Re: [nycwireless] Governement run telecom and broadband
Try looking up market failure in Google. OK? It's a classic field of study within economics. Just try that for a bit. Then consider the problem of broadband in the US an application of that field of study. 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!
Citywide or statewide franchise, makes no difference. Still a franchise and still a state-granted monopoly. What is the problem with monopoly? Well, the classical analysis finds dead-weight costs. What's the problem with a state-granted monopoly? Well, there's at least two. First, an ordinary monopoly might be disentrenched. That's at least the belief of some people in some economics depts. Second, competition for grant of the monopoly through use of influence with the local government, whether that be a municipal or a state government, just seems to lead to obviously sub-optimal outcomes. Jim Henry wrote: Look to the franchising issue to change, if not go away. Due to the ILECs entering the video market they are trying their very best NOT to have to jump through all the hoops the cable company's were forced to. They've already gotten the law changed in Texas to where a company can apply for a state wide franchise rather than have to apply for a franchise with each municipality. Since municipal video franchises were just a way for the munipalities to extort all kinds of services for free or discount in return for the franchise, this should be at least some improvement. I'm sure the cable company's are not going to sit still and allow this to change for Verizon, Quest, and SBC(ATT) and not have a level playing field so they will do their utmost to be included in these changes or get the law changed back so that the ILECs must compete with the same rules. Jim -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Schainbaum, Robert Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 8:13 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net Subject: Re: [nycwireless] Municipal Broadband - Must read! Subsidy or no subsidy, we only have to consider the far superior quality of South Korean broadband to realize that the entire notion of providing a market solution to satisfy a market need has absolutely broken down in the case of our country. It has always seemed to me that the underylying theme theme in the capitalistic creed is a lack of orthodoxy. It seems a failure of the creed to ignore the crucial fact that private solutions to telecommunications problems in the US or through the private economy usually (if not always) involve the grant of a local franchise. I don't see why the municipality can't grant itself the franchise. I'm tired of any reflex response that fails to take account of our surpassing failure in this crucial are of our business and social infrastructure. Jim Henry wrote: Lars, Perhaps there is no subsidy in your case. I may have mis-understood. If the municipality involved did not fund the fiber build with tax dollars, and is making a profit on the network, which is necessary in order to support and maintain the fiber network, then there is none. I do feel it would be much better, more efficient, and more economical to have the network operated and maintained by a commercial enterprise than a government entity. As to the cost of your Internet connection, it sounds like a good deal to me and I did not want to imply otherwise. Jim -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lars Aronsson Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 4:33 PM To: 'nycwireless' Subject: RE: [nycwireless] Municipal Broadband - Must read! Jim Henry wrote: 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. Does every ISP in Manhattan dig the streets to lay down their own cables? How does that work in this era of telecom deregulation? Since city streets (and street lights) are a municipal monopoly, it makes sense to have one municipal ditch with one municipal fiber infrastructre, where telcos and ISPs can rent fibers or bandwidth at or near cost price. My ISP is a private corporation that pays for using the municipal fiber, and their money comes from my $40/month. I don't see where any subsidy would come in. You're probably right that I pay a higher income tax, and I'm not defending that. I'm just curious how you could help me to find a more efficient broadband solution than the one I already have. Where and how do you live and what do you pay for broadband? -- 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 -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http
Re: [nycwireless] Municipal Broadband - Must read!
There does seem to be a lot of inflation. As long as we're going way off topic, I'd like to see the Fed continue tightening for at least another year. Way too much inflation. Billy Bob wrote: No... I'm not kidding. If you really believe that, then you live in LaLa land. Not only does our economy suck but so does our current state of our country as a whole. -Original Message- From: Jim Henry [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, January 07, 2006 10:58 AM To: 'Billy Bob'; 'Dustin Goodwin'; 'nycwireless' Subject: RE: [nycwireless] Municipal Broadband - Must read! You're kidding, right? ;-) -Original Message- From: Billy Bob [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 11:08 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'Dustin Goodwin'; 'nycwireless' Subject: RE: [nycwireless] Municipal Broadband - Must read! ...we have the strongest economy in the world... Where do you live?? Certainly not here. Bruce -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jim Henry Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 8:20 PM To: 'Dustin Goodwin'; 'nycwireless' Subject: RE: [nycwireless] Municipal Broadband - Must read! OK, guess I should have read the article first:-). No thanks to govt. subsidized broadband. We already have too much of a socialist load on our economy. The fact that we have less socialism than most other countries is probably the main reason that we have the strongest economy in the world, the envy of other nations. Just my two cents. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Dustin Goodwin Sent: Friday, January 06, 2006 9:40 AM To: nycwireless Subject: [nycwireless] Municipal Broadband - Must read! 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/ -- 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/ -- 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] this might not be the ideal place to ask, but ...
I know about VNC, Citrix and Windows terminal server. Used all of 'em. I know there's a new kid on the block, just don't have the time now to research it in my email. I think this one is another implementation of the open RDP standard. I don't know. I see a lot of things and take scant notice of them. Haudy Kazemi wrote: Re: RDP look-alikes... You're probably thinking of VNC or Citrix WinFrame. VNC is the free remote control software, and there are many versions available, including regular VNC, UltraVNC, and TightVNC amongst others. Citrix is what Windows terminal servers used to run for multiple virtual desktop clients, although Microsoft's own version using the RDP protocol is supplanting it to a certain degree. At 09:30 PM 12/25/2005 -0500, Schainbaum, Robert wrote: Sparc has a lot of sex appeal, but I'm worried about boxing myself into a non-mainstream technology. I believe the preferred 64bit processor is the AMD these days. Intel seems to have lost the battle, strange to say. But, again, the notebooks run very hot and that forces the processor speed down. I don't know. I'm trying to decide. As for the old notebooks, I'll use 'em for firewalls or servers of some sort. There's some very appealing technology out there that works like RDP but with advantages. I could run a superfast 64bit at home and connect to it by EVDO. Ideally, I could use an inferior but conveniently sized notebook and enjoy the full resources of a fast desktop with a high speed connection. Wish I could remember what that RDP look alike is called. Regards and Merry Christmas Robert Schainbaum Hammond, Robin-David%KB3IEN wrote: Im rather happy with the the g4/5 powerbooks, i've also heard good things about the sparcbooks [ http://www.tadpolecomputer.com/html/products/mobile/sparcbook/ ] the UltraSparc IIi chips substancialy outperform thier 32bit predecessors too. The sparcbooks are very well priced these days the 32000 USD entry price or yore has yielded to a more reasonabe 3000 entry price, probably clearing house for the new Niagra chips... Linux supports the Niagras, also the old Ultra II's and the g4/5, although I would lead to NetBSD (no SMP on Ultra) or where not available Solaris 10. Dont forget to turn the old laptops into WAPs! On Sun, 25 Dec 2005, Schainbaum, Robert wrote: Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2005 19:34:51 -0500 From: Schainbaum, Robert [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net Subject: [nycwireless] this might not be the ideal place to ask, but ... Does anyone have an opinion about the value of getting a 64 bit machine? Desktop or laptop? My impression is that the laptops don't offer any performance advantage. It's just something to boast about. I don't really know whether the 64 bit desktops run faster. I haven't used a desktop in years. And what's the ideal operating system for it? I've always thought Linux was optimized for the x86 processor. I'd be surprised if it significantly outperforms on a 64 bit machine. Regards Robert Schainbaum PS Happy Christmas to all. -- 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 - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
[nycwireless] this might not be the ideal place to ask, but ...
Does anyone have an opinion about the value of getting a 64 bit machine? Desktop or laptop? My impression is that the laptops don't offer any performance advantage. It's just something to boast about. I don't really know whether the 64 bit desktops run faster. I haven't used a desktop in years. And what's the ideal operating system for it? I've always thought Linux was optimized for the x86 processor. I'd be surprised if it significantly outperforms on a 64 bit machine. Regards Robert Schainbaum PS Happy Christmas to all. -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] this might not be the ideal place to ask, but ...
Sparc has a lot of sex appeal, but I'm worried about boxing myself into a non-mainstream technology. I believe the preferred 64bit processor is the AMD these days. Intel seems to have lost the battle, strange to say. But, again, the notebooks run very hot and that forces the processor speed down. I don't know. I'm trying to decide. As for the old notebooks, I'll use 'em for firewalls or servers of some sort. There's some very appealing technology out there that works like RDP but with advantages. I could run a superfast 64bit at home and connect to it by EVDO. Ideally, I could use an inferior but conveniently sized notebook and enjoy the full resources of a fast desktop with a high speed connection. Wish I could remember what that RDP look alike is called. Regards and Merry Christmas Robert Schainbaum Hammond, Robin-David%KB3IEN wrote: Im rather happy with the the g4/5 powerbooks, i've also heard good things about the sparcbooks [ http://www.tadpolecomputer.com/html/products/mobile/sparcbook/ ] the UltraSparc IIi chips substancialy outperform thier 32bit predecessors too. The sparcbooks are very well priced these days the 32000 USD entry price or yore has yielded to a more reasonabe 3000 entry price, probably clearing house for the new Niagra chips... Linux supports the Niagras, also the old Ultra II's and the g4/5, although I would lead to NetBSD (no SMP on Ultra) or where not available Solaris 10. Dont forget to turn the old laptops into WAPs! On Sun, 25 Dec 2005, Schainbaum, Robert wrote: Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2005 19:34:51 -0500 From: Schainbaum, Robert [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net Subject: [nycwireless] this might not be the ideal place to ask, but ... Does anyone have an opinion about the value of getting a 64 bit machine? Desktop or laptop? My impression is that the laptops don't offer any performance advantage. It's just something to boast about. I don't really know whether the 64 bit desktops run faster. I haven't used a desktop in years. And what's the ideal operating system for it? I've always thought Linux was optimized for the x86 processor. I'd be surprised if it significantly outperforms on a 64 bit machine. Regards Robert Schainbaum PS Happy Christmas to all. -- 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/
Re: [nycwireless] The coming network neutrality war
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 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
[nycwireless] EVDO
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 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
Re: [nycwireless] EVDO
life worth living! good line. low latency is important. but I'm not having a good experience with it at the moment. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 21 Dec 2005, 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. I love EVDO. It is actually the only wireless service that allows me to do my work on the road, whereever I am. (Anything from ssh'ing in, to remote console is fairly usable). Every other wireless service has latency of 500ms+ (kills any kind of interactive/ssh work), EVDO is 150-200ms (dialup-like, slightly annoying but at the usable point). EVDO makes life worth living. -alex -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
Re: [nycwireless] was: EVDO, rentable EVDO boxes
My Verizon cell works where I'm -125db. I think that says it all. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 21 Dec 2005, Schainbaum, Robert wrote: Junxion box might not work indoors. Small problem that. Walls do block the signal. Well-made walls will assuredly block the signal. Um, do you mean evdo or wifi part? evdo is same frequencies as your regular cell phone. If your cell phone works there, evdo will too. for a conference booth, I doubt he'll have problems with wifi propagation -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: Fwd: [nycwireless] FCC kills wholesale DSL - Has the time come for NYC Muni-Wifi?
You don't like a profit margin of 33 percent before fixed costs? Try running a convenience store. Robert Schainbaum dopry wrote: I'm not Alex, but my understanding is: The FCC didn't necessarily kill wholesale DSL. They rules that ILEC no longer have to provide access to their wireline broadband services. Wireline broadband services being bundled layer2 or layer3 network access and a physical line. It doesn't impact Unbundled Network Elements(UNE-L), the physical lines. As long as you're running your own DSLAM's you should be in the clear. It doesn't really change the broadband landscape that much. Covad and their resellers are safe and secure. The independents running their own DSLAMS and providing T1 are ok.. Verizon will probably let their existing resellers sit pretty. FTTH is my real concern. Existing regulation only applies to the copper plant, unless I've missed something in recent history. Incumbents do not have to share access to their fiber networks. Hopefully they will to help fulfill capacity and utilization, but that is a hope. While Francois Menard alludes to pricing wars preventing municipalities from enter the FTTH race, I think it is unfounded, currently incumbent pricing is below cost for independent ISP's when scale is considered*. I don't think municipalities want to get involved in the expenses of rolling out or maintaining a fiber infrastructure, and Verizon will beat them to the chase anyway. I do however see this as a nod from the FCC to FTTH and Cable carriers, to go on their merry way and not to worry, their lobbying dollars have worked and they can move everything onto an IP platform without worry of having it yanked out from underneath them in the short term. -- on a paranoid note, maybe the govt just wants fewer companies to deal with when they decide the internet should be managed in the US as it is in China. ok going back to my hole... I'd love to hear Alex's opinion still. Footnote: * consideration of scale... verizon's introductory DSL offer is ~324/yr / user provides up to 3Mbps/768Kbps depending on what your line will carry access costs for a thousand users is ~60/yr(line) + ~156/yr(bandwidth) -$5/month/user UNE access -13K/mo or $13/user/mo for a gige connection from HE.net so total access costs/mo is about $216... a thousand users over 1 year leaves you with 324K-216K = 108k and you still have to pay for salaries, rent, hardware, marketing, and businesses expenses... Don't worry about taxes... you'll probably be in the red.. On Mon, 2005-08-08 at 08:02 -0400, Dana Spiegel wrote: Alex, Given this new FCC ruling on DSL, what is your position? How are you affected by the change in DSL rules? Is muni-wireless now a more attractive option for you? I don't mean to single you out, but you are the most outspoken person on the subject a few weeks ago. I'd personally like to solicit your views on the matter because you had clear concerns before, and I'd like to better understand what the FCC ruling means for you, and how NYCwireless can help. I'd like to start a constructive discussion about _how_ wireless in NYC can help both ISPs and local people who want internet choice. Dana Spiegel Executive Director NYCwireless [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.NYCwireless.net +1 917 402 0422 Read the Community Wireless blog: http://sociable.blogspot.com Begin forwarded message: From: Dustin Goodwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: August 6, 2005 11:03:49 AM EDT To: nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net nycwireless@lists.nycwireless.net Subject: [nycwireless] FCC kills wholesale DSL - Has the time come for NYC Muni-Wifi? 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
Re: [nycwireless] Article: 'Stealing' Your Neighbor's Wi-Fi
Am I wrong that it's quite easy to configure a Linksys for decent WPA? If a LAN with WPA is cracked, there may be a case. But I don't feel that grabbing signal is an offense in any obvious way. If there is strong economic demand, then Linksys and the other vendors will create a more configurable WPA. I hope all of you will forgive me that I go out of my way to use WPA, mac filtering, and disabled SSID broadcast. Suppose that looks a bit selfish. On the other hand, I have clients who scare me because their networks are so open and they take no trouble to secure them. But it's their tough luck when their bandwidith chokes, their wireless routers need constant power cycling, and someone goes further to inspect the data on networked machines that are entirely without any sort of firewall. Robert Schainbaum [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Re: Article: 'Stealing' Your Neighbor's Wi-Fi I've asked this elsewhere and haven't received a response: When is authorization implied? In the case of crackers attempting to penetrate a poorly secured wire-network computer, laws have consistently fallen on the side of the computer owner. Before the US Patriot act, there were some cases where a computer intruder was not properly informed that all access to the computer was unauthorized unless permission was specifically granted - and in those cases, there was some wriggle room for defense attorneys to argue that permission was implied (perhaps by virtue of the computer being accessible from a public network.) After the Patriot act was established, that issue was apparently laid to rest, essentially making access prohibited whether spelled out or not. The evolution of wireless ethernet has practically placed an onus on the owner, as the vast majority of wireless clients use an automatic, or semi-automatic link hunting scheme. With the barrier to connecting to a wireless network so low, I doubt a case in court will establish a precedent that this activity is illegal - even with the accused sitting out front, on a public street. So now we have a battle of ignorant user versus ignorant user. If I am ignorant in installing a wireless access device in my house, and an ignorant computer user associates with that access point and begins checking out the game on ESPN.com, who is at fault? As a disclaimer, I strongly believe that those who invest in technology, be it a VCR or a combo router/access point -- have no protection in ignorance from the consequences when those technologies make them vulnerable. It is not unreasonable to expect a buyer to read the instructions (whether they be on paper or on an electronic disk) before they begin using a product. Especially at this juncture, when computer security is a well-known problem. What we have is a culture of laziness, and one where ignorance is rewarded and encouraged. Take as example the ban on cell phone monitoring which occurred around 1993. At the time, analog cell phones were relatively easy to monitor with inexpensive radio equipment. A particularly high-profile case, a politician's embarassing comments were turned over to a journalist by a rival. As a consequence, the FCC banned radios capable of receiving cell phone frequencies. The burden of ignorance was placed on the hobbyist. Not long after, cellular phone providers wised up and introduced encryption technology. Yet the ban continues. Will we see a similar ban on devices capable of open access? Probably not, but don't rule out the possibility that the FCC will mandate devices that only operate in a password access configuration, putting open access devices in a commercial-class. We may hack around these limits, but the FCC recently mandated that radio makers make it impossible to hack around the cellular block. The precedent exists to cripple technology in the name of ignorance. Don't punish the lazy fool, punish the engineer! As engineers, we try to further society through the application of technology. Yet, we're frequently abused because we enable freedoms that infringe on corporations, government or the ignorant. It is a trend that has existed throughout history, but perhaps never at such an individual level as with computer technology. Bill -- 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] two wrt54g routers
Can I use use one as a gateway and the second as a wireless access point/router to connect with the first? R. Schainbaum -- NYCwireless - http://www.nycwireless.net/ Un/Subscribe: http://lists.nycwireless.net/mailman/listinfo/nycwireless/ Archives: http://lists.nycwireless.net/pipermail/nycwireless/
[nycwireless] help!
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/
Re: [nycwireless] Fw: 80211 Planet - SingTel To Have 150 WirelessHotspots By Year End
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Nathan and All, Our tech infrastructure and our sophistication as users of tech trails most of the developed (and developing) world. Hard to believe that SingTel's investment in WLAN won't yield increased human capital and a more producte economy. WLAN is a public good and cannot properly be addressed by the private sector. In any case, the quality of telecom in New York, wired and wireless, is a scandal. A lucky few franchises squeeze every penny from residential and business customers and reinvest nothing. They purchase bandwidth at inflated prices and resell it at inflated prices. It's almost a vision of everything that can go wrong with with free market capitalism. A modern services economy can only succeed in an environment of efficient and efficiently priced telecom. Telecom in NYC is disproportionately expensive and primitive. One possibility is that telecom franchises are cynically bleeding the city dry. Alternatively, the city will die and its death will have nothing to do with 9/11, a decline in financial services activity or the current recession. NYCwireless is a noble project, but any fool can see that a time will soon arrive when WiFi should be offered throughout the city as a reasonably priced utility. I suspect the network would be cheaper to maintain than any of the existing telecom networks in the city. Of course, there's no such thing as a reasonably priced utility in NYC. I don't know whether success as an entrepreneur qualifies Mayor Bloomberg to make important decisions about public policy in the city. I certainly know that his company has always fought tooth and nail against the Internet. The question of WiFi as an important element of city infrastructure, the entire fiasco of telecom in NYC, far outweighs any other current issue that faces the Bloomberg administration. Regards, R. Schainbaum Nathan Freitas wrote: | This is the coolest part: If unsure, SingTel Mobile customers can easily locate the nearest wireless surf zone by simply keying in *624 on their phones. | | | Anthony Townsend wrote: | | so much for NYC being the WLAN capital of the world | | | | | | SingTel To Have 150 Wireless Hotspots By Year End | | By Seng Li Peng | | Not to be outdone by its rival, StarHub, which has recently launched a | Wireless Broadband Hub covering an area of 180,000 square meters (a size | equivalent to 28 international soccer fields) at the Suntec City building | (StarHub Launches Singapore's Largest Wireless 'Hotzone'), Singapore | Telecommunications (SingTel) has launched its own version of wireless | hotspots which have almost the entire Singapore covered. | | This means that more than 300,000 SingNet users and more than a million | SingTel Mobile's postpaid customers are now able to access the Internet | wirelessly at speeds of up to 512 kilo bits per second (Kbps) in more than | 100 outdoor surf zones in Singapore. | | Each of these zones will be marked with a SingTel 'Wireless Surf Zone' | | | sign | | | and can be found in the central business district as well as suburd areas, | Starbucks cafes, Burger King outlets, Shangri-La Hotel, country clubs and | various community clubs among others. If unsure, SingTel Mobile customers | can easily locate the nearest wireless surf zone by simply keying in *624 | | | on | | | their phones. | There is no monthly subscription fee to the service. SingNet dial-up and | broadband customers and SingTel Mobile postpaid customers need only to pay | for what they use and are charged US$0.11 per minute. They can access the | service by using their existing SingNet user IDs or SingTel Mobile General | Packet Radio Service (GPRS) ID (i.e. mobile phone number) and passwords | respectively. But they would need a wireless enabled notebook computer, or | | | a | | | handheld device, that complies with Institute of Electrical and | | | Electronics | | | Engineers (IEEE) 802.11b standard. | | According to the company's vice president (Consumer Products), Hui Weng | Cheong, SingTel plans to have at least 150 wireless surf zones by the end | | | of | | | the year. We will also offer wireless local area network (WLAN) | infrastructure to other operators and Internet Service Providers on a | wholesale basis, Hui added. | | Getting More Broadband Users Onboard | | The offerings do not stop with the wireless zones that cost the group more | than US$560,000 in investments. SingNet Broadband (which has more than 50 | percent of the domestic broadband market share with more than 92,000 | broadband ADSL lines) has also launched 'Home Wireless Surf' which enables | households a wireless broadband Internet connectivity anywhere within the | home. | As part of its plan to promote the use of pervasive and broadband | | | services, | | | the service comes with no additional subscription fee and usage charges | | | are | | | based on
