[Advisors] Re: [CommunityInformaticsCanada] Cecilia Kang Is Right: There Really Could Be A Free National WiFi Network (of Networks)
James Van Leeuwen
jvl at ventus.ca
Wed, 13 Feb 2013 11:02:55 -0700
--Apple-Mail=_7233FFEF-4208-4B3C-B776-05AE61264D9B
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=iso-8859-1
Michael,
I've provided a cursory overview of wireline and wireless deployment =
costs further on.
First, a reflection on the evolving economics of broadband deployment, =
which is far more revolutionary than evolutionary.=20
The (r)evolution is happening mostly on the benefit side of the =
cost-benefit equation, in lock step with the evolution of digital =
circuitry and the capabilities of fibre optoelectronics, digital =
wireless transceivers, and edge devices.
Think for a moment how many apps have already been developed in the =
space of a few years for smart phones and tablets, and the =
orders-of-magnitude increase in utility and capability these devices =
offer compared to cell phones enabling only voice, text and crappy =
access to the web.
While away from the office yesterday, I used my iPhone to book a flight, =
conduct business and personal banking, access and respond to at least a =
dozen emails, listen to my home voicemail (email attachment), listen in =
on a technical webinar, participate in a four-way business =
teleconference via Skype, research and connect with a new business =
contact on LinkedIn, review a short PDF, track and contribute to my =
FaceBook account, and watch a brilliant video featuring a cat and =
photocopier.=20
Oh yes... I also had an over an hour of cellular voice communication =
with clients and business associates, and I sent or received a total of =
nine text messages.=20
The rapidly expanding accessibility and utility of wired and wireless =
broadband networks enables more devices to do more things in more =
places, whether they are mobile personal devices or (increasingly) =
static devices in machine-to-machine configurations (the Internet of =
Things).=20
This is driving a literal explosion of benefit ('productivity'), which =
is the side of the equation we have yet to properly assess (costs always =
come to mind first).=20
The challenge is to properly assess both the internal and the external =
benefits of a broadband deployment, and to meaningfully monetize those =
benefits wherever possible.=20
I am presently working on such an assessment in a rural/remote context, =
which will enable us to properly rationalize investment in a broadband =
deployment for all who stand to benefit from it.=20
The other side of the revolution is less dramatic but far more easily =
monetized, and this is the falling cost of network deployment.=20
This applies to both fibre and wireless networking technologies, and =
there is still a long way for deployment costs to fall.
Microtrenching is a good example of the cost-saving innovations that are =
now being implemented in buried fibre deployment, with cost savings up =
to 30% in some environments.
There might be a trade-off in the form of higher maintenance costs, and =
we are monitoring this closely.=20
The principal cost for fibre deployment will always be burying the fibre =
or hanging it on poles.
This is typically 70% or more of a buried fibre deployment, less for an =
aerial deployment.
Here in Alberta, costs for a buried fibre deployment typically range =
from $15 - $50 per meter, with an average of around $35 per meter using =
an experienced contractor (more $ per hour, but fewer hours).=20
Cost per meter is higher in built-up areas, where streets and roads =
usually have to be dug up.
Road and stream crossings are typically $75 per meter, because =
directional drilling is required (can't tear up the roadbed or =
streambed).
I am less familiar with aerial fibre deployment, but I understand the =
deployment costs are roughly half the cost of burying fibre.
Gaining affordable access to poles can be a real pain in the ass, =
depending who owns them and what they are being used for.=20
As for a WiFi mesh overlay, the deployment cost is almost marginal for a =
new fibre deployment (less than 5%).=20
It costs significantly less to build and operate the mesh as an =
application layer on a new fibre network vs. cobbling it on to a legacy =
copper network belonging to an incumbent.=20
How about <$200K to cover an entire community of 7,500?
Lots of municipally-owned electric utilities are now deploying fibre =
because they already have rights-of-way and boots on the ground.=20
The utility serving Chattanooga TN has been a vanguard, and they are =
making waves in the U.S. with their end-to-end fibre deployment.
Besides enabling Gigabit connectivity for any customer who wants it, the =
network is already saving the utility millions of dollars annually in =
operating costs.
Through deployment of smart metering and smart grid technologies, they =
are able to manage loading and routing far more cost-effectively than =
previously.=20
These savings alone would pay for the network in about ten years, but =
there is revenue generation on top of this.
These are revenues from delivery of wholesale and retail (triple play) =
services, which could reduce the time for capital recovery by several =
years.=20
Perhaps most importantly, Chattanooga is now capturing service revenues =
that previously flowed out of the community.=20
They are investing a lot of these revenues in further infrastructure =
development and economic development.
My consulting peers in the U.S. are all telling me this year will be the =
tipping point for community broadband in the U.S.=20
As per usual, give it another two years to take off here in Canada.
Anyone interested to see the U.S. trend up close should consider =
attending the annual Broadband Communities Summit in Dallas, April 16 - =
18:
http://www.bbcmag.com/2013s/
The event will feature an economic development content stream on all =
three days, and a rural development content stream on the last day.=20
JvL
On 2013-02-10, at 4:43 PM, Michael Lenczner <mlenczner@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey James,
>=20
> I used be more knowledgeable re: muni wifi, but I've let things slip
> in the past five years. I would appreciate it if you can provide some
> references about the cost of deploying a muni network to support your
> statements below? I don't know enough about telecom operations cost to
> disagree, but I neither does what you say seem evident. I would love
> to know more.
>=20
>> This is now just an application layer on a fibre access network, and =
a
>> fairly cheap one to build, operate and maintain.
>>=20
>>=20
>> Overall, the cost of operating and maintaining a well-engineered =
fibre/WiFi
>> access network is a fraction of what it costs to operate and maintain =
a
>> legacy copper network.
>=20
> Thanks
>=20
>=20
> Michael Lenczner
>=20
>=20
> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 3:40 AM, James Van Leeuwen <jvl@ventus.ca> =
wrote:
>>=20
>> I think she's right, because the genie is out of the bottle.
>>=20
>> We've become accustomed to free WiFi, but we may not have realized =
what this
>> implies.
>>=20
>> Broadband telecommunication is cheap.
>>=20
>> In fact it's really cheap, and getting cheaper by the day.
>>=20
>>=20
>> Today's state-of-the-art commercial optoelectronics enable 400 Gb/s
>> transmission on a single optical fibre wavelength.
>>=20
>> By the end of this decade, it will be Tb/s transmission (Terabits per
>> second).
>>=20
>> =46rom 2015 onward, new residential fibre networks will employ 10 =
Gb/s
>> optoelectronics (--> futureproof).
>>=20
>> The cost of wireless access is still a bit of a bottleneck, but not =
for
>> long.
>>=20
>> The cost of deploying a high-density WiFi mesh network to sit on top =
of a
>> robust fibre access network is dropping like a stone as technologies
>> advance.
>>=20
>> This is now just an application layer on a fibre access network, and =
a
>> fairly cheap one to build, operate and maintain.
>>=20
>>=20
>> Overall, the cost of operating and maintaining a well-engineered =
fibre/WiFi
>> access network is a fraction of what it costs to operate and maintain =
a
>> legacy copper network.
>>=20
>> The best thing about these new networks is that they can easily =
accommodate
>> growing traffic demand for decades into the future.
>>=20
>> Legacy copper networks are already struggling to accommodate today's =
traffic
>> volumes, never mind tomorrow's.
>>=20
>> =46rom day one, our telecom industry's business paradigm has been =
rooted in
>> scarcity, not abundance.
>>=20
>> Markets are coming to understand that scarcities in telecom are =
bogus, and
>> this poses a strategic risk to the industry.
>>=20
>> Scarcities manufactured to drive profit can be likened to contriving =
closed
>> canals in an open ocean.
>>=20
>> If operators don't change their business paradigm, they risk losing =
their
>> social license to operate.
>>=20
>>=20
>> With today's technologies, the cost of transporting a bit has become =
so
>> small as to be practically meaningless.
>>=20
>> This is already disrupting the longstanding industry paradigm, and =
there is
>> far more disruption to come.
>>=20
>> There are powerful incentives for municipal/community interests to =
deploy
>> their own fibre/WiFi networks and manage them on a public utility =
model.
>>=20
>> Cheap, capable and reliable access is becoming a must-have for =
economic
>> development, like having a paved public street network vs. a private =
dirt
>> road network.
>>=20
>> A community that has the former can foster, retain and attract =
business and
>> enterprise a lot easier than one that is stuck with the latter.
>>=20
>>=20
>> As municipal/community interests come to recognize the vast economic =
utility
>> of broadband, pressure will grow for senior governments to repatriate =
and
>> repurpose wireless spectrum for municipal/community access.
>>=20
>> After all, it's our spectrum.
>>=20
>> As ever more communities get up to speed, we will see integration of =
local
>> networks into seamless regional or even national networks.
>>=20
>> We already have this with our public road and street networks, and it =
has
>> become a cornerstone of our nation's prosperity.
>>=20
>> We can expect the same of public broadband networks.
>>=20
>>=20
>> The notion of a nationwide 'SuperWiFi' network is far more =
feasibility than
>> fantasy.
>>=20
>> We control the telecom devices now, and we decide what networks we =
are going
>> to use.
>>=20
>> Will we settle for the expensive scarcity of private cellular =
networks?
>>=20
>> Or will we aspire to the cheap abundance of community fibre/WiFi =
networks?
>>=20
>> The latter is what it means to be a 'frontier' community in the 21st
>> century:
>>=20
>> =
http://www.reddeeradvocate.com/news/O-Net_is_open_for_business_189050541.h=
tml
>> http://www.muninetworks.org
>> http://www.bbpmag.com
>>=20
>>=20
>> Here's to abundance.
>>=20
>>=20
>> JvL
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> On 2013-02-09, at 11:04 PM, "michael gurstein" <gurstein@gmail.com> =
wrote:
>>=20
>> And push-back against the push-back re the Free National WiFi Network =
in the
>> US
>>=20
>> M
>>=20
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: dewayne-net@warpspeed.com [mailto:dewayne-net@warpspeed.com] On =
Behalf
>> Of Dewayne Hendricks
>> Sent: Friday, February 08, 2013 11:21 AM
>> To: Multiple recipients of Dewayne-Net
>> Subject: [Dewayne-Net] Cecilia Kang Is Right: There Really Could Be A =
Free
>> National WiFi Network (of Networks)
>>=20
>> Cecilia Kang Is Right: There Really Could Be A Free National WiFi =
Network
>> (of Networks) By Harold Feld FEBRUARY 8, 2013
>> =
<http://tales-of-the-sausage-factory.wetmachine.com/cecilia-kang-is-right-=
th
>> ere-really-could-be-a-free-national-wifi-network-of-networks/>
>>=20
>> This past week, we've had quite the discussion around Cecilia Kan's =
WashPo
>> piece describing a plan by the FCC to create a national WiFi network =
by
>> making the right decisions about how to allocate spectrum between =
licenses
>> for auction and what to leave available for the unlicensed TV white =
spaces
>> ("TVWS" aka "Super WiFi" aka "Wifi on steroids"). As Kang describes, =
the
>> FCC's opening of sufficient spectrum for for TVWS could lead to =
"super WiFi
>> networks (emphasis added) around the nation so powerful and broad in =
reach
>> that consumers could use them to make calls or surf the Internet =
wihout
>> paying a cellphone bill every month." Needless to say, the =
articlefaced much
>> pushback, despite a subsequent Washpo clarification to indicate the =
FCC was
>> not, actually, planing to build a network. Amidst the various =
critics, there
>> were some general defenders of the concept. My colleagues at EFF =
noted that
>> increasing the availability of open spectrum for WiFi-type uses , and =
my
>> friends at Free Press argued that such a free public wifi network =
(or, more
>> accurately, series of networks) is in fact possible if the FCC makes =
enough
>> good quality spectrum, suitable for broadband and usable out doors,
>> available on an unlicensed basis. I will now go a step further than =
any of
>> my colleagues. I will boldly state that, if the FCC produces a solid =
20 MHz
>> of contiguous empty space for TV White spaces in the Incentive =
Auction
>> proceeding, or even two 10 MHz guard channels that could nationally =
produce
>> two decent sized LTE-for unlicensed channels, then we will have =
exactly the
>> kind of free publicly available wifi Kang describes in her article. =
Or, "Yes
>> Cecilia, there really is free national public wifi. Don't let the =
haters and
>> know-it-alls tell you otherwise." "What's that?" I hear you cry. "Has =
Harold
>> gone mad, fallen at last into some whacky socialist dream? Has he =
forgotten
>> everything he ever learned about how hideously complicated and =
expensive it
>> is to run a network? Who will provide the backhaul? The customer =
service?
>> Why would anyone do it? Or is Harold talking about one of his evil =
socialist
>> tax schemes where we either use tax-payer money to build some =
muni-wifi
>> boondoggle or force poor little innocent carriers (who are making 97% =
profit
>> margins on their broadband systems) to carry public trafic under some
>> "public interest" theory? No (although I'm not averse to either, as =
it
>> happens). I mean what I say. If the FCC makes the right spectrum =
choices, it
>> is inevitable that we will eventually get to the kind of ubiquitous =
and easy
>> to use publicly accessible WiFi access Kang describes in her article. =
Heck,
>> we are half-way there now even with the small crappy scraps of =
spectrum
>> available for existing WiFi. The history of the best efforts Internet =
- that
>> thing you're using now - points to the kind of "WiFi network of =
networks"
>> that Kang is talking about. How do I get from here to "networks so =
powerful
>> and broad in reach" that the poor could still feel connected without =
paying
>> a monthly carrier bill? Without any change other than getting 20 MHz
>> contiguous TVWS out of the Incentive Auction band plan?
>>=20
>> [snip]
>>=20
>> Dewayne-Net RSS Feed: <http://www.warpspeed.com/wordpress>
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
>> About the CRACIN Discussion Mailing List
>> cracin-canada @ vancouvercommunity.net
>> Purpose: news + discussion related directly to CRACIN research
>> Members: Core Research Team + graduate students + others who are =
(becoming)
>> directly involved with CRACIN research activities (e.g. other =
government
>> partners, private sector partners, and those invited based on their
>> expression of interest). It is the main ongoing forum for CRACIN =
research
>> discussion.
>>=20
>>=20
>>=20
--Apple-Mail=_7233FFEF-4208-4B3C-B776-05AE61264D9B
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html;
charset=iso-8859-1
<html><head><meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html =
charset=3Diso-8859-1"></head><body style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; =
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; =
">Michael,<div><br></div><div>I've provided a cursory overview of =
wireline and wireless deployment costs further =
on.</div><div><br></div><div>First, a reflection on the evolving =
economics of broadband deployment, which is far more revolutionary =
than evolutionary. </div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>The =
(r)evolution is happening mostly on the benefit side of the cost-benefit =
equation, in lock step with the evolution of digital circuitry and the =
capabilities of fibre optoelectronics, digital wireless transceivers, =
and edge devices.</div><div><br></div><div>Think for a moment how =
many apps have already been developed in the space of a few years for =
smart phones and tablets, and the orders-of-magnitude increase in =
utility and capability these devices offer compared to cell phones =
enabling only voice, text and crappy access to the =
web.</div><div><br></div><div>While away from the office yesterday, I =
used my iPhone to book a flight, conduct business and personal banking, =
access and respond to at least a dozen emails, listen to my home =
voicemail (email attachment), listen in on a technical =
webinar, participate in a four-way business teleconference via =
Skype, research and connect with a new business contact on LinkedIn, =
review a short PDF, track and contribute to my FaceBook account, and =
watch a brilliant video featuring a cat and =
photocopier. </div><div><br></div><div>Oh yes... I also had an over =
an hour of cellular voice communication with clients and business =
associates, and I sent or received a total of nine text =
messages. </div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>The rapidly =
expanding accessibility and utility of wired and wireless broadband =
networks enables more devices to do more things in more places, whether =
they are mobile personal devices or (increasingly) static devices in =
machine-to-machine configurations (the Internet of =
Things). </div><div><br></div><div>This is driving a literal =
explosion of benefit ('productivity'), which is the side of the equation =
we have yet to properly assess (costs always come to mind =
first). </div><div><br></div><div>The challenge is to properly =
assess both the internal <b>and</b> the external benefits of a =
broadband deployment, and to meaningfully monetize those benefits =
wherever possible. </div><div><br></div><div>I am presently working =
on such an assessment in a rural/remote context, which will enable =
us to properly rationalize investment in a broadband deployment for all =
who stand to benefit from =
it. </div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>The other side of the =
revolution is less dramatic but far more easily monetized, and this is =
the falling cost of network =
deployment. </div><div><br></div><div>This applies to both fibre =
and wireless networking technologies, and there is still a long way for =
deployment costs to fall.</div><div><br></div><div><div>Microtrenching =
is a good example of the cost-saving innovations that are now being =
implemented in buried fibre deployment, with cost savings up to 30% in =
some environments.</div><div><br></div><div>There might be a trade-off =
in the form of higher maintenance costs, and we are monitoring this =
closely. </div><div><br></div></div><div><br></div><div>The =
principal cost for fibre deployment will always be burying the fibre or =
hanging it on poles.</div><div><br></div><div>This is typically 70% or =
more of a buried fibre deployment, less for an aerial =
deployment.</div><div><br></div><div>Here in Alberta, costs for a buried =
fibre deployment typically range from $15 - $50 per meter, with an =
average of around $35 per meter using an experienced contractor (more $ =
per hour, but fewer hours). </div><div><br></div><div>Cost per =
meter is higher in built-up areas, where streets and roads usually have =
to be dug up.</div><div><br></div><div>Road and stream crossings are =
typically $75 per meter, because directional drilling is required (can't =
tear up the roadbed or streambed).</div><div><br></div><div>I am less =
familiar with aerial fibre deployment, but I understand the deployment =
costs are roughly half the cost of burying =
fibre.</div><div><br></div><div>Gaining affordable access to poles can =
be a real pain in the ass, depending who owns them and what they are =
being used for. </div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>As for a =
WiFi mesh overlay, the deployment cost is almost marginal for a new =
fibre deployment (less than 5%). </div><div><br></div><div>It costs =
significantly less to build and operate the mesh as an application layer =
on a new fibre network vs. cobbling it on to a legacy copper network =
belonging to an incumbent. </div><div><br></div><div>How about =
<$200K to cover an entire community of =
7,500?</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Lots of =
municipally-owned electric utilities are now deploying fibre because =
they already have rights-of-way and boots on the =
ground. </div><div><br></div><div>The utility serving Chattanooga =
TN has been a vanguard, and they are making waves in the U.S. with their =
end-to-end fibre deployment.</div><div><br></div><div>Besides enabling =
Gigabit connectivity for any customer who wants it, the network is =
already saving the utility millions of dollars annually in operating =
costs.</div><div><br></div><div>Through deployment of smart metering and =
smart grid technologies, they are able to manage loading and routing far =
more cost-effectively than =
previously. </div><div><br></div><div>These savings alone would pay =
for the network in about ten years, but there is revenue generation on =
top of this.</div><div><br></div><div>These are revenues from delivery =
of wholesale and retail (triple play) services, which could reduce the =
time for capital recovery by several =
years. </div><div><br></div><div>Perhaps most importantly, =
Chattanooga is now capturing service revenues that previously flowed out =
of the community. </div><div><br></div><div>They are investing a =
lot of these revenues in further infrastructure development and economic =
development.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>My consulting peers =
in the U.S. are all telling me this year will be the tipping point for =
community broadband in the U.S. </div><div><br></div><div>As per =
usual, give it another two years to take off here in =
Canada.</div><div><br></div><div>Anyone interested to see the U.S. trend =
up close should consider attending the annual Broadband Communities =
Summit in Dallas, April 16 - 18:</div><div><br></div><div><a =
href=3D"http://www.bbcmag.com/2013s/">http://www.bbcmag.com/2013s/</a></di=
v><div><br></div><div>The event will feature an economic development =
content stream on all three days, and a rural development content stream =
on the last =
day. </div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>JvL</div><div><br></div=
><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></di=
v><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br><di=
v><div>On 2013-02-10, at 4:43 PM, Michael Lenczner <<a =
href=3D"mailto:mlenczner@gmail.com">mlenczner@gmail.com</a>> =
wrote:</div><br class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote =
type=3D"cite">Hey James,<br><br>I used be more knowledgeable re: muni =
wifi, but I've let things slip<br>in the past five years. I would =
appreciate it if you can provide some<br>references about the cost of =
deploying a muni network to support your<br>statements below? I don't =
know enough about telecom operations cost to<br>disagree, but I neither =
does what you say seem evident. I would love<br>to know =
more.<br><br><blockquote type=3D"cite">This is now just an application =
layer on a fibre access network, and a<br>fairly cheap one to build, =
operate and maintain.<br><br><br>Overall, the cost of operating and =
maintaining a well-engineered fibre/WiFi<br>access network is a fraction =
of what it costs to operate and maintain a<br>legacy copper =
network.<br></blockquote><br>Thanks<br><br><br>Michael =
Lenczner<br><br><br>On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 3:40 AM, James Van Leeuwen =
<<a href=3D"mailto:jvl@ventus.ca">jvl@ventus.ca</a>> =
wrote:<br><blockquote type=3D"cite"><br>I think she's right, because the =
genie is out of the bottle.<br><br>We've become accustomed to free WiFi, =
but we may not have realized what this<br>implies.<br><br>Broadband =
telecommunication is cheap.<br><br>In fact it's really cheap, and =
getting cheaper by the day.<br><br><br>Today's state-of-the-art =
commercial optoelectronics enable 400 Gb/s<br>transmission on a single =
optical fibre wavelength.<br><br>By the end of this decade, it will be =
Tb/s transmission (Terabits per<br>second).<br><br>=46rom 2015 onward, =
new residential fibre networks will employ 10 Gb/s<br>optoelectronics =
(--> futureproof).<br><br>The cost of wireless access is still a bit =
of a bottleneck, but not for<br>long.<br><br>The cost of deploying a =
high-density WiFi mesh network to sit on top of a<br>robust fibre access =
network is dropping like a stone as technologies<br>advance.<br><br>This =
is now just an application layer on a fibre access network, and =
a<br>fairly cheap one to build, operate and =
maintain.<br><br><br>Overall, the cost of operating and maintaining a =
well-engineered fibre/WiFi<br>access network is a fraction of what it =
costs to operate and maintain a<br>legacy copper network.<br><br>The =
best thing about these new networks is that they can easily =
accommodate<br>growing traffic demand for decades into the =
future.<br><br>Legacy copper networks are already struggling to =
accommodate today's traffic<br>volumes, never mind =
tomorrow's.<br><br>=46rom day one, our telecom industry's business =
paradigm has been rooted in<br>scarcity, not abundance.<br><br>Markets =
are coming to understand that scarcities in telecom are bogus, =
and<br>this poses a strategic risk to the industry.<br><br>Scarcities =
manufactured to drive profit can be likened to contriving =
closed<br>canals in an open ocean.<br><br>If operators don't change =
their business paradigm, they risk losing their<br>social license to =
operate.<br><br><br>With today's technologies, the cost of transporting =
a bit has become so<br>small as to be practically =
meaningless.<br><br>This is already disrupting the longstanding industry =
paradigm, and there is<br>far more disruption to come.<br><br>There are =
powerful incentives for municipal/community interests to deploy<br>their =
own fibre/WiFi networks and manage them on a public utility =
model.<br><br>Cheap, capable and reliable access is becoming a must-have =
for economic<br>development, like having a paved public street network =
vs. a private dirt<br>road network.<br><br>A community that has the =
former can foster, retain and attract business and<br>enterprise a lot =
easier than one that is stuck with the latter.<br><br><br>As =
municipal/community interests come to recognize the vast economic =
utility<br>of broadband, pressure will grow for senior governments to =
repatriate and<br>repurpose wireless spectrum for municipal/community =
access.<br><br>After all, it's our spectrum.<br><br>As ever more =
communities get up to speed, we will see integration of =
local<br>networks into seamless regional or even national =
networks.<br><br>We already have this with our public road and street =
networks, and it has<br>become a cornerstone of our nation's =
prosperity.<br><br>We can expect the same of public broadband =
networks.<br><br><br>The notion of a nationwide 'SuperWiFi' network is =
far more feasibility than<br>fantasy.<br><br>We control the telecom =
devices now, and we decide what networks we are going<br>to =
use.<br><br>Will we settle for the expensive scarcity of private =
cellular networks?<br><br>Or will we aspire to the cheap abundance of =
community fibre/WiFi networks?<br><br>The latter is what it means to be =
a 'frontier' community in the 21st<br>century:<br><br><a =
href=3D"http://www.reddeeradvocate.com/news/O-Net_is_open_for_business_189=
050541.html">http://www.reddeeradvocate.com/news/O-Net_is_open_for_busines=
s_189050541.html</a><br>http://www.muninetworks.org<br>http://www.bbpmag.c=
om<br><br><br>Here's to =
abundance.<br><br><br>JvL<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>On 2013-02-09, =
at 11:04 PM, "michael gurstein" <gurstein@gmail.com> =
wrote:<br><br>And push-back against the push-back re the Free National =
WiFi Network in the<br>US<br><br>M<br><br>-----Original =
Message-----<br>From: dewayne-net@warpspeed.com =
[mailto:dewayne-net@warpspeed.com] On Behalf<br>Of Dewayne =
Hendricks<br>Sent: Friday, February 08, 2013 11:21 AM<br>To: Multiple =
recipients of Dewayne-Net<br>Subject: [Dewayne-Net] Cecilia Kang Is =
Right: There Really Could Be A Free<br>National WiFi Network (of =
Networks)<br><br>Cecilia Kang Is Right: There Really Could Be A Free =
National WiFi Network<br>(of Networks) By Harold Feld FEBRUARY 8, =
2013<br><http://tales-of-the-sausage-factory.wetmachine.com/cecilia-kan=
g-is-right-th<br>ere-really-could-be-a-free-national-wifi-network-of-netwo=
rks/><br><br>This past week, we've had quite the discussion around =
Cecilia Kan's WashPo<br>piece describing a plan by the FCC to create a =
national WiFi network by<br>making the right decisions about how to =
allocate spectrum between licenses<br>for auction and what to leave =
available for the unlicensed TV white spaces<br>("TVWS" aka "Super WiFi" =
aka "Wifi on steroids"). As Kang describes, the<br>FCC's opening of =
sufficient spectrum for for TVWS could lead to "super WiFi<br>networks =
(emphasis added) around the nation so powerful and broad in =
reach<br>that consumers could use them to make calls or surf the =
Internet wihout<br>paying a cellphone bill every month." Needless to =
say, the articlefaced much<br>pushback, despite a subsequent Washpo =
clarification to indicate the FCC was<br>not, actually, planing to build =
a network. Amidst the various critics, there<br>were some general =
defenders of the concept. My colleagues at EFF noted that<br>increasing =
the availability of open spectrum for WiFi-type uses , and my<br>friends =
at Free Press argued that such a free public wifi network (or, =
more<br>accurately, series of networks) is in fact possible if the FCC =
makes enough<br>good quality spectrum, suitable for broadband and usable =
out doors,<br>available on an unlicensed basis. I will now go a step =
further than any of<br>my colleagues. I will boldly state that, if the =
FCC produces a solid 20 MHz<br>of contiguous empty space for TV White =
spaces in the Incentive Auction<br>proceeding, or even two 10 MHz guard =
channels that could nationally produce<br>two decent sized LTE-for =
unlicensed channels, then we will have exactly the<br>kind of free =
publicly available wifi Kang describes in her article. Or, =
"Yes<br>Cecilia, there really is free national public wifi. Don't let =
the haters and<br>know-it-alls tell you otherwise." "What's that?" I =
hear you cry. "Has Harold<br>gone mad, fallen at last into some whacky =
socialist dream? Has he forgotten<br>everything he ever learned about =
how hideously complicated and expensive it<br>is to run a network? Who =
will provide the backhaul? The customer service?<br>Why would anyone do =
it? Or is Harold talking about one of his evil socialist<br>tax schemes =
where we either use tax-payer money to build some =
muni-wifi<br>boondoggle or force poor little innocent carriers (who are =
making 97% profit<br>margins on their broadband systems) to carry public =
trafic under some<br>"public interest" theory? No (although I'm not =
averse to either, as it<br>happens). I mean what I say. If the FCC makes =
the right spectrum choices, it<br>is inevitable that we will eventually =
get to the kind of ubiquitous and easy<br>to use publicly accessible =
WiFi access Kang describes in her article. Heck,<br>we are half-way =
there now even with the small crappy scraps of spectrum<br>available for =
existing WiFi. The history of the best efforts Internet - that<br>thing =
you're using now - points to the kind of "WiFi network of =
networks"<br>that Kang is talking about. How do I get from here to =
"networks so powerful<br>and broad in reach" that the poor could still =
feel connected without paying<br>a monthly carrier bill? Without any =
change other than getting 20 MHz<br>contiguous TVWS out of the Incentive =
Auction band plan?<br><br>[snip]<br><br>Dewayne-Net RSS Feed: =
<http://www.warpspeed.com/wordpress><br><br><br><br>About the =
CRACIN Discussion Mailing List<br>cracin-canada @ =
vancouvercommunity.net<br>Purpose: news + discussion related directly to =
CRACIN research<br>Members: Core Research Team + graduate students + =
others who are (becoming)<br>directly involved with CRACIN research =
activities (e.g. other government<br>partners, private sector partners, =
and those invited based on their<br>expression of interest). It is the =
main ongoing forum for CRACIN =
research<br>discussion.<br><br><br><br></blockquote></blockquote></div><br=
></div></body></html>=
--Apple-Mail=_7233FFEF-4208-4B3C-B776-05AE61264D9B--