards of directors of two other "astroturf 
organizations", groups that claim to be looking out for the best 
interests of the average consumer - but a quick look at their 
boards of 
directors tells you everything you need to know about them:


Progress & Freedom Foundation

*George A. (Jay) Keyworth II - Hewlett Packard Company and General 
Atomics * Raymond L. Gifford - President PFF * Jeffrey Eisenach - PFF 
and CapAnalysis * Mark Grady - George Mason Law School * 
Larry Harlow - 
Timmons & Company, Inc. * Peter Harter - ZG VEntures LLC"


- Dustin -

Jim Henry wrote:

   

Here's an interesting study on government going into the telecom 
business.


http://www.pff.org/issues-pubs/pops/pop11.3govtownership.pdf

Jim

--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: 
http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/

Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/


 




--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.14.14/222 - Release 
Date: 1/5/2006



   



 



--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

Re: [nycwireless] Governement run telecom and broadband

[Dustin Goodwin]

This report is authored by the Progress & Freedom people that have been 
widely outed as "Astroturf" outfit. Astroturf is new use of the term to 
describe fake consumer groups and think tanks that are just funded with 
money from Verizon and the like. These firms are nothing but a new form 
of lobbying by the incumbents meant to look like real research. If you 
like to get a list of firms that produced industry funded papers and 
research. Check out this article in which Progress & Freedom is 
specifically outed. Now that Jim Henry has shown his true colors nothing 
he says can be taken seriously. He is a mouthpiece for the telecom lobby 
and supporter of telecom monopolies. I thought the quick turn to 
shouting about socialism made him suspect in the first place.


*Bell SkunkWorks* *101*

*/What is Astroturf? Skunk Works?/* 
*/ ---/*/The 
secret workings to deceive the public./


http://www.newnetworks.com/skunkworks101.html


http://muniwireless.com/municipal/504

"Sascha Meinrath posted  
a list of members of the boards of directors of two other “astroturf 
organizations”, groups that claim to be looking out for the best 
interests of the average consumer — but a quick look at their boards of 
directors tells you everything you need to know about them:


Progress & Freedom Foundation

*George A. (Jay) Keyworth II — Hewlett Packard Company and General 
Atomics * Raymond L. Gifford — President PFF * Jeffrey Eisenach — PFF 
and CapAnalysis * Mark Grady — George Mason Law School * Larry Harlow — 
Timmons & Company, Inc. * Peter Harter — ZG VEntures LLC"


- Dustin -

Jim Henry wrote:


Here's an interesting study on government going into the telecom business.

http://www.pff.org/issues-pubs/pops/pop11.3govtownership.pdf

Jim

--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
 



--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

Re: [nycwireless] Municipal Broadband - Must read!

[Dustin Goodwin]

Jim,
I am not sure what rocket you had to strap to this article to make the 
leap from public policy that promotes broadband to socialism. But it 
must have been large! Is NYC's water tunnel number 3 socialism or smart 
public policy? What the rural electrification authority socialism or 
smart public policy? YOUR ALREADY PAYING SUBSIDIES to the incumbent 
telcos and getting nothing for it. How about we stop talking about 
socialism and start talking about replacing dumb public policy (like 
paying incumbent telcos for broadband we don't get) with smart public 
policy. If you happy with current arrangement good for you. I am glad 
your broadband sucks and is expensive. Maybe you do something that 
doesn't depend on ubiquitous global Internet connectivity priced 
properly. But I doubt it.


- Dustin -

Jim Henry wrote:


Lars,
   I'm OK with street lights and quite a bit more, but you've got to draw
the line somewhere. I certainly don't want my tax dollars paying for soeone
else's water, electricity, gas, medicine, education, healthcare, etc. As to
the  cost of your broadband connection, I'd be willing to bet you are not
counting the taxes you and your fellow subjects pay for that municipal fiber
network as part of that $40/month.  Beyond that, I'd also  bet you pay a
much larger percentage of your income in taxes than I, though mine are
already far too high. Taxation is theft and thus immoral.

Jim

 


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf 
Of Lars Aronsson

Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 7:46 AM
To: 'nycwireless'
Subject: RE: [nycwireless] Municipal Broadband - Must read!


Jim Henry wrote:

   


Just curious, does anyone know if in these countries where
broadband is cheaper and more prevalent than the U.S., is it 
really cheaper or is it subsidized by the government? I honestly 
don't know the answer.  I would like it to be cheaper here also 
and more widespread, but not at the expense of free enterprise.  
If it takes socialism to accomplish this, I don't want it.
 

I heard that socialism has gone away now that "cialis" is caught 
in the spam filters.  Seriously, though, I have yet to see street 
lights operated on a pay-per-view commercial basis.  Somebody paid 
once-and-for-all to pave and light the streets, and it could be 
tax money.  Does that make it socialism?


In Sweden I pay 320 SEK/mo ($40) for 10 Mbit/s.  This is possible 
because I live in a coop apartment building, where every apartment 
is wired by an ISP, and the in-house switched LAN is connected to 
a municipal fiber in the basement. This ISP (www.bredband.com) was 
founded with venture capital during the dotcom boom and got a 
contract with the largest national association of apartment coops 
(www.hsb.se).  Through this contract, apartment coops that are 
members have a very streamlined procedure for signing up to get 
their apartment buildings wired.


This spring, the ISP is introducing a reduced price 2 Mbit/s 
offering (still over CAT-5 twisted pair ethernet, so I guess it is 
really 10 Mbit/s but bandwidth limited) and at the same time my 
line is upgraded to 100 Mbit/s at unchanged price.


As far as I know, there is no direct government subsidy, but a lot 
of factors work together:


* Compared to the U.S., more people here live in apartments.  
  People living in private homes cannot get broadband as cheap, 
  simply because wiring a dozen apartments in one building is a 
  lot cheaper than wiring a dozen private homes.


* Coops is a very common form of apartment ownership in Sweden 
  since the 1930s, and the national associations work pretty 
  well.  The nationwide template contract made it easier for a 
  lot of small coops to sign up, who don't have the technical 
  insights to do their own negotiations.


* The dotcom boom provided the venture capital for this 
  broadband-only ISP.  You could call this "subsidized by stupid 
  investors".  I guess the stock price has fallen, but at least 
  this company is still around.


* The old national telco is not involved at all in this solution.

* The ISP rents dark fiber from the municipal utility between my 
  building and the ISP's facility in this town.  The municipal 
  water, sewer, electricity, and heating utility is operated as a 
  whole-owned corporation (www.tekniskaverken.se) and I don't 
  know exactly how they have financed the build-out of the 
  municipal fiber network.


I guess most of these conditions could also apply to New York 
City, more than to rural or suburban America.



--
 Lars Aronsson ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
 Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se
--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: 
http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/

Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/



--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.14.14/222 - Release 
Date: 1/5/2006



   



--
NY

[nycwireless] Municipal Broadband - Must read!

[Dustin Goodwin]

If you think you have a well developed theory on the why or why not of 
the municipal broadband debate you must read this article.

Some of the conclusions:
The US is desperately behind in broaband compared to the rest the world.
As for existing US broadband.We are paying way too much for way too 
little compared to the rest of the world.

US monopolies are have bloated the price of broadband and slowed investment.
Lack of Federal and State policy/programs/tax breaks/incentives are 
mostly to blame.
As we learned during the electrification of the rural US free enterprise 
is not the best system for bringing real low cost broadband to everyone.
If your municipality really wants to be on the broadband grid and your 
expecting help from private telcos... your screwed.
Municipal broadband or the threat of municipal broadband has been shown 
to encourage private sector investment.
Most places including NYC should be shopping around for a municipal 
broadband solution if they expect their businesses to compete on a 
global level.
The US communication infrastructure is stagnating and the fixes will 
come from a combination public policy *AND* private enterprise.


*Let There Be Wi-Fi*
Broadband is the electricity of the 21st century—and much of America is 
being left in the dark.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2006/0601.podesta.html
--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

Re: [nycwireless] EVDO

[Dustin Goodwin]

For getting online when I have no broadband in a public space or a 
customer site there is nothing like it.Although since getting up and 
running with my treo the number of reasons to boot my laptop have gone 
down. Who knew SSH would work so well from a Treo. Yet another way to 
feed my online addiction. If we could solve the airplane problem I would 
be able to get a fix anytime of day.


- Dustin -

Schainbaum, Robert wrote:

I just got an EVDO card for my laptop and I'm finding the service is 
little better than fast dial-up. I mean, it might be alright as overly 
expensive DSL, but it's too expensive as fast dial-up.


Does anyone have anything positive to say in behalf of the EVDO 
experience? I have till Jan 1 to turn the card back in and cancel 
service. I think I'd rather spend all day cracking WEP encryption than 
endure this for much longer.


Robert Schainbaum

Schainbaum, Robert wrote:

This government through the FCC could intervene for public policy 
reasons, which are damned obvious, or subscribers could decline to 
accept service unless it were fully network neutral. It seems to me 
this SBC business is the first shot any of the ISPs has taken at 
network neutrality except for the blocking of the occasional port now 
and again.


Then there's the fact that Google et al enjoy the universal goodwill 
of the online public. The ISPs are universally hated, monopolistic 
bloodsuckers. The latter goes without saying. As for the so-called 
telecoms, if they're rich enough to do large-scale acquisitions, it's 
silly to worry that they're not in a position to make decent profits. 
Could be argued that they've long since been making excessive profits.


Utilities, because of their declining marginal cost curves, are 
natural monopolies. There is EVERY reason to regulate them as there 
is always good reason to regulate a natural monpoly (per the standard 
works in public policy).


Dustin Goodwin wrote:

As usual Jeff Pulver puts it all down in words. SBC fired the first 
shot.But Bell South has basically confirmed it was more then a 
misquote. Phone companies think they can control the Internet and 
select the content their paying customers get to see.
"his company should be allowed to charge a rival voice-over-Internet 
firmso that its service can operate with the same quality as 
BellSouth's offering."


These grey haired over-stuffed and over-paid executives that think 
they are going to re-invented the Internet from a cell phone on the 
18th hole of their country club have another thing coming. This war 
is just getting started!


If you have not taken part in the the NYCwireless Network Neutrality 
Challenge please get involved NOW.

http://www.nycwireless.net/tiki-index.php?page=BroadbandChallenge

What is the point of having a FCC if they don't jump in on stuff 
like this??


- Dustin -

---
The Second Glove Is Thrown Down - Let the Communication Wars Begin:

Is BellSouth just sucking up to Ed Whitacre in hopes of acquisition, 
or are the Bells really throwing down the gauntlet against the 
Internet Application Providers?


As I have said before, the new battlelines are emerging in the 
communications war.  The battle -- once waged between ILECs and 
CLECs, between cable and LEC, between wireline and wireless, between 
terrestrial and satellite -- has officially morphed into a battle 
between Internet Access Provider and Internet Application Provider. 
This did not have to be the case; the battle could have persisted 
between and among Internet Access Providers, with each trying to 
gain the support of the Internet Application Providers to offer 
their users more compelling content, services and applications.  
Instead, it appears as if the Internet Access Providers are on 
theverge of opting for a more "cartel-like" approach, hoping that 
they can all, in concert and using their collective control over 
last-mile and first-mile access facilities, extract as much 
additional revenue from the Internet Application Providers who 
cannot reach end-users except through one or the other of their 
bottleneck facilities.


And, here I was, naively assuming that Ed Whitacre was the outlier, 
the only Bell exec publicly threatening to charge Internet 
Applications Providers for access to users.  Well, it might just be 
that Ed Whitacre was simply the pioneer, the public water-tester, 
the one foreshadowing the preferred approach of the other LECs and 
the other providers of Internet access. Frankly, I am floored by 
their premature flagging of this battle, and their desire to serve 
as the gatekeeper/toll-collectors to the Web, to IP-based 
applications, and to the broader Internet.  If I were the 
spokesperson for an Internet Access Provider, I think I would not 
have revealed my hand quite so early.  I think I might have waited a 
few more months, orat least until the final and irreversible removal 
of all vestiges of gove

[nycwireless] New York City Council approves public broadband commission

[Dustin Goodwin]

http://muniwireless.com/municipal/watch/955
New York City Council approves public broadband commission

The New York City Council has moved one step closer to bringing more
competition into the market for high-speed Internet access to city
residents and businesses. On Wednesday, December 21, 2005, the Council
voted to pass Intro 625-A, sponsored by Council Member Gale A. Brewer
(D-Manhattan), the Chair of the Committee on Technology in Government.
This piece of legislation passed the Committee on Technology in
Government unanimously on Tuesday, December 20, 2005. Int. No. 625-A
creates a joint public broadband commission to advise the Mayor and the
City Council of New York on how the resources of City government can be
used to stimulate the private market so that residents and businesses of
New York City have more options in terms of high-speed Internet access.
The goal of the commission is to educate the general public about
broadband and the newest communication technologies, and to give New
York City residents the opportunity to comment on how the digital divide
in New York City can be closed.


--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

[nycwireless] The coming network neutrality war

[Dustin Goodwin]

As usual Jeff Pulver puts it all down in words. SBC fired the first 
shot.But Bell South has basically confirmed it was more then a misquote. 
Phone companies think they can control the Internet and select the 
content their paying customers get to see.
"his company should be allowed to charge a rival voice-over-Internet 
firmso that its service can operate with the same quality as BellSouth's 
offering."


These grey haired over-stuffed and over-paid executives that think they 
are going to re-invented the Internet from a cell phone on the 18th hole 
of their country club have another thing coming. This war is just 
getting started!


If you have not taken part in the the NYCwireless Network Neutrality 
Challenge please get involved NOW.

http://www.nycwireless.net/tiki-index.php?page=BroadbandChallenge

What is the point of having a FCC if they don't jump in on stuff like 
this??


- Dustin -

---
The Second Glove Is Thrown Down - Let the Communication Wars Begin:

Is BellSouth just sucking up to Ed Whitacre in hopes of acquisition, or 
are the Bells really throwing down the gauntlet against the Internet 
Application Providers?


As I have said before, the new battlelines are emerging in the 
communications war.  The battle -- once waged between ILECs and CLECs, 
between cable and LEC, between wireline and wireless, between 
terrestrial and satellite -- has officially morphed into a battle 
between Internet Access Provider and Internet Application Provider. 
This did not have to be the case; the battle could have persisted 
between and among Internet Access Providers, with each trying to gain 
the support of the Internet Application Providers to offer their users 
more compelling content, services and applications.  Instead, it appears 
as if the Internet Access Providers are on theverge of opting for a more 
"cartel-like" approach, hoping that they can all, in concert and using 
their collective control over last-mile and first-mile access 
facilities, extract as much additional revenue from the Internet 
Application Providers who cannot reach end-users except through one or 
the other of their bottleneck facilities.


And, here I was, naively assuming that Ed Whitacre was the outlier, the 
only Bell exec publicly threatening to charge Internet Applications 
Providers for access to users.  Well, it might just be that Ed Whitacre 
was simply the pioneer, the public water-tester, the one foreshadowing 
the preferred approach of the other LECs and the other providers of 
Internet access. Frankly, I am floored by their premature flagging of 
this battle, and their desire to serve as the gatekeeper/toll-collectors 
to the Web, to IP-based applications, and to the broader Internet.  If I 
were the spokesperson for an Internet Access Provider, I think I would 
not have revealed my hand quite so early.  I think I might have waited a 
few more months, orat least until the final and irreversible removal of 
all vestiges of government oversight - laws, regulations, and antitrust 
precedent -- that would have ensured that users would have a choice of 
service and application providers.


I still cannot understand why the Bells don't embrace the virtuous cycle 
between Internet Access Provider and Internet Application Provider?  The 
proliferation of worthwhile Internet applications is what will drive 
broadband uptake and increase Internet access revenue from users, 
itching to avail themselves of Web 2.0, Voice 2.0, Internet 2.0? 
Perhaps they will recognize this synergy if and when a Google or a Yahoo 
buys an SBC or a Verizon.


In any event, here is the current state of the battle:

BellSouth's Bill Smith, whom I have always respected as a forthright, 
forward-looking technologist with a genuine desire to bring broadband 
and new services to consumers, was quoted as saying that "his company 
should beallowed to charge a rival voice-over-Internet firm so that its 
service can operate with the same quality as BellSouth's offering."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/30/AR2005113002109.html

(As an aside, I cannot think of a VoIP provider with a codec that uses 
more than 200 Kbs -- below the FCC's generally-recognized definition of 
broadband.  Indeed Skype, Vonage, and FWD can operate at or even below 
64 Kbs.  So, if the Bells are truly offering broadband -- at least 200 
Kbs, and advertising FIOS and other fiber-based services at 15 Mbs (give or
take) -- why wouldn't their service stand up to their advertised quality 
standards, and why would they have to charge more to offer a service 
thatmeets their advertised bandwidth standards?)


In any case, we had anticipated this battle, but not quite so soon.
Apparently, net neutrality means different things to different people, 
depending on whether you control the network and user access or not.  To 
the Bells, net neutrality and nondiscrimination m

[nycwireless] NYCw Broadband Network Neutrality UPDATE

[Dustin Goodwin]

Breaking news! Stop the presses...
The first ISP has accepted our Broadband Network Neutrality challenge. Many thanks to the visionaries over at bway.net. ISPs like bway.net that have publicly embraced the 4 principles of Network Neutrality should be your first choice when purchasing broadband services. 


We are asking all broadband providers in NYC to make public statement about the 
following Network Neutrality principles.
*(1)* consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content 
 of their choice;
*(2)* consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their
  choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement 
;
*(3)* consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices 
 that do not harm the
  network; and
*(4)* consumers are entitled to competition among network providers 
, application and service
  providers, and content providers.

Broadband Challenge details: 
http://www.nycwireless.net/tiki-index.php?page=BroadbandChallange
Scorecard: 
http://www.nycwireless.net/tiki-index.php?page=BroadbandChallengeScoreCard

To participate or to give me info on ISP decision makers - email me at [EMAIL 
PROTECTED]

- Dustin -

-Original Message-
From: Joe Plotkin 
Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 7:22 PM

To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Fwd: [nycwireless] NYCwireless Network Neutrality challenge]


Bway.net, the independent ISP, wholeheartedly supports these 4
principles of Network Neutrality. Bway.net allows its customers to
run any application or services they want on their broadband
connections, connect servers or other devices -- and even to share
their bandwidth publicly. Additionally, Bway.net relies on unfettered
access to the public network to provide **innovative services** not
offered by the dominant telco or cable providers including symmetric
DSL, AnonymousDSL (tm) and Naked ADSL.

Bway.net
Joe Plotkin, Director, Marketing

--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

Re: [nycwireless] Old TWC Cease & Desist letters?

[Dustin Goodwin]

I think TWC once believed there was a threat to their business model 
from shared Wifi. After wasting a bunch of money I believe they realized 
there was no risk and gave it up.


- Dustin -

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Re: Old TWC Cease & Desist letters?

I'm new to the board, but haven't found much information about the reasons behind TWC/RR and other large incumbents' prohibition on connection sharing.  


Whether right or wrong, I'm curious to know if anyone has specifically spoken 
with these companies and found out their rationale for prohibiting connection 
sharing.  If it were simply an issue of not wanting to support free-loaders, 
why have they not created a captive-portal/authentication scheme?

Especially in light of Verizon starting to distribute WiFi devices with DSL, 
this issue makes even less sense.

If anyone has an idea, please let me know.  If not, does anyone have any 
contact information of people at TWC who may have been somewhat helpful?  
Clearing up this issue might help us move the community wireless into a larger 
number of homes and allow us to grow the network.

Thanks
Steven
--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
 



--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

[nycwireless] [Fwd: Internet Wirless]

[Dustin Goodwin]

Can someone who can read this help this guy out?

- Dustin -

 Original Message 
Subject:Internet Wirless
Date:   Mon, 31 Oct 2005 18:45:29 -0600 (CST)
From:   jorge valerio pocon solorzano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Buenas noches, me interesa saber si ustedes pueden ayudarnos a realizar 
una instalacion Wirles en Guatemala y que equipo podemos utilizar. 
¿Creen ustedes que el equipo D-LINK es bueno?, favor de ayudarnos



Jorge Pocon
7AV. 6-08 ZONA 1 MIXCO GUATEMALA, GUATEMALA
TELEFONOS 2438-6157
CEL. 5584-6412


__
Correo Yahoo!
Espacio para todos tus mensajes, antivirus y antispam ¡gratis!
Regístrate ya - http://correo.espanol.yahoo.com/

--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

Re: [nycwireless] Not sure about muni-Wifi? Read this from the SBC chief

[Dustin Goodwin]

Just go ahead and turn the Internet off if you can only connect me to 
the AOLized version of it.


- Dustin -

Jim Henry wrote:


You can't argue with that. They invest hundreds of millions of dollars in
transport and need to get their ROI.

 


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf 
Of Dustin Goodwin

Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 2:40 PM
To: nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net
Subject: [nycwireless] Not sure about muni-Wifi? Read this 
from the SBC chief



Please never tell me again there is no need for an 
alternative to the  
Cable/Bell broadband duopoloy. /


"If there were any delusions that Ma Bell Wasn't Back 
<http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/27/1635247&tid=215>, SBC 
CEO Edward Witacre has cleared that up in an interview 
<http://www.businessweek.com/@@n34h*IUQu7KtOwgA/magazine/conte
nt/05_45/b3958092.htm> 
with Business Week Online. When asked about Google, Vonage and other 
Internet Upstarts he responded in typical Ma Bell Style: 'How do you 
think they're going to get to customers? Through a broadband 
pipe. Cable 
companies have them. We have them. Now what they would like 
to do is use 
my pipes free, but I ain't going to let them do that because we have 
spent this capital and we have to have a return on it. So 
there's going 
to have to be some mechanism for these people who use these 
pipes to pay 
for the portion they're using. Why should they be allowed to use my 
pipes?'."


- Dustin -

/
--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: 
http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/

Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/



--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.6/152 - Release 
Date: 10/31/2005



   



 



--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

[nycwireless] NYCwireless Network Neutrality challenge

[Dustin Goodwin]

Fellow concerned NYers,
I am challenging every company that provides broadband services in NYC 
to make a public
statement supporting the 4  Network Neutrality principles outlined 
below. I will keep a score
card up on the NYCwireless website showing which companies have chosen 
to embrace these

principles.

Scorecard:
http://www.nycwireless.net/tiki-index.php?page=BroadbandChallengeScoreCard
Broadband Challenge:
http://www.nycwireless.net/tiki-index.php?page=BroadbandChallange

Further on the website of every provider we would like them to include a 
web page with their
public statement. The URL to find a providers stance on Network 
Neutrality will be available to the

Internet community via the URL http://yourproviderswebsite/neutral.html.

Dustin Goodwin
NYCwireless
Community Networks

More on the Network Neutrality---

Recently the CEO of SBC made some very provocative statements in regards
to allowing the Googles & Vonages of the world to provide services over
the Internet to subscribers of the SBC broadband network without their
permission. I think this is the first signal that the ever larger telcos
have no plan to keep the Internet the way it was and want to block out
competition for services by controlling who can access their broadband
subscribers. While SBC is not a major provider of broadband services in
NYC. I feel someone must ask Verizon and TimeWarner/RCN/etc to make
public statements ensuring they will continue to run an open network in
which customers can access any legal content & services they wish.
Considering that customer pay for the broadband service is unacceptable
to consider the provider might block legal content and services to line
their own pockets.

The concept of network operators keeping their networks free and open is
something commonly referred to as Network Neutrality. NN contains these
4 mains points:

  (1) consumers are entitled to access the lawful Internet content
  <http://www.cybertelecom.org/cda/Firsta.htm> of their choice;

  (2) consumers are entitled to run applications and services of their
  choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement
  <http://www.cybertelecom.org/security/Calea.htm>;

  (3) consumers are entitled to connect their choice of legal devices
  <http://www.cybertelecom.org/ci/cpe.htm> that do not harm the
  network; and

  (4) consumers are entitled to competition among network providers
  <http://www.cybertelecom.org/broadband/>, application and service
  providers, and content providers.

NYCwireless is challenging every broadband provider to embrace these
and make a public statement supporting them.

Business Week article with SBC CEO comments in it:
http://www.businessweek.com/@@n34h*IUQu7KtOwgA/magazine/content/05_45/b3958092.htm
Analysis:
http://techdirt.com/articles/20051031/0354228_F.shtml
Great article on Network Neutrality
http://www.advancedippipeline.com/169500292
Network Neutrality website:
http://www.cybertelecom.org/ci/neutral.htm

--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

[nycwireless] Not sure about muni-Wifi? Read this from the SBC chief

[Dustin Goodwin]

Please never tell me again there is no need for an alternative to the  
Cable/Bell broadband duopoloy. /


"If there were any delusions that Ma Bell Wasn't Back 
, SBC 
CEO Edward Witacre has cleared that up in an interview 
 
with Business Week Online. When asked about Google, Vonage and other 
Internet Upstarts he responded in typical Ma Bell Style: 'How do you 
think they're going to get to customers? Through a broadband pipe. Cable 
companies have them. We have them. Now what they would like to do is use 
my pipes free, but I ain't going to let them do that because we have 
spent this capital and we have to have a return on it. So there's going 
to have to be some mechanism for these people who use these pipes to pay 
for the portion they're using. Why should they be allowed to use my 
pipes?'."


- Dustin -

/
--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

[nycwireless] Old TWC Cease & Desist letters?

[Dustin Goodwin]

Several years back, when TWC was paranoid about Wifi they issued a 
couple of Cease & Desist letters to open access point owners. We have 
not heard from them for years. I guess they realized quickly that there 
was no threat to cable modem business model from Wifi. If you received 
one these and still have a copy please contact me.


- Dustin -
--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

[nycwireless] Wireless over-crowding in your apt? Join our wireless over-crowding study.

[Dustin Goodwin]

NYCwireless is looking for NYC residents that think they are receiving
interference from neighboring wireless access points. We are going to
bring over diagnostic equipment. and see what the situation really is.
We hear this complaint often enough that we want to get solid answers on
what is happening in NYC. Please shoot me an email with the description
of your problem and I will let you know if we are going to include your
location in the effort. One way to "see" interference is to bring up the
list of wireless networks your computer can detect. If your getting a
list of 5 or more wireless networks then *maybe* your suffering
interference. Although there is no way to know for sure until we test
on-site.

- Dustin -

--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

[nycwireless] Volunteers needed for Community Access information event

[Dustin Goodwin]

In a few weeks we will be having informational event at Community Access 
building on Franklin Ave in the Bronx. The goal is to raise awareness of 
the NYCw wireless network recently installed in that building and help 
residents that already have a computer get connected. To help with this 
Josh Auerbach has generously donated USB Wifi adapters that we will be 
able to distribute at the event.


We are also looking for volunteers that can help us find a source of 
used or new/cheap PCs to be distributed to CA residents. I am not sure 
if Dell or any of the others have program for the economically 
dis-advantaged but I could really use help getting this program up and 
running.


For background on our work with CA check out 
http://www.nycwireless.net/tiki-index.php?page=CaNet and also the CA 
website http://www.cairn.org/ .


- Dustin -

--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

[nycwireless] Katrina Technology Relief website

[Dustin Goodwin]

I don't want steal the thunder from tonights meeting. But since time is 
of the essence. If you looking to volunteer your time helping to deploy 
technology in Katrina emergency housing facilities go to 
http://www.part-15.org/emergencyrelief/katrina.html for more 
information. They are also accepting donations of money and equipment.


- Dustin -
--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

[nycwireless] NPR audio program on Techie relief efforts for Katrina

[Dustin Goodwin]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4834612
--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

[nycwireless] Katrina wireless relief

[Dustin Goodwin]

CUWin is coordinating a technology relief effort for Katrina. For 
information read this post 
http://www.boingboing.net/2005/09/05/update_on_wireless_k.html and the 
CUWin website http://cuwireless.net/ .


- Dustin -
--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

[nycwireless] Wireless over-crowding in your apt? Join our wireless over-crowding study.

[Dustin Goodwin]

NYCwireless is looking for NYC residents that think they are receiving 
interference from neighboring wireless access points. We are going to 
bring over diagnostic equipment. and see what the situation really is. 
We hear this complaint often enough that we want to get solid answers on 
what is happening in NYC. Please shoot me an email with the description 
of your problem and I will let you know if we are going to include your 
location in the effort. One way to "see" interference is to bring up the 
list of wireless networks your computer can detect. If your getting a 
list of 5 or more wireless networks then *maybe* your suffering 
interference. Although there is no way to know for sure until we test 
on-site.


- Dustin -
--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

[nycwireless] Wireless over-crowding in your apt? Join our wireless over-crowding study.

[Dustin Goodwin]

NYCwireless is looking for people that think they are receiving 
interference from neighboring wireless access points. We are going to 
bring over diagnostic equipment. and see what the situation really is. 
Please shoot me an email with the description of your problem and I will 
let you know if we are going to include your location in the study. One 
way to "see" interference is to bring up the list of wireless networks 
your computer can detect. If your getting a list of 5 or more then 
*maybe* your suffering interference. Although there is no way to know 
for sure.


- Dustin -
--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

[nycwireless] FCC kills wholesale DSL - Has the time come for NYC Muni-Wifi?

[Dustin Goodwin]

The FCC has let the other shoe drop, Verizon will no longer be required 
to offer wholesale DSL to competitive ISPs. Between this and the Brand X 
ruling Time-Warner/Cablevision and Verizon can now run their duopoly 
without worry. This means there are only 2 providers of "affordable" 
broadband into any dwelling or business in NYC. If this doesn't worry 
you it should. Now that the FCC has effectively killed real broadband 
competition, what should the concerned NYer do? Maybe it's time to start 
caring about Muni-Wifi. What could Muni-Wifi do for NYers?
1. Create competition in broadband services by providing an alternative 
to Cable and DSL for last mile access for ISPs.
2. Provide a infrastructure for delivering low cost broadband access to 
NYC neediest.


This can be achieved without the city competing with private enterprise 
and without funding it with tax payer dollars. Please see my earlier 
post on the cooperative wholesale model for municipal  broadband:

http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/2005-July/009335.html

- Dustin -

 Original Message 
Subject: 	[CYBERTEL] FCC kills mandated DSL wholesale and sanctifies a 
wireline duopoly as vibrant competition - Gone is Muni FTTH?

Date:   Sat, 6 Aug 2005 03:50:42 -0400
From:   Francois Menard (Mailing List Account) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: 	Telecom Regulation & the Internet 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



FCC kills mandated DSL wholesale and sanctifies a wireline duopoly as 
vibrant competition - Gone is Muni FTTH?

by François at 02:31AM (CDT) on August 6, 2005  |  Permanent Link
http://tim.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2005/8/6/1112664.html

In a press statement issued today, the FCC commissionners have agreed that 
the future of broadband in the US was better left in the hands of market 
forces.


Commissionner Copps however concedes that what the FCC has chosen to do 
today amounts to prospective regulatory making on a purely theoritical 
basis.  That has not stopped him however from concurring with the other 
Commissionners with the only announced accountability of the FCC being 
that he says he intends to keep tabs to see if what is supposed to happen 
truly does.  But just who will be there to keep tabs when the 
term of Commissioner Coops expires on May 1, 2006?


In the same statement, the FCC annnounces that it intends to issue a 
public inquiry in which it will begin to investigate issues associated 
with the walledgardenization of broadband access and by interence, must 
now look into intercarrier compensation in the context of broadband 
peering at public Internet NAPs which to this date has remained free from 
FCC investigations.


While ISPs in Canada can behave like ostriches and duck their heads in the 
dirt and avoid thinking about the ripple effects of the FCC continuing to 
push the limits of the impossible in avoiding to consider the impact of 
their policies on the survival of the same independant ISPs which have 
created the market of retail internet services, we can bet that the ILECs 
in Canada will take advantage of the Telecom Review and start pointing out 
to the grand canyon emerging between CRTC policies and the FCC policies.


In analyzing regulatory policies from the perspective of a regulatory 
framework which is supposed to lead to sustainable competition by 
remaining conducive to further facilities-based entry, consequences of the 
disappearance of mandated wholesale of DSL facilities are evident, that 
is, no more reasons for retail price discipline, thus no more price 
floors, which will arguably lead to foreclosure of further entry by other 
entities than the incumbent Telco's and cable carriers.


Consequently, the risks of Municipal FTTH entry have just been quintupled 
- do it and the ILECs and the Cable Carriers will  immediately react by 
way of targeted decreases of DSL and cable modem services only for as long 
as necessary to kill Municipal FTTH while still  in the eggshell.


While the FCC is surely not foolish enough to believe that the public 
interest will be served by targeted price decreases of ILEC and MSO fat 
wasteband, the FCC seems to believe that they are acting in the public 
interest in making it more difficult to make a business case for municipal 
FTTH.


Unlike the CRTC, the actions of the FCC remain elusive as to whether the 
FCC truly believes that its prospective regulatory theories are compliant 
with the FCC's statutory obligation to administer a regulatory framework 
conducive to sustainable competition by ensuring that regulatory relief 
will exist for other carriers than ILEC and MSOs interested in making 
investments into their own facilities.


It is frustrating to see the American public endorse the fact that the FCC 
will be leading another 7 year market experiementation cycle in total 
disregard for the lessons supposed to be learned from the previous 
experiementation cycle with telecom competition concluding today.


Wit

Re: [nycwireless] Fwd: Demand affordable Internet for all New Yorkers

[Dustin Goodwin]

Can I take "I agree" to mean you support some forms of municipal 
broadband? 


- Dustin -

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


On Fri, 29 Jul 2005, Dustin Goodwin wrote:

 


The Cooperative Wholesale model being pursued in Philly does *not*
require tax payer dollars for funding and does *not* compete with
private enterprise. In fact it encourages competition and provides
mechanism for non-profits to offer affordable broadband to those
struggling up the socioeconomic ladder.
   

That's good. But that's not what the petition in question was for.  
"Demanding affordable intarweb" is like demanding free lunch. The language

used in this petition ("working families") smells of communism. The
stretch of imagination that internet is anything like gas, water or
electricity is giant. The request for mayor to "invest in the future" does
sound like something my tax dollars will be used for (otherwise, just 
*who* is investing?).


 


Municipal broadband does *not* mean free wifi paid for by tax payers. If
you look closely at the the Philly business model they are not planning
to give away anything or use tax payer dollars. I am not a communist and
I do not support municipal, state or federal government competing with
private enterprise. I do believe that the cable/telco duopoly must be
broken if we want real competition and not the sham we currently have.  
If we let history be our guide industries controlled by two

mega-corporations often end up with collusion and price fixing . Do you
want Verizon and Time Warner dictating what you pay for broadband? Or
worse dictating how your business may offer services and what your
allowed to charge your customers? Sounds like communism... da?  
Competitively priced broadband is good for our city/country economically

and socially.
   


I agree. But that's not what the petition in question was for.

 


Currently the city is pursuing a poll top franchise system that is yet
to lead to anything but a few of the usual suspects writing checks to
the city. Council person Gail Brewer has recently held hearings in her
Technology in Government committee on the creation of broadband policy
task force that will draw public and private representation. The task
force will, if approved, be tasked with producing a report on the
"technical, legal, environmental and economical feasibility of providing
affordable broadband access to all New York City residents, nonprofit
organizations and businesses.". If the city council approves the
creation of this task force, we will finally have a forum in which to
debate this and other strategies. Please read below to get a better
understanding of how municipal broadband can provide competition,
affordable broadband for New York's neediest and is not done at tax
payer expense.
   


I know that. But that's not what the petition was for.


 



--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

Re: [nycwireless] Fwd: Demand affordable Internet for all New Yorkers

[Dustin Goodwin]

The Cooperative Wholesale model being pursued in Philly does *not* 
require tax payer dollars for funding and does *not* compete with 
private enterprise. In fact it encourages competition and provides 
mechanism for non-profits to offer affordable broadband to those 
struggling up the socioeconomic ladder.


Municipal broadband does *not* mean free wifi paid for by tax payers. If 
you look closely at the the Philly business model they are not planning 
to give away anything or use tax payer dollars. I am not a communist and 
I do not support municipal, state or federal government competing with 
private enterprise. I do believe that the cable/telco duopoly must be 
broken if we want real competition and not the sham we currently have. 
If we let history be our guide industries controlled by two 
mega-corporations often end up with collusion and price fixing . Do you 
want Verizon and Time Warner dictating what you pay for broadband? Or 
worse dictating how your business may offer services and what your 
allowed to charge your customers? Sounds like communism... da? 
Competitively priced broadband is good for our city/country economically 
and socially.


Currently the city is pursuing a poll top franchise system that is yet 
to lead to anything but a few of the usual suspects writing checks to 
the city. Council person Gail Brewer has recently held hearings in her 
Technology in Government committee on the creation of broadband policy 
task force that will draw public and private representation. The task 
force will, if approved, be tasked with producing a report on the 
"technical, legal, environmental and economical feasibility of providing 
affordable broadband access to all New York City residents, nonprofit 
organizations and businesses.". If the city council approves the 
creation of this task force, we will finally have a forum in which to 
debate this and other strategies. Please read below to get a better 
understanding of how municipal broadband can provide competition, 
affordable broadband for New York's neediest and is not done at tax 
payer expense.


- Dustin -

From our friends at Civitium. A short explanation of Cooperative Wholesale:
(http://www.civitium.com/PDFs/Civitium_NYC_Presentation.pdf)
"The Cooperative Wholesale™ model attempts to address the municipality's 
need
to cooperate with the private sector and minimize the use of public 
funding. The business
model involves the city forming an entity that coordinates the funding 
and is eligible to
receive private foundation grants, state and federal monies, and bank 
loans. Once the
funding is secure, the entity then prepares a Request for Proposal (RFP) 
for private
parties to design, deploy, and manage the wireless broadband network. In 
exchange for
pole rights and other assets owned by the city, the network provides 
fixed and mobile
wireless broadband access to the city and to other potential government 
customers as
anchor tenants, representing a build versus buy decision and usually 
saving tax dollars on
monthly telecommunications expenses. The existing network capacity is 
sold at
wholesale prices to Internet Service Providers, incumbents, and others 
interested in
competing for and servicing business and residential subscribers. Using 
the free cash
flow generated by fees collected from the government anchor tenants and 
private sector
providers, the entity is able to fund technology training, content 
development, and low
cost equipment programs for low income citizens. While the Cooperative 
Wholesale™
model satisfies the needs of many communities seeking to address the 
Digital Divide, it

faces the following risks:
· Securing funding through private foundations, government grants, and 
private

loans can take time
· Model requires interest from ISPs and others in order to be viable
Though not a one-size-fits-all solution, the Cooperative Wholesale™ 
model does
address the most fundamental political challenges to deploying a 
wireless network,
especially when such a project is motivated by a social focus to close 
the Digital Divide."


[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


On Fri, 29 Jul 2005, Laura Forlano wrote:

 


Please take a moment to sign this petition from Free Press.  Thanks!
   


Hi,

How can I register my opposition to this petition, that would increase my
taxes as a resident and business owner, while at same time take away my
business income that comes from providing residential DSL and wireless
broadband?

You know, not everyone on this list is a communist.

-alex

--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
 



--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

Re: [nycwireless] BBC Story: Wireless hijacking under scrutiny

[Dustin Goodwin]

I cannot wait to be arrested for using public wifi offered by my 
neighbor. If my neighbors were to put a bowl of candy on table on the 
sidewalk in front of their bldg I would eat them. I am pretty sure I 
cannot get arrested for that. So I can only assume that taking candy 
from a virtual bowl is just as legal. I cannot wait to explain to my 
lawyer that 802.11 uses a beacon frame that advertises the presence of 
public wlan service. Which is the equivalent of putting a sign in front 
of the bowl of candy that says "eat me". Until people start setting the 
correct bit in the beacon frame that says the equivalent of "Don't eat 
me". I am going to keep *legally* eating. Of course most of the time I 
am the one putting out the bowl of candy. So in case your interested, 
yes you can have some.


- Dustin -

Laura Forlano wrote:


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4721723.stm

A recent court case, which saw a West London man fined
£500 and sentenced to 12 months' conditional discharge
for hijacking a wireless broadband connection, has
repercussions for almost every user of wi-fi networks
--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
 



--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

Re: [nycwireless] Re: 1-800-Magic-PizzaBox

[Dustin Goodwin]

Does anyone think Verizon would actually chase such a small issue?  I 
mean this is the same company that resells access points with their DSL 
service.


- Dustin -

R K wrote:


This is what I don't understand.

How do companies offer these things:
[Wifi
Gateway|https://evdo.sslpowered.com/wifi-router-evdo-sharing.htm]
[Entree|http://www.entreewireless.com/]

Are they all on shaky legal footing.  I thought I read
somewhere that you needed to become a Verizon
"reseller".

What hoops do you have to jump through to make this
legal?

KJ



__ 
Yahoo! Mail for Mobile 
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. 
http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail 
--

NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
 



--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

Re: [nycwireless] Citywide WiFi Poll

[Dustin Goodwin]

"cost the city about $80 million to set up a system, with consumers 
paying about $20 a month to log onto the municipal Wi-Fi network, said
Rasiej, who runs a technology-oriented educational organization, and 
based his model for NYC on the Philadelphia plan."


Anyone know who Rasiej is or how he came up with this number?

- Dustin -



Laura Forlano wrote:


AM New York has a feature on citywide WiFi today.  You
can also take a poll on whether or not you support
citywide WiFi at:
http://www.nynewsday.com/other/special/amny/

Best,
Laura
--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
 



--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

Re: [nycwireless] Re: NYCw oldest public node moving!

[Dustin Goodwin]

Fortunately Cornelia Street is still served by many open access points. 
Park Slope not so much.


- Dustin -

downtown wrote:

Oh, no! First the Carmine Street hardware store, then 
Zito's bakery, now Dustin's Cornelia Street node. What 
next? John's Pizza? Aphrodisia (a spice store, silly!)? 
Simon's "groovy" GV nycWireless node/webcam at Bleecker 
and Macdougal?


When I got a wifi card I hoped to pick up Dustin's signal 
in my apartment two blocks away--proof that all that 
publicity Anthony insisted on resulted in my knowing 
about nycWireless before I knew anything about wifi.


A fond, rueful farewell to NYC's oldest public node. 
While Park Slope may need your node now more than the 
West Village, it will be missed, Dustin--thanks for 
all those years of access. --diane
 



--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

[nycwireless] NYCw oldest public node moving!

[Dustin Goodwin]

I am going to go ahead and lay claim to the oldest continuously 
operating NYCw public node. During a very hot and sweaty summer evening 
back in 2001 Terry, Anthony and the rest crowded into my living room to 
help launch Cornelia Street community wireless (The village voice 
article that launched this adventure 
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0133,meyers,27267,1.html). The decision 
to install a NYCw public wireless node has taken me on adventure that 
goes far beyond technology.

Some highlights from the past 4 years:
* Helping Terry and the team build out the first free public  NYC park 
network in Bryant Park.
* Building 3 low income housing networks in conjunction with Community 
Access.
* Meeting technology visionaries like Dave Farber, Jeff Pulver and 
Henning Schulzrinne at the monthly meeting.
* Posing with my laptop for the camera at various NYC venues as Anthony 
(aka media slut) had us do often back when Wifi was hot news. We are 
such dorks!
While the node on Cornelia Street maybe shutting down the NYCw 
experience goes on. I am looking forward to many years to come off great 
wireless projects and lots of beer. Stay tuned for news on the Garfield 
Place community wireless network in Park Slope Brooklyn. Just as soon as 
I can get unpacked.


- Dustin -
NYCwireless node #6
http://www.nodedb.com/unitedstates/ny/newyork/view.php?nodeid=6


--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

Re: [nycwireless] Sprint Announces EVDO. Wifi Shootout While EVDO goes Nationwide.

[Dustin Goodwin]

I think most people would like to have EVDO as an option when on the go. 
But the flat rate service plans are pretty pricey. We more competition 
to drive down price and better tech to upgrade the speed.


- Dustin -

Robert Kim Wireless Internet Advisor wrote:


ben, sorry about not seeing your email sooner... gmail is still
confusing to me...  :o)
as far as sprint.. because they have a homogeneous 1900mhz net across
country.. its much simpler for them to roll out evdo than verizon who
basically patched together tons of smaller carriers in buyouts at
800/1900 or amps...

so... yeah... im not saying its easy to roll out the country... but
verizon does have  a tougher job of it.

Dustin, funny thing is that i do the same thing.. . i always have my
wifi card IN the computer... its that way at the office so... its that
way when im on the road... and ONLY drop in evdo IF i dont have
wifi...

2 reasons...
1) wifi is generally faster 
2) evdo burns battery life faster  :o)


what do you guys think it'll take to get more people off wifi and on evdo?

REV A? in 2007?? hsdpa??


On 6/28/05, Dustin Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 


I use Wifi for WLAN services at work and home. When I am somewhere with
free wifi or wifi via company remote access plan I will use that. If all
else fails I pull out my Verizon EVDO card. So basically I won't pay
extra to use Wifi since I always have my EVDO card available with a flat
rate plan paid by my company.

- Dustin -

Ben N. Serebin wrote:

   


Hello Bob,

 Interesting to hear this... Sprint and EVDO. Funny NYC is on
round 2 of cities for deployment. I would be impressed if Sprint lit up
cities so quickly.

-Ben


 



 


Dana, Hi... Sprint just announced that they will "announce"
Nationwide EVDO Coverage. What do see the market migration
potential being from wifi to evdo? Ironic timing in light of
the WIFI Shootout no? Looks like Verizon n Sprint will have a
shootout of their own... AND against WIFI too...

Anyone know stats on number of folks who own computers VS
laptops VS use WIFI???

It'd be fun to see how much market share EVDO skims off the
top of WIFI and who will stay firm in the wifi trench till
wimax gets big.

If you're interested, i put up a quick report about Sprint
Vs. Verizon EVDO at http://wirelessinternetcoverage.com

But, personally, i'd love to know who and WHEN the biggest
part of the wifi to evdo market migration will happen... thoughts?

lemme know.. thanks! bob

On 6/14/05, Dana Spiegel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


   

   




 



--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

[nycwireless] test pls ignore

[Dustin Goodwin]

test pls ignore
--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

[nycwireless] Test2 pls ignore

[Dustin Goodwin]

Sorry testing fixes to email to forum problems.

- Dustin -
--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

[nycwireless] Test pls ignore

[Dustin Goodwin]

test pls ignore
--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

Re: [nycwireless] Sprint Announces EVDO. Wifi Shootout While EVDO goes Nationwide.

[Dustin Goodwin]

I use Wifi for WLAN services at work and home. When I am somewhere with 
free wifi or wifi via company remote access plan I will use that. If all 
else fails I pull out my Verizon EVDO card. So basically I won't pay 
extra to use Wifi since I always have my EVDO card available with a flat 
rate plan paid by my company.


- Dustin -

Ben N. Serebin wrote:


Hello Bob,

Interesting to hear this... Sprint and EVDO. Funny NYC is on
round 2 of cities for deployment. I would be impressed if Sprint lit up
cities so quickly.

-Ben

 


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf 
Of Robert Kim Wireless Internet Advisor

Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2005 12:04 PM
To: Dana Spiegel
Cc: nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net
Subject: [nycwireless] Sprint Announces EVDO. Wifi Shootout 
While EVDO goes Nationwide.


Dana, Hi... Sprint just announced that they will "announce" 
Nationwide EVDO Coverage. What do see the market migration 
potential being from wifi to evdo? Ironic timing in light of 
the WIFI Shootout no? Looks like Verizon n Sprint will have a 
shootout of their own... AND against WIFI too...


Anyone know stats on number of folks who own computers VS 
laptops VS use WIFI???


It'd be fun to see how much market share EVDO skims off the 
top of WIFI and who will stay firm in the wifi trench till 
wimax gets big.


If you're interested, i put up a quick report about Sprint 
Vs. Verizon EVDO at http://wirelessinternetcoverage.com


But, personally, i'd love to know who and WHEN the biggest 
part of the wifi to evdo market migration will happen... thoughts?


lemme know.. thanks! bob

On 6/14/05, Dana Spiegel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
   

 


--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
 



--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

[nycwireless] [Fwd: [CYBERTEL] Muniwireless.co: Earthlink's statement at NYCbroadband hearing]

[Dustin Goodwin]

Interesting alternative view on the muni-broadband issue from Earthlink.

- Dustin -

 Original Message 
Subject: 	[CYBERTEL] Muniwireless.co: Earthlink's statement at NYC 
broadband hearing

Date:   Sun, 19 Jun 2005 10:00:19 -0500
From:   Frank Coluccio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: 	Telecom Regulation & the Internet 
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Earthlink's statement at NYC broadband hearing

Posted to the http://www.muniwireless.com blog
June 19, 2005

---begin:

Here's the presentation given by Brinton Young, Executive Vice President of
Strategy for EarthLink, at the June 10 NYC broadband hearing. Last week I wrote
that he offered to provide wireless broadband to New York for under $20 per 
month
(1 Mbps). His statement also criticizes the city's light pole rental price:

"Good morning. Thank you for giving me the chance to speak to you today. My name
is Brinton Young and I run strategy at EarthLink. I live in Pasadena California
but I’m glad to be back in New York City. My mother is a Brooklyn girl. And I
have many happy memories of vacations and Christmas in this city, the city that
sets the world standard for excellence in so many of the arts and professions.

EarthLink is an ISP. Our mission is to connect people to the Internet, and to
deliver the best possible Internet experience to them. Today EarthLink offers
service to over 5 million subscribers through dialup, cable, DSL and satellite,
as well as mobile wireless. We have over a million broadband customers and have
won the JD Powers Customer Satisfaction award for three years. But we have a
problem and it is a problem we share with America. Broadband is too expensive.
Two monopolies control the last mile to the home, EarthLink can buy access to
that last mile from them, but at a high price, too high for us to turn it into a
retail service, offer it to the public at a great price and make a return.

Finding a cost effective third pipe to the home, to create level playing field
for EarthLink to compete in broadband is our number one strategic challenge at
EarthLink. For the last three years , we have done a lot of digging into the 
next
generation of broadband technologies, digging in the form of trials, field 
tests,
investments. There are many candidates – WiMax and other emerging wireless,
broadband over electrical power lines, to name a couple of promising categories.

But today I want to focus on a particular approach to the last mile which I
believe is ready to meet the need for affordable broadband access. It is Wi-Fi
technology deployed in a mesh. The same Wi-Fi used for local networking and hot
spots can be used to provide broadband to the home. In this system, Wi-Fi radios
are be deployed on light poles in a grid throughout the city, spaced about 1200
feet apart. Internet traffic passes through this mesh into the home of the
consumer. With the right equipment inside the customer’s home, it will deliver
about 1 megabit per second downstream.

The power of this system is its low cost. It leverages the low cost of Wi-Fi
chips, of which 50 million units are shipped annually in the US alone. It can be
deployed for less than $25 per household passed. It doesn’t need outdoor 
antennae
or professional installers. I have seen it working in Chaska, Minnesota where 
the
service is offered for $15.95 a month and 30% of the town has signed up.

Here’s the point. Using this technology, we believe EarthLink can deliver 1 
mbps
broadband for a retail price under $20. We are prepared to work with the city to
make that happen.

Here’s the catch. We need access to the light poles. The economic model does 
not
work with pole rentals of $60 per month, much less $250 per month, when the
electricity usage costs less than a $1. In order to enable this low cost
technology, the city needs to make its light poles available for a couple of
dollars a month.

Does the density of NYC present challenges? Of course. Are there technical 
issues
still to be addressed and tested before we would be confident enough to build 
out
the whole city? Of course, but we, together with our equipment partners, are
working on them. Would a phased rollout be prudent? Yes, we think so.

Is it important for kids to have broadband? Of course it is. My 11- and
12-year-old girls use it every night for their homework. Should government care
about universal broadband access? Both Presidential candidates in the last
election thought it was important. Does that mean the city of New York has to 
get
in the business of building and running networks? No, it does not, but the city
can facilitate the deployment of those networks by partnering with the private
sector. EarthLink is prepared to be that partner."

Technorati Tags: citywide Wi-Fi, municipal wi-fi, municipal wireless
Posted by Muniwireless June 19, 2005

---end


Frank A. Coluccio
DTI Consulting Inc.
212-587-8150 Office
347-526-6788 Mobile



--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe:

Re: [nycwireless] DSL Prime: Verizon Killing WiFi Wants people

[Dustin Goodwin]

Joe,
Is it fair to say that access to a new last mile system is generally 
better for your business? I hear a lot of ISPs requesting the FCC help 
them open the LEC DSL systems, CableCo system, etc. In fact I hear them 
saying the gov should spend tax dollars if it will help open these last 
mile systems to them. I feel there is inherent contradiction in Alex's 
argument. Open cable systems and open DSL systems and open powerline 
systems are good for ISPs but a open wireless last mile solution is 
bad? Please help me understand.

- Dustin -
Joe Plotkin wrote:
Alex, first of all I want to say that I always appreciate your 
perspective, since I really respect what you do in this marketplace 
(which we both know aint easy). Even when I disagree with you, your 
arguments are well thought out and often bring out important points 
into sharper focus.

In this case, you've brought out the secondary argument about the role 
of government and our tax dollars in a way I hadnt thought of it 
before. Which is: is there only one correct model for muni wifi? 
Unfortunately, I think you want to have it both ways, which I do find 
problematic. What I mean is this: if a municipality provides free 
wifi, then you object because, you say, they give away what you charge 
for (another point I'll disagree with later). However, if they put it 
out to the highest bidder (NYC lightpoles), which is less onerous on 
taxpayers, you decry it as shutting you out.

I agree that the open model (Philly), allowing all ISPs to provide 
services is the best model. However, far more urgently, that model 
should be applied to all last mile RBOC wireline facilities. 
Especially fiber. As Im sure you know too well, the FCC has decreed 
otherwise, I believe to the detriment of our economy overall, and ISPs 
specifically. That is true lock out from an essential facility and 
unfair in the extreme. Because we've allowed private control of public 
telecom infrastructure, which was built as regulated monopoly, a 
public trust.

In contrast to the re-monopolization of the wireline first/last mile, 
I dont think muni wireless is a threat to Pilosoft or Bway because 
they will not be giving away what we charge for. Will they have full 
coverage? Not any time soon, if ever. Tech support? email accounts? IP 
address? Despite your valiant arguments, I think my public library 
analogy still holds. Yeah, you are right, some rich people will eat 
for free (or read every new book for free), when they really should be 
our paying customers. But I ask you, how many customers has Pilosoft 
lost to free wifi? Now how many to cheap cable or Vz offers?

Bway.net has picked up many customers because we encourage free public 
wifi sharing of their DSL connection. We haven't lost a single 
customer who said they could get their neighbors wifi signal instead. 
Cable? Lots. Vz? Lots more.

Alternatively, do you have any plans to offer service in NYC as a 
WISP? If we gave folks Internet coupons (like food stamps) would you 
be building in these under-served nabes? Personally, I dont see a 
profitable business model -- so I see an important opportunity for 
government, perhaps with help from non-profits like NYCwireless, to 
step in and provide basic connectivity.

--> Joe
At 3:27 PM -0400 4/29/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 29 Apr 2005, Michael Stearne wrote:
 > 1) This will complete destruction of independent ISPs - one of major
 > reasons why we get customers is because we are not the incumbent 
cable
 > or phone company.

 This may complete the destruction but aren't you blaming the 
destruction
 of the market on the people putting the final nail in the coffin? 
 Didn't the majority of the destruction come from AOL, phone and cable
 companies and now you are defend Verizon who took more of your 
business
 than muni wifi will?
AOL was never really a source of destruction - competition was fair.
Destruction came after monopolies came into it.
Yes, I think adding a free city-owned monopoly wireless provider *is* a
final nail in the coffin. Stick to city providing wireless transport
service to all comers, who then can provide end-user service, and 
I'll be
fine with that.

 > 2) At towns with for-fee municipal broadband and independent ISPs -
 > essentially, my taxes are being used to compete with me. Doesn't
 > anyone think that this is wrong?
 In that case, yes.  But I think municipal access should be free for
 citizens.  Private companies can add features to gain subscribers. You
 > are saying that if a city gave a Yugo to each citizen, BMW would 
go out

 of business in that city.  I don't believe this.
Where does this end? Should city provide free food to everyone? Surely,
that won't put McDonalds or Smith&Wollensky out of business. Just 
because
*you* have a great idea to spend *my* tax money on does not make it 
good.

And if you are talking about 'benefit to society' - you are very much
wrong. If it is in society's interest to help the n

Re: [nycwireless] DSL Prime: Verizon Killing WiFi Wants people

[Dustin Goodwin]

Alex,
Your point about the NYC poll top plan is right on target.
"c) proposed NYC licensing of poles/etc. I have a problem with that - the 
licensee has no obligation to provide open access ("transport") to 
interested providers at reasonable rates."

I was hoping Gale Brewers committee would have a hearing that specifically addresses the poll top franchise plan. We need a hearing on this where DOIT is *required* to testify. Please email her or Bruce Lai so we can build up some steam. 
I think she would probably like to hear it from someone other then me.

- Dustin -

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, 29 Apr 2005, Dana Spiegel wrote:
 

I would recommend you read the Philadelphia Wireless business plan. It 
addresses most (if not all) of your issues below.
   


--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

Re: [nycwireless] Subway Entrance LED Screens use WiFi

[Dustin Goodwin]

I wonder what they do with wireless capability of the sign? I am 
assuming they are not attempting to use wireless backhaul as it would be 
difficult to do with 2.4 or 5ghz.  Maybe they drive a server/AP equipped 
truck near the signs to update content. We should go do measurement and 
make sure the systems conform to EIRP limits :-)

- Dustin -
Rob Kelley wrote:
FYI. From a press release from the Antenna manufacturer:
[http://www.wifi-plus.com/pages/12/index.htm]
;:"The content delivery process is all-digital and extremely fast, with
the ads sent via the Internet from Clear Channel in New York to UDN's
Las Vegas office. There, the advertising content is play scheduled
using the Webpavement sign operating system and web-based server,
edited (if necessary) by UDN's creative department and finally uploaded
to individual screens via the Verizon wireless connection. "We can
remotely administer the system from anywhere - Las Vegas, for example -
and the open architecture means we were able to customize the
functionality to our specific needs," adds Williams. 

;:Each screen is fitted with an omni directional WiFi-Plus Ultra-M
antenna, which had proved to give the best performance on the Manhattan
streets, a demanding environment because of the multiple obstacles of
buildings, cars and pedestrian traffic."
--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
 

--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

[nycwireless] Spectrum Policy info page

[Dustin Goodwin]

Trying to keep up on public policy issues near and dear to NYCw? Check out:
http://www.nycwireless.net/page-SpectrumPolicy
If there is something we are not-tracking on this page please let me know.
- Dustin -
--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

[nycwireless] FCC 3650mhz ruling - Feld Analysis

[Dustin Goodwin]

While I still firmly believe in spectrum reform that allows fully 
licensed exempt operation. I have tremendous respect for Harold's 
position on this issue and agree with his conclusion that we need to be 
open to different approaches for different users. The Wireless ISP 
community was pushing hard to get access to this band for high powered 
rural usage and it appears what they got was a "license-lite" solution.

http://www.wetmachine.com/index.php/item/237
- Dustin - analysis
--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

Re: [nycwireless] the anti-free wifi movement

[Dustin Goodwin]

Turn OFF WEP, broadcast your SSID and let everyone share you bandwidth. 
I didn't see the article but by the sound of it the journalist is a 
MORON. By his reasoning the mere existence of the Internet is the 
equivalent "helping child pornographers and credit card thieves (and 
maybe even  terrorists)".  What do I think? I think to sell papers and 
run for political offices you must scare people. It's the currency every 
a-hole has access to... fear. Funny how as a child we are taught sharing 
is good and as an adult we are taught that sharing is bad.

Sorry that was a bit of a rant. As NYCwireless we should working on 
something like "Responsible Wifi sharing". Maybe the logo can be 
crossing guard but instead of heard they have Wifi access point. Teach 
everyone how to use Wifidog, CuWIN or the like to do authenticated free 
sharing. Would that make the fear mongers happy?

- Dustin -
John Geraci wrote:
I'm curious to hear what others think about the front-page article in  
the NY Times on Saturday, which equated leaving your wifi open with  
helping child pornographers and credit card thieves (and maybe even  
terrorists).  It seemed like a bit of yellow journalism to me, and  
reflecting of how much the public has assimilated John Ashcroft's 
point  of view that we should all submit willingly to government 
surveillance.   Still, I think the groups and people that support free 
wifi have to  have a good rebuttal to the argument that was made, and 
not just  dismiss it.

I came across a to-do list on this Sony site "lifehacker" just now  
(http://www.lifehacker.com/software/security/todo-secure-your-wireless- 
network-036577.php).  They recommend that their readers 1. set up WEP  
on their router  2. create an access list of what computers can 
access  the Internet  3. turn off their SSID broadcast.  Granted, 
everyone  should know how to lock down their router, but it seems that 
the press  is going farther, making it your civic duty to close off 
your Internet  access.  What is the free wifi movement's response?  
Maybe it's just a  good counter argument.  Maybe it's developing new 
tools that allow  users to easily find some sort of middle ground 
between fully open wifi  and fully closed wifi.  Not sure, but I think 
there should be some sort  of response.

-John
 
 

--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

Re: [nycwireless] Intel's vison, Wi-max and NYCWireless' possible model in 3 years

[Dustin Goodwin]

I am not sure NYCwireless as a group has any particular position on 
WiMax. Mostly we use what ever is cheapest to get networks built. If 
WiMax is the best technology at the right price I am sure we would use it.

- Dustin -
Jose Marinez wrote:
I've said it before and I will say it again: most organizations that 
advocate the public use of wireless technologies are too "wi-fi 
bound."  In other words, they eat, sleep and breathe wi-fi and can't 
see beyond the technology itself and don't even consider alternatives 
to accomplish the goal.  Take wi-max as an example, most of the 
"experts" believe that it is getting over hyped.  From my experience, 
when the "experts" start writing a whole bunch of articles about what 
they believe is "the next big thing" it royally bombs.  On the other 
hand, when they say something is "hyped", you better watch out, 
because eventually it really has the chance to become "the next big 
thing" - Bluetooth and USB are just two of the latest examples.

The experts that are saying that wi-max will fail are looking at 
wi-fi's history to make their forecast.  Unlike wi-fi, wi-max is 
getting deployed right now before it gets certified and it is 
working.  Will there be problems with compatibility once it is 
certified?  Yes, but eventually they'll be fixed as the number of 
wi-max chip manufacturers consolidates.  Today I read this article 
that talks about the reality of wi-max and an "architecture/business 
model" that I believe NYCWireless will mimic in the future.  Keep in 
mind that the company that they refer to in the article is been used 
by a NYCWireless commercial spinoff.  I know these guys personally 
(their prices for a t1 are really cheap) and I can testify that wi-max 
works now and will make an even bigger impact in the future.  At the 
same time keep in mind that Intel is the biggest advocate/manufacturer 
of wi-max and wi-max chips.  Think Centrino (or some other marketing 
name to get people to buy it) but with wi-fi and wi-max in laptops and 
cell phones.

Enjoy.
http://www.mobilepipeline.com/60405489
Jose Marinez
--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

[nycwireless] Update on NYCwireless website @ tonights meeting

[Dustin Goodwin]

I will be showing off features of our new TikiWiki based website at 
tonights meeting. Stop in to learn more plus our already packed line up 
of speakers:
http://www.nycwireless.net/tiki-view_articles.php?type=Event

- Dustin -
--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

Re: [nycwireless] wireless internet modem bonding

[Dustin Goodwin]

Great question... many things to consider. (Warning I don't have a 
simple answer)
1. Packet loss concealment.
Several codecs on the market specialize in packet loss concealment. 
Global IP Sound has focused in on this space with their codecs. Skype I 
believe uses a GIS codec. http://www.skype.com/partners/current/. Check 
out slide 2 for comparison of different codecs with respect to packet 
loss levels.
http://www.voipexperts.com/alcatel-fcc-tutorial-codec-slides.ppt
2. Latency.
Total latency is something like: Sample size delay + encoding delay + 
network delay + jitter buffer + decoding delay.
If we assume one way network delay of 120ms and our budget is 150ms  (as 
most design guides suggest) we do not have much wiggle room. I just 
fired up my EVDO card and did some ping testing. Results:
Ping statistics for 168.100.176.141:
   Packets: Sent = 28, Received = 28, Lost = 0 (0% loss),
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
   Minimum = 128ms, Maximum = 888ms, Average = 219ms
My average round trip is 219ms with some awful swings up to almost 900ms 
and some excellent moments like128ms. Oh hell let's just call it 1 
second. I noticed if I move my laptop at all I get packet loss which 
results in retransmission which results in extremely variable jitter 
:-(. So my little coffee table experiment yielded me a average one way 
delay of 110ms. Sounds like you have tested this stuff a lot more then 
me so I will stick with you 120ms number. As total latency rises above 
150ms your calls start to get a ship to shore quality. The human brain 
has got telephone timing worked out pretty well. When you mess with the 
timing your brain throws a fit. In my own testing with a WAN simulator I 
have found 200ms is usable so long as neither party has had too much 
caffeine. Some things to consider in tuning latency:
Codec processing delay
Everything is a trade off with codec choice. Check out slide 1 in
http://www.voipexperts.com/alcatel-fcc-tutorial-codec-slides.ppt
Notice the higher bit rates codecs introduce the least latency. Of 
course this chart only covers ITU standard codecs. GIS and other 
specialist software companies can probably add other interesting codecs 
to the chart. Once again Skype with GIS codec probably excels in this space.
Jitter buffer delay
We don't have much choice in this matter. ITSPs usually configure their 
PSTN gateways with nominal jitters buffers then dynamically adjust 
according to actual under and over run conditions. Once again different 
gateway manufactures results in different dynamic jitter buffer 
performance. I hate to go back to GIS again but they seem to make the 
most noise in this space. Read 
http://www.globalipsound.com/datasheets/NetEQ.pdf  (For the record I 
have no affiliation with GIS).
3. Tandem encoding. (Sounds like this might be your problem with calling 
cells phones)
Check out slide 3
http://www.voipexperts.com/alcatel-fcc-tutorial-codec-slides.ppt
And you will start to understand why calls to pstn might be fine but 
calls to cell phones suck.  Some compression schemes just do not respond 
well to be placed in a back to back configuration. You may have to play 
with codec combinations to get optimal performance.

We should do a bake off at one of the NYCwireless monthly meetings. 
Hookup a laptop with a few different clients/ITSP loaded and get a few 
testers with good ears in to judge audio quality to landlines and cell 
phones. You could bring your EVDO super blaster thingy to see if it helps.

- Dustin -
ps. The ppt slides I am using come from a tutorial given by Alcatel 
executive to the FCC's Office of Engineering and Technology. To get the 
entire preso go to 
http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Engineering_Technology/Public_Notices/2001/d011369a.ppt 
. The real audio of the session is no longer online but if you send me 
an email I can point you to a mirror of the file.

pss. This email sent over EVDO.
Robert Kim, EVDO-Coverage, Verizon Agent wrote:
Dustin... Thanks for the positive word on EVDO... Noticed your VOIP
address... Do you know which codec is the best for EVDO's 120ms latency
issue...?
I use EVDO for voip all the time.. But only to land lines... To cell
phones is just too difficult... Patchy... Ideas? 

Anyone?
X
Robert Kim, 
Wireless Internet Wifi Hotspot Advisor

http://wireless-internet-broadband-service.com
https://evdo.sslpowered.com/wifi-hotspot-router.htm
2611 S Pacific Coast Highway 101
Cardiff by the Sea CA 92007 : 206 984 0880
 

"Wireless Internet Service Is ONLY Broadband with Broadband Customer
   

Service"(tm)
 

OUR QUEST: To Kill the Cubicle! (SM)
   

---Shalo
-;-) 

-Original Message-
From: Dustin Goodwin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2005 3:59 PM
To: Robert Kim, EVDO-Coverage, Verizon Agent
Cc: List Nyc Wireless
Subject: Re: [nycwireless] wireless internet modem bonding

Re: [nycwireless] EVDO Wireless Internet Modem Bonding???

[Dustin Goodwin]

I doubt Verizon supports bonding via Multilink PPP which would be the 
best solution. What type of traffic is it? File upload, email, IM, voip, 
video??? This will influence your choices. For file transfers you can do 
packet by packet outbound load balancing over 2 modems. Unfortunately 
this usually results in packet  re-ordering delays Or break the file 
into multiple parts and send the 2 parts on different connections.

- Dustin -
Robert Kim, EVDO-Coverage, Verizon Agent wrote:

Hi, any an expert in bonding modems together to make them double the
speed? i have many clients that need Bonded EVDO for their wireless
internet application to work properly since uploads are only about
110kbps per card..
X
Robert Kim, 
Wireless Internet Wifi Hotspot Advisor


http://wireless-internet-broadband-service.com
https://evdo.sslpowered.com/wifi-hotspot-router.htm
2611 S Pacific Coast Highway 101
Cardiff by the Sea CA 92007 : 206 984 0880
 

"Wireless Internet Service Is ONLY Broadband with Broadband Customer
   

Service"(tm)
 

OUR QUEST: To Kill the Cubicle! (SM)
   

---Shalo
-;-) 
--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
 

--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

Re: [nycwireless] wireless internet modem bonding

[Dustin Goodwin]

I bond with my EVDO card everyday. :-)  EVDO rocks.
- Dustin -
Robert Kim, EVDO-Coverage, Verizon Agent wrote:
Anybody have evdo wireless internet modem bonding experience???
Or can point me in the right direction?
X
Robert Kim, 
Wireless Internet Wifi Hotspot Advisor

http://wireless-internet-broadband-service.com
https://evdo.sslpowered.com/wifi-hotspot-router.htm
2611 S Pacific Coast Highway 101
Cardiff by the Sea CA 92007 : 206 984 0880
 

"Wireless Internet Service Is ONLY Broadband with Broadband Customer
   

Service"(tm)
 

OUR QUEST: To Kill the Cubicle! (SM)
   

---Shalo
-;-) 

--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
 

--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

[nycwireless] [Fwd: Nice mention of NYCw and the Dekalb Project]

[Dustin Goodwin]

 Original Message 
Subject:Nice mention of NYCw and the Dekalb Project
Date:   Wed, 12 Jan 2005 21:15:46 -0500
From:   Auerbach, Joshua
To: dustin, charlie, adykes
http://www.housingfinance.com/ahf/articles/2005/january/dekalb.html
I thought I'd pass this along -- the last paragraph discusses the WiFi
project at Dekalb (and reminds me that we need to get some PCs for
tenants!).
J.
Regional Report: Northeast
Developers balance affordable and supportive housing in new Brooklyn project
By Donna Kimura
Brooklyn, N.Y. â DeKalb Avenue Apartments takes the bold step of
blending supportive housing for people with special needs with straight
affordable housing for working families.
The recently completed project is a joint venture between Dunn
Development Corp., a private real estate developer, and Community
Access, Inc., a nonprofit dedicated to serving people with psychiatric
disabilities.
The joint venture attempts to serve not only as a unique model for
bringing together different populations in one project, but a new model
for development. The project grew out of a discussion between Martin
Dunn, president of Dunn Development, and Steve Coe, executive director
of Community Access. Coe, who has done much work with studio units for
people with special needs, wanted to develop integrated, mainstream
housing. Dunn shared a similar vision and believed that such a project
could be created with existing funding sources.
Combining Community Accessâ services and extensive knowledge about the
mentally ill population with Dunn Developmentâs financing and
construction experience, DeKalb Avenue Apartments was completed in 2004.
The 55,000-square-foot building contains 64 units. There are 37 studio
units reserved for formerly homeless individuals with mental illness who
have been referred by New York Cityâs homeless shelter system and have
incomes no greater than 30% of the area median income (AMI). There are
also eight one-bedroom units and 19 two-bedroom units that are rented to
families earning no more than 60% of AMI.
The project faced several obstacles, including community opposition to
supportive housing and special-needs populations. Dunn Development also
had to move beyond existing financing models for supportive housing,
which generally result in 100% special-needs buildings or buildings with
all studio apartments serving single adults. The initial reaction from
some people was concern about housing adults with mental illness in a
building with families.
To get government agencies and funders on board, the sponsors launched
an education campaign about the needs of adults with mental illness and
their ability to live independently in mainstream settings. They
collaborated with Gov. George Patakiâs Interagency Task Force on Housing
for Persons with Special Needs and the Most Integrated Setting
Coordinating Council. Bank and government officials and neighborhood
groups were given tours of the building to increase support and
understanding.
âWe built it first and then let people see how nice the building was,â
Dunn said. One of the goals of the project, he said, is to change
peopleâs perceptions about affordable housing.
There have been no problems in the building or outside in the
neighborhood, according to Dunn. Instead, the project has been a
catalyst for neighborhood revitalization. Several nearby buildings have
since been renovated.
The development is also serving as a model for a second project by the
same development team. Located in the Bronx, the 66-unit Franklin Avenue
Apartments is nearing completion. Residents are expected to move in
around January.
Special needs get attention
Named âproject of the yearâ by the New York State Association for
Affordable Housing, the DeKalb development shows that quality matters to
the residents and the neighborhood, Dunn said.
âItâs important for affordable and supportive housing to raise the bar
so we are welcomed when we do projects,â he said, noting that every poor
project that is built hurts the industry.
Unique touches to the faÃade of the DeKalb project include a decorative
cornice that is traditional to the neighborhood. Inside, high-end
finishes were used, and the family units have a homework or desk area.
The project, including furnishings and capitalized reserves, cost about
$10.4 million. It received low-income housing tax credits from the New
York State Division of Housing and Community Renewal (DHCR). The Richman
Group Affordable Housing Corp. syndicated the credits and provided
roughly $8.4 million in equity. The tax credit investors were Citibank,
JPMorgan Chase, Merrill Lynch, Freddie Mac and HSBC Bank.
The industry will likely see greater integration of special-needs
populations within multifamily projects, said William Traylor, president
of Richman Housing Resources, a member of the Richman Group. The firm
has syndicated tax credits for many supportive projects.
The New York State Housing Trust Fund provided a $2 million permanen

[nycwireless] FCC Unlicensed usage in the television broadcast spectrum

[Dustin Goodwin]

*/Looking to understand the FCC NPRM on unlicensed usage in the 
television broadcast spectrum? Read the text of the MAP Action alert 
below to get the facts on the flaws in the NPRM as written. Please 
consider filing comments yourself or on behalf of your org or business. 
Your reply comments are valuable and make a difference. NYCwireless 
strongly supports opening this spectrum to unlicensed usage but not 
under the regulation regime proposed in the NPRM.
/*

*/
- Dustin -
/*
*/MEDIA ACCESS PROJECT ACTION ALERT /*
_FCC PROCEEDING: UNLICENSED UNDERLAY IN BROADCAST BANDS PROPOSAL 
TERRIBLY FLAWED. COMMENTS NEEDED TO SUPPORT CHANGES TO PROPOSED RULES_.

Contact: Harold Feld, Associate Director, Media Access Project
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
The FCC has proposed allowing low power unlicensed use in the broadcast 
bands. Specifically, the FCC proposes a scheme to allow use of “vacant 
channels” (as defined in the official Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 
(NPRM)) for low-power unlicensed transmitters.

If done correctly, this could provide a tremendous boost to efforts to 
create both commercial and non-commercial wireless networks. The 
relevant frequency bands have physical characteristics that make them 
particularly valuable for unlicensed access. It takes much less power to 
send a signal at these frequencies, and the transmitted signal can 
penetrate obstacles that signals at 2.4 GHz or higher will not 
penetrate. Even very low power signals in these bands can provide 
important coverage in urban, suburban, and rural environments.

But the FCC has not proposed a viable set of rules. The proposed rules 
allow television broadcasters, all of whom received their broadcast 
licenses for free, to charge fees for access to broadcast spectrum. The 
FCC further hobbles the potential for networking through its refusal to 
trust the reliability of already proven technologies for interference 
control. It therefore requires mitigation measures that will make it 
practically impossible for community wireless networks (CWNs) and 
low-cost commercial wireless internet service providers (WISPs) to use 
of the frequencies.

The proposed FCC rules would:
   * Require all devices to accept a “command signal” from
 broadcasters, allowing broadcasters to dictate the ability of any
 wireless network or device to access broadcast spectrum.
 Broadcasters may receive “compensation” for this service. This
 will essentially foreclose community networks, small ISPs, and
 transmission of content that competes with broadcast television.
 While “pilot beacons” that signal when spectrum is or isn’t
 available may become a valuable tool for allowing greater access
 to public spectrum, the FCC proposal places all the power in the
 hands of the broadcasters.
   * Require all devices using broadcast spectrum to transmit an “ID
 beacon” containing the owner’s personal contact information. While
 intended to allow broadcasters to find sources of interference,
 this would also allows any thief or hacker access into your
 laptop, PDA, or other wifi enabled device. Again, while ID beacons
 may help foster increased public access in some circumstances, the
 FCC’s proposal as written raises serious concerns.
   * Require “professional installation” for any non-portable device
 used for networking. This requirement would impose a heavy burden
 on volunteer community wireless networks, particularly those
 communities for which English is not a first language.
   * Mandate GPS location technology, an expensive form of location
 technology, rather than permit cheaper alternatives.
The flaws in the FCC’s proposal derive from a combination of timid 
vision by the agency and a failure to understand the realities driving 
unlicensed networking. Public comment on relevant issues can persuade 
the agency to correct the problems in the proposal.

MAP asks on all individuals and organizations interested in the 
deployment wireless networks to file comments with the FCC. MAP urges 
interested parties to tell the FCC:

   * Broadcasters, who have received their spectrum licenses for free
 on condition that they serve the public interest, should not have
 the power to tax wireless networks by imposing access fees.
   * Broadcasters should have no ability to control access to public
 spectrum, particularly where broadcasters have an interest in
 controlling the nature of public access.
   * The FCC does not create access rules to benefit broadcasters, but
 to protect the viewing public from harmful interference with free,
 over the air television. The FCC should rely on technologies that
 place control in the hands of users – such as reliance on dynamic
 power and frequency controls – rather than protect broadcasters
 from competition.
   * The FCC should not mandate ID beacons for portable devices. This
 is an invitation to identity theft, security breac

Re: [nycwireless] Pennsylvania legislature gets suckered(?)

[Dustin Goodwin]

Verizon and the other carriers have been blocking municipal telecom 
infrastructure build out  for years. This is nothing new.

- Dustin -
Rob Kelley wrote:
Some said making all downtown Philly wireless was too ambitious (not
me), but now according to muniwireless.com the Pennsylvania legislature
has passed a law that prohibits its and gives the whole game to players
like Verizon:
As Harold Feld puts it:  "It looks like a public subsidy to build
infrastructure, but, thanks to the statute, THE ONLY PLACE YOU CAN BUY
IT FROM IS VERIZON!"
It's on the governor's desk, awaiting his signature:
http://www.muniwireless.com/archives/000509.html
Rob

		
__ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! 
http://my.yahoo.com 

--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
 

--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

Re: [nycwireless] broadband over wireless

[Dustin Goodwin]

For a university application you may be able to get early access to a 
Ultra Wide Band products. http://www.ultrawidebandplanet.com/ Although 
it's not really designed for any real distance.

- Dustin -
Grinfeder, Kim wrote:
Hello,
I am running some DV over IP tests. Most of the tests I am running are over 
cable but I would like to run some tests over a wireless connection. I need to 
cover 100 feet at a minimum of 35Mbps. Is there any hardware out there that can 
provide that sort of coverage?
Thank you,
Kim
--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
 

--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

Re: [nycwireless] broadband over wireless

[Dustin Goodwin]

Well if you want to do it with unlicensed equipment using standard 
802.11a/b/g it's going to be impossible to push 35Mbps. Although you can 
consider one of the proprietary speed boost technology for Wifi.

1. Linksys Speedbooster
2. Dlink/Netgear Extreme-G
3. Belkin Wireless Pre-N Router
Although some reports are putting the real world performance much lower 
then the advertised speeds 
(http://www.techworld.com/mobility/features/index.cfm?FeatureID=641). 
One of these *might* help you get up to the desired speed but require 
proprietary pairing of AP and wireless card. When attempting to get any 
of these up to full speed disable 802.11b compatibility which always 
slows things down. Also when running one of these don't expect any 
nearby standards based equipment to work properly anymore.

- Dustin -
Grinfeder, Kim wrote:
Hello,
I am running some DV over IP tests. Most of the tests I am running are over 
cable but I would like to run some tests over a wireless connection. I need to 
cover 100 feet at a minimum of 35Mbps. Is there any hardware out there that can 
provide that sort of coverage?
Thank you,
Kim
--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
 

--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

Re: [nycwireless] Fwd: 16 Multimedia Wi-Fi Hot Spots in 9 Major Parks in NYC to Be Test Beds for Innovation

[Dustin Goodwin]

Fascinating stuff. So will the content only be available at one of the 
wifisalon hotspots?  But the real question is who will pay for the 
hotspots? Has Midori heard of NYCwireless?

- Dustin -
Anthony Townsend wrote:
i guess we have some competition
Begin forwarded message:
From: Midori Yasuda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: November 9, 2004 5:37:36 PM EST
To: ITP Faculty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: 16 Multimedia Wi-Fi Hot Spots in 9 Major Parks in NYC to Be 
Test Beds for Innovation
Reply-To: Midori Yasuda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Call For Digital Designers, Communitarians, and Technologists to Help 
Create

 

Multimedia Wi-Fi Hot Spots in NYC's Major Parks
 

Background: The NYC Department of Parks and Recreation has awarded 
The Wi-Fi Salon a three-year concession (renewable) to establish and 
operate 16 Wi-Fi Hot Spots in 9 parks in 4 boroughs.ÊÊ The locations 
are as follows:

 

• The Battery
•  Central Park (The Dairy, The Boathouse CafŽ, Summerstage, 
The 86th St Shops. The Arsenal/Central Park Zoo, Mineral Springs 
Snack Bar/Sheep's Meadow)
•  Washington Square Park
•  Union Square Park
•  Riverside Park/79th Street Boat Basin and CafŽ
•  Prospect Park (The Boathouse, The Picnic House)
•  Flushing Meadows Tennis Center
•  Orchard Beach
•  The golf houses in Van Cortlandt Park and Pelham Bay Park
 

These Wi-Fi Hot Spots will serve up rich multimedia content, 
applications and services - video tours, online games, digital 
exhibitions and performances, shopping, dining, local information, 
VOIP and video conferencing.ÊÊ ÊThey will be performance spaces for 
public art, arenas for social computing and gaming, IP 
telecommunications nodes, tourist destinations, and community 
portals.ÊÊ They will also be test beds for new gear, applications, 
and services.

 

Since our inception, The Wi-Fi Salon has had the support of The 
Parsons School of Design, The Alliance for the Arts, The New York 
City Council, and Lincoln Center.ÊÊ We are now also working closely 
with the LMCC.ÊÊ We also have in our consortium coders, developers, 
and infrastructure engineers, and are in regular conversation with 
various media companies, interactive agencies, non-profits, 
conservancies, community boards, academics, and local business groups.

 

Opportunity:Ê We are reaching out to all those who want to 
participate in creating an unwired future, starting with these park 
locations.Ê We want to launch applications and services and begin to 
answer the following questions:ÊÊ How will wireless broadband and 
pervasive computing affect social and economic relations, alter urban 
spaces, and change how we produce and consume media?Ê Is there a 
project you know of that would benefit from its being hosted at any 
of the above venues?Ê We want to hear about it!

 

The first site we will light up is The Battery, slated for December 
15th.Ê ÊYou can contact me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 212-362-6546 
to discuss what you feel should be part of the launch, and more 
generally what could be done at these Hot Spots.

 --- You are currently subscribed to itp-faculty as: 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

Re: [nycwireless] help!

[Dustin Goodwin]

Don't change to channel 9. it overlaps with 6. So 1 or 11 are good 
alternate choices.

- Dustin -
William Estrada wrote:
Kevin,
 There are many things you can test/do to fix this problem.
 The first thing is to change the channel that you are using.
Default is channel 6.  Most of your neighbors will be using
channel 6, so change yours to like 9.
 Second, when is your AP and where are you accessing it from? If
you are closer ( RF wise ) to another AP, that is the one you will
connect to.  Your problem MANY BE as simple as you are next to a
window with access to another AP on the outside of your place.
 Since you are in a high RF environment, you will need to
co-ordinate with your neighbors.  Many be you could be come the
WiFi coordinator for your neighborhood?
 Another option is shielding your place.
 The fix is to become isolated from all the other APs.
 Good luck

--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

Re: [nycwireless] help!

[Dustin Goodwin]

Change the SSID of your router from the factory default to something 
unique and set you computer to only connect to that new unique SSID.

- Dustin -
Schainbaum, Robert wrote:
In the last week, everybody in my building has suddenly bought a 
wireless router. And I can't access my own, a WRT54G. Does anyone have 
a clue how I can remedy the problem?

Robert
--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

Re: [nycwireless] Re: bandwidth for 15 voip lines?

[Dustin Goodwin]

Ok if you want a do it yourself solution. A service provider like 
Voicepulse with Asterisk open source PBX is a great solution.  With 
Asterisk you can easily hook up some local analog trunks to handle 
re-routing if your ISP goes down and 911 calls.

As for sizing. It's nice to size the internet pipe for max number of 
calls. But is that really needed? You should put a stake in ground as to 
max number of calls you would like to support and size your pipe with 
that methodology. Most offices max out at only portion of the total 
number of users.

- Dustin -
Yury G wrote:
thanks for all the input. didn't realize all the issues with wifi and 
voip.

to give some context to what i was asking  14 people and myself 
are moving into an office space. we need to get an  affordable 
high-speed connection and phone lines into the place.  we all need 
separate phone numbers.  i thought it would be cheaper to set everyone 
up with vontage service (or another voip service).  so we thought it 
would be best to figure out what kind of bandwidth we need for the 
voip phones before choosing the most appropriate and affordable 
internet package.

vontage does say 90 kbs per line, but it didn't make clear if the 
phone always needs a 90KB connection or just when someone is using 
it.  and if that's a 90kbs connection both up and down?  this number 
seems like the easy and dumb way to calculate it.   using it, that 
comes to about 1.4 Mb for 15 lines.  That's about the speed of a 
typical small office dsl connection.  so it looks like we'd want a 3mb 
connection or 2 DSL lines (if that's is possible).

also it sounds like all these voip modems should have hardline 
connections when possible (as opposed to using wireless-to-wired 
bridges to give uplinks throughout a large space).  that's good to know.

if someone has had good experience, or could you recommend a voip and 
isp combo i'm all ears.  not looking for anything fancy or too tech. 
easy of use is an issue.  DSL Reports seems to favor packet 8.

thanks
-Yury
On Nov 5, 2004, at 10:50 AM, Dustin Goodwin wrote:
15 calls over a single Wifi cell is difficult to achieve decent 
quality as radio contention brings the whole thing to a halt before 
BW constraints do. So even though from BW perspective you may be able 
to fit 15 calls in. Contention for access to transmit will kill 
quality.  7-8 is a much more realistic number.

- Dustin -
Tom Atkins wrote:
It's not 100% clear from the original question if you were asking 
about bandwidth from a WiFi perspective or from a wired perspective.

However if you want to have decent VoWLAN quality, then bandwidth is 
less the issue than latency and protecting the voice from other data 
streams.  Decent VOIP quality does  depend on  delivering a 
consistent number of frames per second, and this can be very 
challenging with more than a few concurrent users per AP.
Some WiFi solutions out there are capable of protecting the VOIP 
traffic from contention and other data streams so these might be 
worth investigating if VoWLAN is your direction.

Good luck
Tom
-Original Message-
From: Dustin Goodwin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 8:48 PM
To: Yury Gitman
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [nycwireless] Re: bandwith for 15 voip lines?
Are you going to use a Internet voice provider (like packet8 or 
VoicePulse) to deliver lines into the office or are you going to 
setup a IP PBX in the office?

If the calls will be coming in over Internet connection using PPP 
framing on the Internet circuit:
26kbps per call for G.729 which is a low bit rate codec like cell 
phone quality
82kbps per call for G.711 which toll quality

- Dustin -
Yury Gitman wrote:

hoping in someone will know,
been researching, can't find hard numbers.  anyone you have a 
guess, if an office wants 15 voip lines (separate numbers and 
phones) how much bandwidth should they have for it all to work 
properly, with good audio quality?
and does this factor in regular office net access too?

thanks in advance,
Yury

--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: 
http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/


--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

Re: [nycwireless] Re: bandwidth for 15 voip lines?

[Dustin Goodwin]

15 calls over a single Wifi cell is difficult to achieve decent quality 
as radio contention brings the whole thing to a halt before BW 
constraints do. So even though from BW perspective you may be able to 
fit 15 calls in. Contention for access to transmit will kill quality.  
7-8 is a much more realistic number.

- Dustin -
Tom Atkins wrote:
It's not 100% clear from the original question if you were asking about bandwidth from 
a WiFi perspective or from a wired perspective.
However if you want to have decent VoWLAN quality, then bandwidth is less the issue than latency and protecting the voice from other data streams.  Decent VOIP quality does  depend on  delivering a consistent number of frames per second, and this can be very challenging with more than a few concurrent users per AP. 

Some WiFi solutions out there are capable of protecting the VOIP traffic from 
contention and other data streams so these might be worth investigating if VoWLAN is 
your direction.
Good luck
Tom
-Original Message-
From: Dustin Goodwin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 8:48 PM
To: Yury Gitman
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [nycwireless] Re: bandwith for 15 voip lines?
Are you going to use a Internet voice provider (like packet8 or 
VoicePulse) to deliver lines into the office or are you going to setup a 
IP PBX in the office?

If the calls will be coming in over Internet connection using PPP 
framing on the Internet circuit:
26kbps per call for G.729 which is a low bit rate codec like cell phone 
quality
82kbps per call for G.711 which toll quality

- Dustin -
Yury Gitman wrote:
 

hoping in someone will know,
been researching, can't find hard numbers.  anyone you have a guess, if an office 
wants 15 voip lines (separate numbers and phones) how much bandwidth should they have 
for it all to work properly, with good audio quality?
and does this factor in regular office net access too?
thanks in advance,
Yury
   

--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
 

--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

[nycwireless] Re: bandwith for 15 voip lines?

[Dustin Goodwin]

Are you going to use a Internet voice provider (like packet8 or 
VoicePulse) to deliver lines into the office or are you going to setup a 
IP PBX in the office?

If the calls will be coming in over Internet connection using PPP 
framing on the Internet circuit:
26kbps per call for G.729 which is a low bit rate codec like cell phone 
quality
82kbps per call for G.711 which toll quality

- Dustin -
Yury Gitman wrote:
hoping in someone will know,
been researching, can't find hard numbers.  anyone you have a guess, if an office 
wants 15 voip lines (separate numbers and phones) how much bandwidth should they have 
for it all to work properly, with good audio quality?
and does this factor in regular office net access too?
thanks in advance,
Yury
 

--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

[nycwireless] Site survey volunteer opportunity next Thursday morning in the Bronx

[Dustin Goodwin]

I need a few people to assist with  the site survey of a new Community 
Access building in the Bronx. We are scheduled for  Thursday Nov 4th 
starting at 9am. If you can spare the time it will be a good learning 
experience.

- Dustin -
--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

Re: [nycwireless] Apartment Buildings

[Dustin Goodwin]

Change the SSID of your AP then change you client to only connect to 
that new SSID. That way you will stop accidentally cconnecting to your 
neighbors AP.

- Dustin -
Ajai Khattri wrote:
When I first got my wireless AP it was great - I could pretty much sit
anywhere in the apartment and get a reliable connection.
But as my neighbors started getting wireless access points Ive found the
connection has gotten worse. Now I am limited to where I can use the wifi
connection. If I do a scan in the front of the apartment I see 5 maybe 6
access points nearby. Im convinced those APs interfere with mine.
Because Im using wifi on laptops (that may travel from time to time) I
have them configured to connect to the nearest AP but sometimes this isn't
mine (in fact, one weekend I worked for 3 hours straight before noticing I
was using someone else's access point!).
I was just wondering what sort of techniques people recommend for
combatting this? Im thinking I may have to buy some antennas (Buffalo?) or
maybe invest in powerline ethernet devices and move my AP closer to the
center of the apartment (right now its close to my router which is at the
back of the aprtment). I have tried configuring different channels on the
AP and did not see any difference in signal/noise ratios. Any ideas?
 

--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

Re: [nycwireless] SMS Text -> Show FREE Hotspots?

[Dustin Goodwin]

Could we design something where you SMS the cross streets to the app and 
it replies with a list of nearby nodes? That way we don't need the 
network to give up the  location information.

- Dustin -
Jon Baer wrote:
Dammit ..
I just had the link to a story about how they use SMS in the UK to 
ping/trace the tower info from a SMS message and send back hotspots in 
the area .. I didnt think it was feasible here since some of that info 
is hidden (last time I programmed WTAI/WAP it wasn't) ..

Any thoughts on that technique?
- Jon
--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/

--
NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/
Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/
Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/