St Paul Broadband Committee :: Forum

Re: Wireless Minneapolis -- the official site of the Minneapolis broadband project [by Chris Hertel]

Wed, 04 Oct 2006 17:14:52 -0000

Broadband news from other places::[Policy] Wireless Minneapolis -- the official site of the Minneapolis broadband project
The latest version of the Mpls. Bussiness Plan is online again.

Networks - and the future [by Eric Lampland]

Thu, 28 Sep 2006 03:03:35 -0000

General::[Vision Statement] Networks - and the future
I think this topic maybe already done/closed/over ... but, an interesting article in IEEE Spectrum this month might be worth reading if you're still pondering.

http://spectrum.ieee.org/sep06/4435

Seven hundred IEEE Fellows (Fellows have been around for a while and are generally very accomplished in their fields) were polled on "the future in 10 to 50 years." They commented and they voted.

Read the whole article for a good look, but I thought I'd copy out one view that was particularily relevant. Seems like they think our available speeds will be in the gigabit range, at home, reasonably soon. I think plans to get there, in increments or with a big push, would be a realistic 10 year target.

eric

Will gigabit Internet access be available in homes in developed countries?
Unlikely 5%
Equal chances 10.5%
Likely 84.1%
.........

When is this likely to occur?
10 years or less 44.6%
11 to 20 years 45.1%

NYTimes on 4G - all hype [by becca]

Tue, 26 Sep 2006 15:35:55 -0000

Debates -- Technology:: NYTimes on 4G - all hype
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/26/business/26wireless.html?_r=2&ref=technology&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Re: Article on SF Wireless Network [by becca]

Tue, 26 Sep 2006 01:47:17 -0000

Broadband news from other places:: Article on SF Wireless Network
It's not that the writer likes Philadelphia's model better - both Philly and San Francisco, at this point, have the same model - network owned and operated by EarthLink, city as an anchor tenant.

(Forget all that stuff about Google in San Francisco - they're just a customer on EarthLink's network, and they're choosing to use the bandwidth they buy to do free-to-the-user service. The City's contract would be with EarthLink.)

The writer likes the *deal* Philadelphia got from EarthLink better. He's saying Philadelphia got a better deal because they had a public process and used the outcome to demand a better deal. But the overwhelming conclusion of Philadelphia's public process was that the network should be publicly owned. So even though there was that input, it was disregarded.

San Francisco did what Minneapolis did - bulled ahead without any public input until after all the big decisions had been made. The deal San Francisco will get remains to be seen. In fact, whether or not the board of supervisors will sign off on whatever deal they get remains to be seen. At the moment, San Francisco is doing both a feasibility study for a fiber project, and a fiscal analysis of a city-owned wireless network.

Re: Muni-broadband -- I'm having trouble with the money math [by Mike Janke]

Tue, 26 Sep 2006 01:08:17 -0000

General::[Policy] Muni-broadband -- I'm having trouble with the money math
From what I can tell:

WSCustomers tab: Residential Customers has wrong row. S/B B7, not B5. But now the model show > 500mbps for 20,000 customers. This doesn't sound right. We have close to 100,000 customers & we are under 400mbps (with traffic shaping). Oversubscribe to 100 customers. They'll never know.

Engineers are smart. They can handle more than 1000 customers. Make it 4000. Service will suck, but it will not be worse than current broadband.

Hardware costs scale non-linearly. Once you get to the big honk'in hardware stage, the costs are pretty much fixed, so for routers & mail servers & such, the unit costs should decrease with volume.

Internet at $200/meg sounds high. At the volumes indicated, costs could be a small fraction of that.

We're still loosing money, but heck - it's only money.

--Mike J

Residential/educational meeting report - 9/19 [by jonkerr]

Fri, 22 Sep 2006 04:30:27 -0000

Residential Sub-Committee:: Residential/educational meeting report - 9/19
The Residential / Educational Subcommittee met Sept. 19 with Steve Buettner, Jon Kerr, Margaret Lovejoy, Mike McCollor and Mike Reardon (Staff) in attendance.

The Committee began discussion by looking at the *Draft vision/mission statement *that was tentatively adopted earlier that day by the BAC Biz subcommittee. The Residential / Educational Subcommittee, in general, also liked its concepts and continued discussion under its categories.

*Attributes for residential service*: Subcommittee members focused on developing attributes aimed at making St. Paul the most "Digitally Aware" city in the world by laying a foundation to provide broadband connectivity to anyone in the city at anytime or place. Among proposals gaining initial support was minimal or even free basic broadband connection as a basic service available to home owners and non-profits. Definitions of speed, bandwidth etc. are yet to be determined as was service to visitors, business areas etc.

Other options (faster speeds and or services, video etc.) would be offered at higher or market prices. It was also suggested that a percentage of funds from a citywide broadband system could be earmarked for long-term or staged development of a fiber based system to the home.

The subcommittee briefly discussed funding and other controversial issues related to offering free service. Among potential solutions discussed was the use of targeting advertising to help subsidize the service. An example would be to sell advertising that would target users of the service based on their location. For example if you were on Rice street and wanted to find a restaurant, local restaurant Rice street restaurants would be shown. It was pointed out that Google and other private interests have thus far not been successful in developing a business plan based on this model and that the technology may have some civil liberties issues attached.
Another possible approach briefly discussed, and with its own limitations noted, would be to offer free service based on a sliding scale or some form of "scholarship" approach.

*Social Development*
The subcommittee initially supported a portion of any revenue generated as being dedicated to bridging the digital divide, similar to Minneapolis Digital Inclusion Fund. One approach might be grants to non profit organizations to help train, provide equipment and give incentives for citizens to go online. The subcommittee noted that they have a lack of information about current activities by CTC's throughout St. Paul in providing training and access to computers, online information etc. Mike Reardon will research and return with location and contact information.

Subcommittee members also discussed general concerns about how to make a citywide broadband system attractive to encourage the involvement of average citizens. One approach briefly discussed was how to encourage the development of community or neighborhood networks, that would be a resource for Saint Paul and neighborhood information and interactivity. An example of users might be city block club programs as well as schools, church groups, non-profits and others.

*Draft Outline:*
Based on this, and previous discussions, the committee will start to develop an outline for review by the Committee at its Oct. 3 meeting. The outline will be shared by the committee over the next two weeks, in preparation for the Oct. 3 meeting. Mike Reardon offered to write a first draft with committee members then editing and making additions.

*Non-Profit Focus Groups:*
After discussion, it was determined that the subcommittee will hold, for lack of better terms, a focus group discussion with a handful of leaders from smaller non-profits and other groups who might help fill gaps in subcommittee information on St. Paul residents' needs for digital inclusion assistance. A short list of potential groups was identifed and more have since been added by subcommittee members. Those available will be invited to the Oct. 17 committee which will start at 2 PM to accommodate further discussion.

This report was compiled from notes by Mike Reardon, Steve Buettner and Jon Kerr.

Cool WiFi phone -- breaks muni WiFi business models [by Mike O'Connor]

Thu, 21 Sep 2006 02:07:30 -0000

Debates -- Technology::[Technology] Cool WiFi phone -- breaks muni WiFi business models
lets say that we've got WiFi all over the city. at $20/month.

if a bunch of people buy this gizmo, and use the network to replace their cell phone, the WiFi carrier's business model is going to be... um... flawed. big-time.

why? because ISP business models assume that most of the time you're *not* downloading stuff -- whereas this kinda gadget will have more people on the 'net, a higher proportion of the day. admittedly, not a lot of bandwidth, but constant. and for us "yack on the phone all day" type people a muni-WiFi network connection at $20/month would beat the heck out of the $100/month we're paying for cell.

http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/18/netgear-sph101-skype-wifi-phone-unboxing-and-hands-on/

of course, without a regional solution, my coverage would end at the city line. but hey, this is still a great gadget.

m

Re: I've posted a podcast about why I don't like WiFi... [by Garrick]

Mon, 18 Sep 2006 01:25:51 -0000

General::[Technology] I've posted a podcast about why I don't like WiFi...
Mike - I gave the podcast a listen. Thanks for making the point that wifi and municipal broadband are not synonymous. WiFi at best is a smaller part of a larger muni-broadband program.

You also make a compelling argument that wifi as the only delivery method for muni-broadband is boiling the ocean. I think there are smaller, cheaper, smarter ways to provide internet access to more people - perhaps making sharing existing broadband lines more attractive.

Freepress, Consumers Union report on the state of broadband [by Mike O'Connor]

Sat, 16 Sep 2006 21:01:19 -0000

Debates -- Policy::[Policy] Freepress, Consumers Union report on the state of broadband
thanks and a tip of the hat to John Ladwig for pushing this one along to me.

m

- - - - -

From: Ben Scott [mailto:bscott@freepress.net]
Sent: Tuesday, September 12, 2006 10:57 AM
To: Net Neutrality List
Subject: new broadband report

Folks-

We just released a big report on the state of the residential
broadband market. It is an overview of all of the most recent broadband data from the FCC, ITU, OECD, Pew, and a few other places. There is also significant original research here on competition issues.

To read the executive summary of Broadband Reality Check II, go to

http://www.freepress.net/docs/bbrc2-execsum.pdf

To read the full report, go to

http://www.freepress.net/docs/bbrc2-final.pdf

Here are some of the key findings:

* Consumers in other countries enjoy broadband connections that are far faster and cheaper than what is available here. U.S. consumers pay nearly twice as much as the Japanese for connections that are 20 times as slow.

* The most important factors explaining the digital divide among
nations are household income and poverty - not population density.

* U.S. broadband prices aren't dropping: Cable modem prices are
holding constant or rising, and DSL customers on average are getting less bandwidth per dollar than just a year ago.

* Despite claims of "fierce competition," cable and DSL account for 98 percent of the residential broadband market. And over 40 percent of U.S. ZIP codes have one or fewer DSL or cable modem providers reporting
service.

* The market share of "third platform" alternatives like satellite,
wireless and broadband over powerline technologies has actually
decreased over the past five years.

* Those living in urban areas are nearly twice as likely to have home broadband access as their rural counterparts.

* Approximately one out of 10 households with incomes below $30,000 reported having high-speed Internet access, but six out of every 10 households with incomes above $100,000 had broadband.

* The FCC uses misleading and meaningless measures of broadband coverage and competition, inflating estimates of broadband availability and competition.

Please circulate as you see fit-

Best,

Ben.

Ben Scott

Policy Director

Drawbacks to WiFi [by Mike O'Connor]

Sat, 16 Sep 2006 18:17:16 -0000

Debates -- Technology::[Technology] Drawbacks to WiFi
Tom Welna sent this article along to the committee members by email. But I think it's a great discussion about why WiFi is a crummy technology for muni-broadband so I'm posting it here.

Here's the link;

http://www.wi-fiplanet.com/news/article.php/3632081

Here's the quote that really grabbed me;

Quote:

The technical problem, in simple terms, arises from the fact that a wireless signal arrives at a receiver by multiple paths, including as a result of the transmitted energy reflecting off physical obstacles. These multipath signals arrive later than the first received signal. In the case of an indoor setting, where the signal is bouncing off nearby walls and furniture, they arrive only a few tenths of a millisecond after the main signal. Outdoors, the delay may be significantly longer, and if the sender is mobile, that further complicates the multipath problem.

To help simplify the process of tuning a signal, Wi-Fi radios set an arbitrary limit on how long after the main signal arrives the radio will continue to attempt to resolve multipath energy as coherent signal � a mere .8 milliseconds. After that, it treats multipath as noise. The further the sender is from the receiver, the longer the multipath delays, so when Wi-Fi goes outdoors, radios in effect throw more energy away. And this is a serious limiter of both signal robustness and � more importantly, Cohda would argue � range.