From jon at oldmanriver.com Tue Mar 1 13:22:00 2005 From: jon at oldmanriver.com (Jon Kerr) Date: Tue Mar 1 12:58:48 2005 Subject: [tcwug-list] Fwd: Defend Community Internet References: <001901c51c1e$d0146000$6800a8c0@opus.corp.root> Message-ID: <002a01c51e93$f3ec90c0$0701a8c0@jon8ccf99e8512> At the risk of further tiring some readers on this subject, I'd offer a couple of points: First, no one in Saint Paul at least has yet talked about a municipally-run system. We are talking about how to best develop and promte citywide, affordable broadband access through whatever structure is feasible. It could be (exclusive or non-exclusive) franchising, a series of licenses for different geographic or other service areas, lottery, I don't know. But all options are very much on the table and ideas are appreciated. Second, there are parts of Saint Paul that effectively have no DSL option and thus effectively no competition at the moment. It is hard to talk about the free market meeting needs in that climate. Third, there are areas of our community whose needs have never been and likely never will be met by the free market without some sort of intervention or special effort. There really is a digital divide in many of our communities that starts with money (any yes, there really are working poor and those who are trying their best to find a better lifestyle to whom even $20 month is significant) but may also include language, education, and other factors. I would encourage any ISP owners to explain how they are currently addressing or would be willing to voluntarily address this. Finally, the mention of "phone service, cable TV, and cellular/pcs services" is interesting. The fact is many of those services do currently have some access requirements. More importantly, they may very well all soon be delivered by wireless broadband - a tremendous opportunity for some but also a threat to some existing semi-monopolistic providers of those services who ironically are doing their best to block market adaptations. No one wants to hurt small businesses in this sorting out period, especially this writer. Yet is it unreasonable for cities to hope to improve services and cut costs in these times when that's what everybody tells them they don't want to pay more taxes? And is it unreasonable to hope we can find a way to create a non-balkanized, comprehensive broadband access system that lets everyone better appreciate the benefits of technological advances? To answer "yes" certainly won't mean the end of life. But in my humble opinion it will mean turning away from a potential improvement of civic and democratic interactions. And it will mean possibly accepting permanent technological gulf between have's and have not's that ultimately limits how far the market can grow - thus limiting everybody's economic and other opportunities. But again, I welcome hearing alternative visions or proposals. Jon Kerr ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jon Clark" To: Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2005 10:18 AM Subject: [tcwug-list] Fwd: Defend Community Internet > I agree with Matthew, primarily for the following reason: if you think you > can make a case for government-run, free (or heavily subsidized) internet > access, then why not endorse the same thing with (at least) phone service, > cable TV, and cellular/pcs services? The only possible defense of this > approach is if a particular area completely lacks and options for > connectivity and no private provider will offer anything there. This > approach would be a VERY difficult justification for urban St. Paul. > > You may not like your choices - Comcast, Qwest, Covad and perhaps a few > others - but the fact is that you have choices. Lawrence Lessig's argument > is hollow - he is implying that because the US didn't take the same approach > as many Asian countries (such as South Korea or Singapore, where average > home broadband speeds are almost 10Mbit and proportionately cost less than 1 > MBit in the US), we are destined to wallow in Broadband purgatory and we > need local and state governments to 'save' us from the evil, greedy > corporations. > > Statements like 'free wireless access increases the value of public spaces > just as, well, streetlamps do' - make me paint a mental picture of a whole > park full of people tethered to some kind of small, portable device, typing, > browsing or yammering away with little sense of their surroundings. Do you > think most people who would sit in a park to spend the entire time browsing > around on the internet even care they are sitting in a park? While my sense > of competitiveness tells me I would like bragging rights to cheap, > ubiquitous and thorough wireless broadband coverage, I have to remind myself > that it is not VITAL to our existence in the global economy. > > Why do the cities want it? So they can have free, real-time database lookups > for their police forces' laptops as they ride around in their squads. Great, > what else? Is there something else *vital* to their core mission(s) that > require that kind of access? > > Everyone has a different perspective, I understand this. Personally, I have > two a/b/g / bluetooth / 1xRTT enabled laptops, 4 cell phones (all with > bluetooth and at least EDGE or 1XRTT), a blackberry (hacked for dial-up > 1XRTT access over bluetooth), a Win Mobile 2003 smartphone with bt, 802.11g > and quad-band gsm/gprs/edge. I just finished deploying a/b/g wireless to a > 70,000 square foot building that includes multiple SSID's, LEAP and QoS for > Cisco Wi-Fi phones (which are pretty slick, btw). But you know what? You > have to unplug from time to time for your own sanity... > > Just my $0.02. > > -Jon > jsclark@visi.com > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Matthew S. Hallacy" > To: "Leif Utne" ; > Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2005 1:36 AM > Subject: Re: [tcwug-list] Fwd: Defend Community Internet > > > > You know what guys, this is getting old. I happen to run a small > > wireless ISP west of the cities, I'm on mailing lists full of people > > who also run wireless ISP's. > > > > The government should not be competing against the private sector > > 99.999% of the time, the Twin Cities area has more than sufficient > > internet access options, and what is being proposed is a huge waste > > of tax dollars. > > > > Broadband is $20/mo for DSL from companies like MSN, $42.95 for faster > > service from the likes of Comcast or RoadRunner. If you can't afford that > > then perhaps you need to GET A JOB, or visit the public library for your > > downloading needs. > > > > If St Paul really has issues with lack of "quality" broadband they should > > terminate their contract with comcast to run their cable network and find > > someone else that will do it to their liking. > > > > I challenge you all to consider what would happen to *your* job if the > > government came in and started using your own tax dollars to compete with > > you. > > > > And stop blaming the big bad monopolies, your local city council are the > > ones giving them free reign over the cable networks. Your state and > > federal > > goverments are the ones giving them corporate welfare that lets them > > undercut > > the prices of local competition, and YOU are the ones electing those > > government officials. Blame yourself. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Twin Cities Wireless Users Group Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota > tcwug-list@tcwug.org > http://mailman.tcwug.org/mailman/listinfo/tcwug-list From dieman at ringworld.org Tue Mar 1 15:04:14 2005 From: dieman at ringworld.org (Scott Dier) Date: Tue Mar 1 15:08:49 2005 Subject: [tcwug-list] Re: Fwd: Defend Community Internet In-Reply-To: <002a01c51e93$f3ec90c0$0701a8c0@jon8ccf99e8512> References: <001901c51c1e$d0146000$6800a8c0@opus.corp.root> <002a01c51e93$f3ec90c0$0701a8c0@jon8ccf99e8512> Message-ID: <4224D8CE.9050705@ringworld.org> Jon Kerr wrote: >Second, there are parts of Saint Paul that effectively have no DSL option >and thus effectively no competition at the moment. It is hard to talk about >the free market meeting needs in that climate. > > Hell, ever since the market downturn in the telecom industry even many non-rich subarban areas have not had much for improvements. Qwest has finally equipped many RT's with DSL service, at least. But, facilities based clec's have not expanded and I do not expect them ever to get back to their plans of expanding. The possibility of UNE going away completely (has it yet) also is going to make this a non-starter for most enterprises serving residental customers. Plus, since UNE is near impossible from RT's I really doubt we will be seeing a CLEC in this area anytime soon. This leaves me with two options, Qwest and Comcast. Comcast can not provide me with a connection that has a legal agreement within a reasonable price range. Qwest can, but at a much lower downlink speed (1.5mbps vs. 4mbps) and a faster uplink speed (1mbps vs 384kbps.) My Qwest bill is $58/month, but could be less if I didn't have 1 static IP as $53/month. Qwest is not expanding much, they merely do not have the cash for investments at this point -- this is why we hear about FTTH in verizon and sbc land and not here. We got screwed by a dot bomb company that was lucky enough to pump their stock to buy an ILEC. MCI is trying to stop that from happening -- they are willing to take far less cash (nearly $2bil less) than stock. 256kbps Internet is not broadband. I'm fairly sure there was some false advertising lawsuits at some point on this issue. We've seen attempts at wireless services with ricochet -- which failed. There is stonebridge, but they will not service areas that they do not recieve a 'USDA/Rural Utility Services' loan for with residental service, it seems. That sure sounds like government subsidy. Is that a waste of my tax dollar? HSPDA and WiMAX both might start gate crashing the parade of unlicensed services. Many of the cell phone companies have cash laying around in wait to purchase spectrum and upgrade equipment. They will be a part of our landscape in the near (5 year?) future. At this point I think they have the best chance of addressing the monopoly, but they are not coming tomorrow, either. In any case, if you are a business owner and you feel like meddeling in local politics without actually living or providing services to the city, please find a real argument other than you have a business to run. Even if you are providing services, ask yourself why the city thinks they can get a muni running and doesn't it take a supermajority (65%) of voters to get one started? If taxpayers are *willing* to pay on their own local dollars to handle the problem, let them -- you messed up the market by not being able to satisfy the customers. I see these arguments often in the transit space, many other people want to tell Anoka county that it can't raise taxes on its own taxpayers to help pay for important transportation improvements. The residents voted these people in to make sure this improvement happens. If you don't want the county or city to make improvements with their own money from voting taxpayers who *agree*, get out of the way. If you are in the city and are against it, vote against the proposal. It's fairly simple. >Third, there are areas of our community whose needs have never been and >likely never will be met by the free market without some sort of >intervention or special effort. There really is a digital divide in many of >our communities that starts with money (any yes, there really are working >poor and those who are trying their best to find a better lifestyle to whom >even $20 month is significant) but may also include language, education, and > > I've listed some communities below. The interesting thing would be to go through and find all the broadband options for each community and the cost/speed options. Much of it has more to do with what local monopoly you are stuck with, and not how much money is there. I just don't see communications companies interested in investing right now. It is interesting to note that aside from Minneapolis, St. Paul, and Anoka that none are above 5%. Also, the relatively invisible poor in some of the ivory tower suburbs make the point harder to digest for some, I think. (ie: the GET A JOB attitude) Minneapolis: Median Income $37,974 Family Median Income $48,602 Per Capita Income $22,685 Percent in Poverty 16.9% St. Paul: Median Income $38.774 Family Median Income: $48,925 Per Capita Income: $20,216 Percent in Poverity: 15.6% Coon Rapids: Median Income: $55,550 Family Median Income: $62,260 Per Capita Income: $22,915 Percent in Poverty: 4.8% Anoka: Median Income: $42,659 Family Median Income: $55,311 Per Capita Income: $21,367 Percent in Poverty: 6.8% Dayton: Median Income: $66,875 Family Median Income: $71,356 Per Capita Income: $27,756 Percent in Poverty: 2.7% Rogers: Median Income: $73,143 Family Median Income: $76,984 Per Capita Income: $25,845 Percent in Poverty: 1.8% Maple Grove: Median Income: $76,111 Family Median Income: $81,873 Per Capita Income: $30,544 Percent in Poverty: 1.4% Edina: Median Income: $66,019 Family Median Income: $93,496 Per Capita Income: $44,195 Percent in Poverty: 3.3% Blaine: Median Income: $52,219 Family Median Income: $63,831 Per Capita Income: $22,777 Percent in Poverty: 3.0% -- Scott Dier KC0OBS http://www.ringworld.org/ From leif at utne.com Tue Mar 1 15:11:15 2005 From: leif at utne.com (Leif Utne) Date: Tue Mar 1 15:13:48 2005 Subject: [tcwug-list] Fwd: Defend Community Internet In-Reply-To: <002a01c51e93$f3ec90c0$0701a8c0@jon8ccf99e8512> References: <001901c51c1e$d0146000$6800a8c0@opus.corp.root> <002a01c51e93$f3ec90c0$0701a8c0@jon8ccf99e8512> Message-ID: <729BFB61-8A96-11D9-A415-000A95DB3176@utne.com> Jon, Thanks for that post. It echoes my sentiments exactly. The digital divide is a harsh reality, and a classic example of a market failure where government action, whether in the form of direct services or incentives to the private sector, is absolutely appropriate. This is not about beating up on big bad evil corporations. No corporation is inherently evil. But when bottom-line concerns trump the public good, such as when telcos' or cable providers' monopolistic practices actually stifle innovation and competition, government should step in to make sure business plays fairly (and competitively) and underserved communities get the services they deserve. The libertarians among us should be more concerned about large corporations stifling competition and innovation, which is what the Pennsylvania law does, than they should about taxpayer dollars going to support greater innovation and competition. -- Leif Utne Associate Editor, Utne Magazine 612.338.5040 x348 www.utne.com http://public.xdi.org/=Leif.Utne -- On Mar 1, 2005, at 1:22 PM, Jon Kerr wrote: > At the risk of further tiring some readers on this subject, I'd offer a > couple of points: > First, no one in Saint Paul at least has yet talked about a > municipally-run > system. We are talking about how to best develop and promte citywide, > affordable broadband access through whatever structure is feasible. It > could > be (exclusive or non-exclusive) franchising, a series of licenses for > different geographic or other service areas, lottery, I don't know. > But all options are very much on the table and ideas are appreciated. > Second, there are parts of Saint Paul that effectively have no DSL > option > and thus effectively no competition at the moment. It is hard to talk > about > the free market meeting needs in that climate. > Third, there are areas of our community whose needs have never been and > likely never will be met by the free market without some sort of > intervention or special effort. There really is a digital divide in > many of > our communities that starts with money (any yes, there really are > working > poor and those who are trying their best to find a better lifestyle to > whom > even $20 month is significant) but may also include language, > education, and > other factors. I would encourage any ISP owners to explain how they are > currently addressing or would be willing to voluntarily address this. > Finally, the mention of "phone service, cable TV, and cellular/pcs > services" is interesting. The fact is many of those services do > currently > have some access requirements. More importantly, they may very well > all soon > be delivered by wireless broadband - a tremendous opportunity for some > but > also a threat to some existing semi-monopolistic providers of those > services > who ironically are doing their best to block market adaptations. > No one wants to hurt small businesses in this sorting out period, > especially > this writer. Yet is it unreasonable for cities to hope to improve > services > and cut costs in these times when that's what everybody tells them they > don't want to pay more taxes? And is it unreasonable to hope we can > find a > way to create a non-balkanized, comprehensive broadband access system > that > lets everyone better appreciate the benefits of technological advances? > To answer "yes" certainly won't mean the end of life. But in my humble > opinion it will mean turning away from a potential improvement of > civic and > democratic interactions. And it will mean possibly accepting permanent > technological gulf between have's and have not's that ultimately > limits how > far the market can grow - thus limiting everybody's economic and other > opportunities. > But again, I welcome hearing alternative visions or proposals. > Jon Kerr > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jon Clark" > To: > Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2005 10:18 AM > Subject: [tcwug-list] Fwd: Defend Community Internet > > >> I agree with Matthew, primarily for the following reason: if you >> think you >> can make a case for government-run, free (or heavily subsidized) >> internet >> access, then why not endorse the same thing with (at least) phone >> service, >> cable TV, and cellular/pcs services? The only possible defense of this >> approach is if a particular area completely lacks and options for >> connectivity and no private provider will offer anything there. This >> approach would be a VERY difficult justification for urban St. Paul. >> >> You may not like your choices - Comcast, Qwest, Covad and perhaps a >> few >> others - but the fact is that you have choices. Lawrence Lessig's >> argument >> is hollow - he is implying that because the US didn't take the same > approach >> as many Asian countries (such as South Korea or Singapore, where >> average >> home broadband speeds are almost 10Mbit and proportionately cost less >> than > 1 >> MBit in the US), we are destined to wallow in Broadband purgatory and >> we >> need local and state governments to 'save' us from the evil, greedy >> corporations. >> >> Statements like 'free wireless access increases the value of public >> spaces >> just as, well, streetlamps do' - make me paint a mental picture of a >> whole >> park full of people tethered to some kind of small, portable device, > typing, >> browsing or yammering away with little sense of their surroundings. >> Do you >> think most people who would sit in a park to spend the entire time > browsing >> around on the internet even care they are sitting in a park? While my > sense >> of competitiveness tells me I would like bragging rights to cheap, >> ubiquitous and thorough wireless broadband coverage, I have to remind > myself >> that it is not VITAL to our existence in the global economy. >> >> Why do the cities want it? So they can have free, real-time database > lookups >> for their police forces' laptops as they ride around in their squads. > Great, >> what else? Is there something else *vital* to their core mission(s) >> that >> require that kind of access? >> >> Everyone has a different perspective, I understand this. Personally, I > have >> two a/b/g / bluetooth / 1xRTT enabled laptops, 4 cell phones (all with >> bluetooth and at least EDGE or 1XRTT), a blackberry (hacked for >> dial-up >> 1XRTT access over bluetooth), a Win Mobile 2003 smartphone with bt, > 802.11g >> and quad-band gsm/gprs/edge. I just finished deploying a/b/g wireless >> to a >> 70,000 square foot building that includes multiple SSID's, LEAP and >> QoS > for >> Cisco Wi-Fi phones (which are pretty slick, btw). But you know what? >> You >> have to unplug from time to time for your own sanity... >> >> Just my $0.02. >> >> -Jon >> jsclark@visi.com >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Matthew S. Hallacy" >> To: "Leif Utne" ; >> Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2005 1:36 AM >> Subject: Re: [tcwug-list] Fwd: Defend Community Internet >> >> >>> You know what guys, this is getting old. I happen to run a small >>> wireless ISP west of the cities, I'm on mailing lists full of people >>> who also run wireless ISP's. >>> >>> The government should not be competing against the private sector >>> 99.999% of the time, the Twin Cities area has more than sufficient >>> internet access options, and what is being proposed is a huge waste >>> of tax dollars. >>> >>> Broadband is $20/mo for DSL from companies like MSN, $42.95 for >>> faster >>> service from the likes of Comcast or RoadRunner. If you can't afford > that >>> then perhaps you need to GET A JOB, or visit the public library for >>> your >>> downloading needs. >>> >>> If St Paul really has issues with lack of "quality" broadband they > should >>> terminate their contract with comcast to run their cable network and > find >>> someone else that will do it to their liking. >>> >>> I challenge you all to consider what would happen to *your* job if >>> the >>> government came in and started using your own tax dollars to compete > with >>> you. >>> >>> And stop blaming the big bad monopolies, your local city council are >>> the >>> ones giving them free reign over the cable networks. Your state and >>> federal >>> goverments are the ones giving them corporate welfare that lets them >>> undercut >>> the prices of local competition, and YOU are the ones electing those >>> government officials. Blame yourself. >>> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Twin Cities Wireless Users Group Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, > Minnesota >> tcwug-list@tcwug.org >> http://mailman.tcwug.org/mailman/listinfo/tcwug-list > > > _______________________________________________ > Twin Cities Wireless Users Group Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, > Minnesota > tcwug-list@tcwug.org > http://mailman.tcwug.org/mailman/listinfo/tcwug-list > From chewie at wookimus.net Tue Mar 1 15:42:40 2005 From: chewie at wookimus.net (Chad Walstrom) Date: Tue Mar 1 15:48:49 2005 Subject: [tcwug-list] Fwd: Defend Community Internet In-Reply-To: <729BFB61-8A96-11D9-A415-000A95DB3176@utne.com> References: <001901c51c1e$d0146000$6800a8c0@opus.corp.root> <002a01c51e93$f3ec90c0$0701a8c0@jon8ccf99e8512> <729BFB61-8A96-11D9-A415-000A95DB3176@utne.com> Message-ID: <20050301214240.GA28121@wookimus.net> I just don't want to see any City try to legislate network infrastructure or try to prevent Community-based, free wireless solutions from happening. -- Chad Walstrom http://www.wookimus.net/ assert(expired(knowledge)); /* core dump */ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature Url : http://shadowknight.real-time.com/pipermail/tcwug-list/attachments/20050301/cf6b916d/attachment.pgp From esper at sherohman.org Tue Mar 1 16:21:49 2005 From: esper at sherohman.org (Dave Sherohman) Date: Tue Mar 1 16:32:15 2005 Subject: [tcwug-list] Fwd: Defend Community Internet In-Reply-To: <729BFB61-8A96-11D9-A415-000A95DB3176@utne.com> References: <001901c51c1e$d0146000$6800a8c0@opus.corp.root> <002a01c51e93$f3ec90c0$0701a8c0@jon8ccf99e8512> <729BFB61-8A96-11D9-A415-000A95DB3176@utne.com> Message-ID: <20050301222149.GI30159@sherohman.org> On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 03:11:15PM -0600, Leif Utne wrote: > Thanks for that post. It echoes my sentiments exactly. The digital > divide is a harsh reality, and a classic example of a market failure > where government action, whether in the form of direct services or > incentives to the private sector, is absolutely appropriate. > > This is not about beating up on big bad evil corporations. No > corporation is inherently evil. But when bottom-line concerns trump the > public good, such as when telcos' or cable providers' monopolistic > practices actually stifle innovation and competition, government should > step in to make sure business plays fairly (and competitively) and > underserved communities get the services they deserve. The libertarians > among us should be more concerned about large corporations stifling > competition and innovation, which is what the Pennsylvania law does, > than they should about taxpayer dollars going to support greater > innovation and competition. Oh, I dunno... I read that and the first thought to my head is, "And where did the telcos and cable providers get their monopolies?" Is it a true market failure if the problems are caused by a government- granted monopoly? -- The freedoms that we enjoy presently are the most important victories of the White Hats over the past several millennia, and it is vitally important that we don't give them up now, only because we are frightened. - Eolake Stobblehouse (http://stobblehouse.com/text/battle.html) From ben at nerp.net Tue Mar 1 16:57:48 2005 From: ben at nerp.net (Ben Kochie) Date: Tue Mar 1 17:03:50 2005 Subject: [tcwug-list] Fwd: Defend Community Internet In-Reply-To: <20050301222149.GI30159@sherohman.org> References: <001901c51c1e$d0146000$6800a8c0@opus.corp.root> <002a01c51e93$f3ec90c0$0701a8c0@jon8ccf99e8512> <729BFB61-8A96-11D9-A415-000A95DB3176@utne.com> <20050301222149.GI30159@sherohman.org> Message-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 this is why I see municipal broadband, both wifi AND fiber to the home stuff as a GREAT way for us to rid the bad monopolies like comcast and quest, and bring good service back to the network. The city builds out a good fiber optic infrastructure, this prevents the need for multiple privately owned network infrastructures. (cable, POTS copper, ricochet, etc) This network provides the perfect infrastructure for wifi. Using vlans, and QoS, they can partition the network, and allow private compnaies to provide the service endpoints of the network, phone, video, Internet, whatever. This solves the city problem of needing infrastructure at a reasonable cost to itself for it's services (fire, police, medical, utilities) And solves the Libertarian problem with municipal competition. The city need not be a services provider for Internet on the wifi/fiber. It also prevents the problem of businesses not providing for the "under services" areas of the city. The city builds the roads, the businesses provide the taxis. - -ben "Unix is user friendly, Its just picky about its friends." On Tue, 1 Mar 2005, Dave Sherohman wrote: > > Oh, I dunno... I read that and the first thought to my head is, "And > where did the telcos and cable providers get their monopolies?" Is > it a true market failure if the problems are caused by a government- > granted monopoly? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFCJPNvfYg2asD844oRAvg9AJ4wu5IH4rMAJlBUIxsJR9DlwgUIFwCgq0Vp n0j9RoWsHxayGMO69oC5o4k= =5x3M -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From skierbob360 at hotmail.com Tue Mar 1 17:27:41 2005 From: skierbob360 at hotmail.com (Bob Janisch) Date: Tue Mar 1 17:33:49 2005 Subject: [tcwug-list] Moving Message-ID: I don't live in the twincites any more and would appreciate it if you took me off your mailing list, Thank you Bob Janisch From josh at trutwins.homeip.net Tue Mar 1 19:15:37 2005 From: josh at trutwins.homeip.net (Josh Trutwin) Date: Tue Mar 1 19:18:53 2005 Subject: [tcwug-list] Moving In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20050301191537.0000464a@prokofiev> On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 17:27:41 -0600 "Bob Janisch" wrote: > I don't live in the twincites any more and would appreciate it if > you took me off your mailing list, See below: > Thank you > Bob Janisch > > > > _______________________________________________ > Twin Cities Wireless Users Group Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. > Paul, Minnesota tcwug-list@tcwug.org > http://mailman.tcwug.org/mailman/listinfo/tcwug-list Go to the above URL which is on all TCWUG messages - take yourself off. Also check your message headers - any well-managed ML has unsub/sub info in the headers: List-Id: Twin Cities Wireless Users Group List List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Josh From leif at utne.com Wed Mar 2 00:09:49 2005 From: leif at utne.com (Leif Utne) Date: Wed Mar 2 00:13:55 2005 Subject: [tcwug-list] Fwd: Defend Community Internet In-Reply-To: <20050301222149.GI30159@sherohman.org> References: <001901c51c1e$d0146000$6800a8c0@opus.corp.root> <002a01c51e93$f3ec90c0$0701a8c0@jon8ccf99e8512> <729BFB61-8A96-11D9-A415-000A95DB3176@utne.com> <20050301222149.GI30159@sherohman.org> Message-ID: On Mar 1, 2005, at 4:21 PM, Dave Sherohman wrote: > Oh, I dunno... I read that and the first thought to my head is, "And > where did the telcos and cable providers get their monopolies?" Is > it a true market failure if the problems are caused by a government- > granted monopoly? Yes, it is. But that's a fair question. There's no such thing as a truly free market anywhere on Earth. Every (legal) business in every market operates in a context of rules set up by governments. Sometimes those rules encourage private sector behavior that produces positive results for the community. But sometimes not. It's still the free market failing to meet everyone's needs -- with poor and marginalized communities usually bearing the brunt -- or failing to generate the innovation and competition that produce better services cheaper for more people -- as often happens with monopolies. Whether such market failures are the government's fault or the private sector's is pretty much moot. They happen. And government's job in those cases is to step in and try to address them by changing the rules and incentives that drive private sector behavior, or start providing those services directly. -- Leif Utne Associate Editor, Utne Magazine 612.338.5040 x348 www.utne.com http://public.xdi.org/=Leif.Utne -- From poptix at techmonkeys.org Wed Mar 2 02:16:41 2005 From: poptix at techmonkeys.org (Matthew S. Hallacy) Date: Wed Mar 2 02:23:53 2005 Subject: [tcwug-list] Fwd: Defend Community Internet In-Reply-To: <002a01c51e93$f3ec90c0$0701a8c0@jon8ccf99e8512> References: <001901c51c1e$d0146000$6800a8c0@opus.corp.root> <002a01c51e93$f3ec90c0$0701a8c0@jon8ccf99e8512> Message-ID: <20050302081641.GA10682@momentum.poptix.net> On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 01:22:00PM -0600, Jon Kerr wrote: > Second, there are parts of Saint Paul that effectively have no DSL option Broadband is not defined as DSL, there are various wireless internet providers in the cities already, as well as you know, that thing called cable. > and thus effectively no competition at the moment. It is hard to talk about > the free market meeting needs in that climate. The pricing is no different in those neighborhoods than it is in any other neighborhood where they do have competition. > Third, there are areas of our community whose needs have never been and > likely never will be met by the free market without some sort of > intervention or special effort. There really is a digital divide in many of > our communities that starts with money (any yes, there really are working > poor and those who are trying their best to find a better lifestyle to whom > even $20 month is significant) "Digital divide" makes me cringe almost as much as "cyclic dependancies", I know plenty of people who: a) Are "poor", but pay for broadband because they need or want it b) Are "rich", and use AOL dialup because it suits their needs, and the needs of their kids just fine c) Choose not to have internet at all, and use the computers at school or the local library (which we are already paying for via taxes) At what point did *broadband* become a necessity? You're advocating the subsidy of a Corvette when a Kia will get them there just as quickly. > And is it unreasonable to hope we can find a > way to create a non-balkanized, comprehensive broadband access system that > lets everyone better appreciate the benefits of technological advances? Along with welfare and social security reform, with a dash of public education reform. There are much better places that such money could be spent where it's needed instead of creating another poorly run cash cow. > To answer "yes" certainly won't mean the end of life. But in my humble > opinion it will mean turning away from a potential improvement of civic and > democratic interactions. And it will mean possibly accepting permanent > technological gulf between have's and have not's that ultimately limits how > far the market can grow - thus limiting everybody's economic and other > opportunities. Since they can't afford $20/mo for MSN DSL, and free dialup (juno, etc) is too slow, will you also be advocating that the city purchase new computers for everyone? The computers that the tcfreenet (only local .org I'm familiar with that hands out computers) gives out are generally not fast enough, nor are they equipped for anything other than dialup. From poptix at techmonkeys.org Wed Mar 2 03:17:45 2005 From: poptix at techmonkeys.org (Matthew S. Hallacy) Date: Wed Mar 2 03:23:53 2005 Subject: [tcwug-list] Re: Fwd: Defend Community Internet In-Reply-To: <4224D8CE.9050705@ringworld.org> References: <001901c51c1e$d0146000$6800a8c0@opus.corp.root> <002a01c51e93$f3ec90c0$0701a8c0@jon8ccf99e8512> <4224D8CE.9050705@ringworld.org> Message-ID: <20050302091745.GB10682@momentum.poptix.net> On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 05:04:14AM +0800, Scott Dier wrote: > This leaves me with two options, Qwest and Comcast. Comcast can not > provide me with a connection that has a legal agreement within a > reasonable price range. Qwest can, but at a much lower downlink speed > (1.5mbps vs. 4mbps) and a faster uplink speed (1mbps vs 384kbps.) My > Qwest bill is $58/month, but could be less if I didn't have 1 static IP > as $53/month. I don't think the working poor need legal agreements with SLA's. > 256kbps Internet is not broadband. I'm fairly sure there was some false > advertising lawsuits at some point on this issue. The FCC definition of broadband is 200 kbit/s (0.2Mb) in one direction, and advanced broadband is at least 200 kbit/s (0.2 Mb) in both directions > In any case, if you are a business owner and you feel like meddeling in > local politics without actually living or providing services to the > city, please find a real argument other than you have a business to run. I live in the cities (Inver Grove Heights, a hop skip away from St Paul), I work from home. > Even if you are providing services, ask yourself why the city thinks > they can get a muni running and doesn't it take a supermajority (65%) of > voters to get one started? If taxpayers are *willing* to pay on their > own local dollars to handle the problem, let them -- you messed up the > market by not being able to satisfy the customers. The people are lemmings, they see "wow, cheaper/free internet from the city! screw [comcast/qwest/msn/visi/real-time/whoever]" and do not consider the actual cost, or the reality that such a system will _not_ operate cleanly. > I've listed some communities below. The interesting thing would be to > go through and find all the broadband options for each community and the > cost/speed options Providers: A) Qwest Choice DSL and Internet Basic (256/256kbit) $24.99 B) Qwest Choice DSL MSN Premium (1.5mbit) $26.99/$31.99 C) Earthlink DSL (3mbit) $39.95 D) RoadRunner Cable (6mbit/768kbit) $44.95/? E) Comcast Cable (4mbit/384kbit) $42.95/$57.95 F) Comcast Cable (4mbit/384kbit) - Current Special $29.95/$29.95** *DSL/Cable products may require existing phone line or cable TV service, or an extra fee w/o them, indicated where known. Addresses were chosen at random using phone numbers/addresses from the web, "ghetto" addresses where possible. All prices are per-month after any signup specials have ended. ** Comcast has regular specials where you sign up for $x/mo and it stays $x/mo as long as you're a customer, they're currently running one that expires 3/31 > Minneapolis: > Median Income $37,974 > Family Median Income $48,602 > Per Capita Income $22,685 > Percent in Poverty 16.9% A, B, C, D > > St. Paul: > Median Income $38.774 > Family Median Income: $48,925 > Per Capita Income: $20,216 > Percent in Poverity: 15.6% A, B, C, E, F > > Coon Rapids: > Median Income: $55,550 > Family Median Income: $62,260 > Per Capita Income: $22,915 > Percent in Poverty: 4.8% A. C, E, F > Anoka: > Median Income: $42,659 > Family Median Income: $55,311 > Per Capita Income: $21,367 > Percent in Poverty: 6.8% A, B, C, E, F > Dayton: > Median Income: $66,875 > Family Median Income: $71,356 > Per Capita Income: $27,756 > Percent in Poverty: 2.7% Same as Anoka. > > Rogers: > Median Income: $73,143 > Family Median Income: $76,984 > Per Capita Income: $25,845 > Percent in Poverty: 1.8% E, F > > Maple Grove: > Median Income: $76,111 > Family Median Income: $81,873 > Per Capita Income: $30,544 > Percent in Poverty: 1.4% E, F I couldn't find an appropriate residential phone #/address pair to get DSL availability for Maple Grove. > > Edina: > Median Income: $66,019 > Family Median Income: $93,496 > Per Capita Income: $44,195 > Percent in Poverty: 3.3% A, B, C, D > > Blaine: > Median Income: $52,219 > Family Median Income: $63,831 > Per Capita Income: $22,777 > Percent in Poverty: 3.0% E, F I could have been more thorough, but it looks like poverty levels have nothing to do with service availability, only population density and relative "age" of an area (ie, places that were farm land 10 years ago). -- Matthew S. Hallacy FUBAR, LART, BOFH Certified http://www.poptix.net GPG public key 0x01938203 From poptix at techmonkeys.org Wed Mar 2 03:25:42 2005 From: poptix at techmonkeys.org (Matthew S. Hallacy) Date: Wed Mar 2 03:33:55 2005 Subject: [tcwug-list] Fwd: Defend Community Internet In-Reply-To: References: <001901c51c1e$d0146000$6800a8c0@opus.corp.root> <002a01c51e93$f3ec90c0$0701a8c0@jon8ccf99e8512> <729BFB61-8A96-11D9-A415-000A95DB3176@utne.com> <20050301222149.GI30159@sherohman.org> Message-ID: <20050302092542.GC10682@momentum.poptix.net> Ben, you should be ashamed. On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 04:57:48PM -0600, Ben Kochie wrote: > this is why I see municipal broadband, both wifi AND fiber to the home > stuff as a GREAT way for us to rid the bad monopolies like comcast and > quest, and bring good service back to the network. Oh, those big bad monopolies that have BOTH upgraded their service at no extra charge to the customer (Qwest went to 1.5mbit, Comcast went from 1.5 to 3mbit, and now from 3mbit to 4mbit without increasing pricing) > > The city builds out a good fiber optic infrastructure, this prevents the > need for multiple privately owned network infrastructures. (cable, POTS > copper, ricochet, etc) This network provides the perfect infrastructure > for wifi. > > Using vlans, and QoS, they can partition the network, and allow private > compnaies to provide the service endpoints of the network, phone, video, > Internet, whatever. Perhaps this is some deep dark secret, but most cities actually OWN THE LOCAL CABLE INFRASTRUCTURE. *YOU* elected the people who chose Comcast, RoadRunner, Charter, etc. to manage that infrastructure and provide services on it. It's possible (and quite easy!) to run multiple cable modem networks on the same coax (at different frequencies) and the cable is already in place. > > This solves the city problem of needing infrastructure at a reasonable > cost to itself for it's services (fire, police, medical, utilities) And > solves the Libertarian problem with municipal competition. The city need > not be a services provider for Internet on the wifi/fiber. It also > prevents the problem of businesses not providing for the "under services" > areas of the city. Again, it's already there, and it has been handed over to various companies to do what they wish with it. Perhaps you should be contacting your local city council or state representatives to promote a law that forces them to share the *existing* infrastructure before wasting money on yet another that will be abused in the same way. > > The city builds the roads, the businesses provide the taxis. Let's not bring the poor quality of Minnesota's roads into this. -- Matthew S. Hallacy FUBAR, LART, BOFH Certified http://www.poptix.net GPG public key 0x01938203 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://shadowknight.real-time.com/pipermail/tcwug-list/attachments/20050302/b86fd9a8/attachment.pgp From ben at nerp.net Wed Mar 2 09:05:47 2005 From: ben at nerp.net (Ben Kochie) Date: Wed Mar 2 09:08:56 2005 Subject: [tcwug-list] Fwd: Defend Community Internet In-Reply-To: <20050302092542.GC10682@momentum.poptix.net> References: <001901c51c1e$d0146000$6800a8c0@opus.corp.root> <002a01c51e93$f3ec90c0$0701a8c0@jon8ccf99e8512> <729BFB61-8A96-11D9-A415-000A95DB3176@utne.com> <20050301222149.GI30159@sherohman.org> <20050302092542.GC10682@momentum.poptix.net> Message-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > Ben, you should be ashamed. > > On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 04:57:48PM -0600, Ben Kochie wrote: >> this is why I see municipal broadband, both wifi AND fiber to the home >> stuff as a GREAT way for us to rid the bad monopolies like comcast and >> quest, and bring good service back to the network. > > Oh, those big bad monopolies that have BOTH upgraded their service at > no extra charge to the customer (Qwest went to 1.5mbit, Comcast went from > 1.5 to 3mbit, and now from 3mbit to 4mbit without increasing pricing) HA! Are you KIDDING? "upgraded to 1.5mbit" is a joke, their infrastructure has supported those speeds since they've had G.DMT. The only thing they have done was lower their insane prices to slightly less than insane. The same thing goes for the cable companies, the capacity has always been there, they just bumped up the limits to LOOK like they were doing improvements. At the same time they enact restrictions to limit what you can download.. You of all people should know better. >> The city builds out a good fiber optic infrastructure, this prevents the >> need for multiple privately owned network infrastructures. (cable, POTS >> copper, ricochet, etc) This network provides the perfect infrastructure >> for wifi. >> >> Using vlans, and QoS, they can partition the network, and allow private >> compnaies to provide the service endpoints of the network, phone, video, >> Internet, whatever. > > Perhaps this is some deep dark secret, but most cities actually OWN THE LOCAL > CABLE INFRASTRUCTURE. *YOU* elected the people who chose Comcast, RoadRunner, > Charter, etc. to manage that infrastructure and provide services on it. It's > possible (and quite easy!) to run multiple cable modem networks on the same > coax (at different frequencies) and the cable is already in place. Nope.. you're wrong, the city of saint paul sold off the cable infrastructure 20 years ago. Most of the other cities did as well. Cable was supposed to be the public infrastructure of the future, the plan was to have a bi-directional network of data, and it ended up being a one-way broadcast in a tube. I guess the people who came up with the cable network were just a victim of being 20 years ahead of the Internet. >> This solves the city problem of needing infrastructure at a reasonable >> cost to itself for it's services (fire, police, medical, utilities) And >> solves the Libertarian problem with municipal competition. The city need >> not be a services provider for Internet on the wifi/fiber. It also >> prevents the problem of businesses not providing for the "under services" >> areas of the city. > > Again, it's already there, and it has been handed over to various companies > to do what they wish with it. Perhaps you should be contacting your local > city council or state representatives to promote a law that forces them > to share the *existing* infrastructure before wasting money on yet another > that will be abused in the same way. I don't see it, and that is one thing I have talked to reps about. Most of what I've heard from the city of minneapolis is they have some fiber, but nothing that comes close to servicing residential use, only city building infrastructure. >> The city builds the roads, the businesses provide the taxis. > > Let's not bring the poor quality of Minnesota's roads into this. you havn't seen poor quality roads till you drive in the bay area. MnDoT is amazing compared to the stupidity of CalTrans. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFCJdZNfYg2asD844oRAvG9AJ9s8/b3A4WkI/aZOwvGgkLqGRI+ewCeNhE4 OZk0ouDUnewuTt9NNrUC0Kw= =mRod -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From ben at nerp.net Wed Mar 2 09:20:03 2005 From: ben at nerp.net (Ben Kochie) Date: Wed Mar 2 09:23:55 2005 Subject: [tcwug-list] Re: Fwd: Defend Community Internet In-Reply-To: <20050302091745.GB10682@momentum.poptix.net> References: <001901c51c1e$d0146000$6800a8c0@opus.corp.root> <002a01c51e93$f3ec90c0$0701a8c0@jon8ccf99e8512> <4224D8CE.9050705@ringworld.org> <20050302091745.GB10682@momentum.poptix.net> Message-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 You toaly ignore the $8-10 in "regulator fees" that are basicaly a way of passing the buck to the customer, and hiding the real cost of services. > Providers: > > A) Qwest Choice DSL and Internet Basic (256/256kbit) $24.99 This now becomes $33, don't have a home phone line, add another $5 $38/month > B) Qwest Choice DSL MSN Premium (1.5mbit) $26.99/$31.99 Wrong again, $39.99 + fees = $48/month no phone line = $52/month > C) Earthlink DSL (3mbit) $39.95 No, $39.95 only includes 1.5Mbps service, 3mbit is $44.95 Not to mention this is totaly useless because it's not available on RTs I don't know what they tack on for fees. > D) RoadRunner Cable (6mbit/768kbit) $44.95/? Don't forget fees. This is over $50/month Oh.. you don't have Cable TV.. tack on another $10, over $60/month > E) Comcast Cable (4mbit/384kbit) $42.95/$57.95 > F) Comcast Cable (4mbit/384kbit) - Current Special $29.95/$29.95** Same thing here, after your "special" 2 months, it goes up to $43, add fees to $50, and > $60 if you don't have Cable TV. There is not an option on your list that will truely be less than $35/month You're ignoring the details matt. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFCJdmmfYg2asD844oRAuH0AJ9Ftvrrgo3EuEvZvelyco4JLlR6MQCbB4XK 47P5H9yoZzFLoQezmIjQt+Q= =HK3U -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From andyw at pobox.com Wed Mar 2 09:46:27 2005 From: andyw at pobox.com (Andy Warner) Date: Wed Mar 2 09:48:55 2005 Subject: [tcwug-list] Re: Fwd: Defend Community Internet In-Reply-To: ; from ben@nerp.net on Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 09:20:03AM -0600 References: <001901c51c1e$d0146000$6800a8c0@opus.corp.root> <002a01c51e93$f3ec90c0$0701a8c0@jon8ccf99e8512> <4224D8CE.9050705@ringworld.org> <20050302091745.GB10682@momentum.poptix.net> Message-ID: <20050302094627.I18615@florence.linkmargin.com> While avoiding getting dragged into this brawl, I'd like to offer one minor factual correction: Ben Kochie wrote: > [...] > > D) RoadRunner Cable (6mbit/768kbit) $44.95/? > > Don't forget fees. This is over $50/month > > Oh.. you don't have Cable TV.. tack on another $10, over $60/month I don't have cable TV, and my RoadRunner bill's bottom line is $44.95/mo. Still more than $35/mo, but not $60. -- andyw@pobox.com Andy Warner Voice: (612) 801-8549 Fax: (208) 575-5634 From ben at nerp.net Wed Mar 2 10:02:22 2005 From: ben at nerp.net (Ben Kochie) Date: Wed Mar 2 10:08:54 2005 Subject: [tcwug-list] Re: Fwd: Defend Community Internet In-Reply-To: <20050302094627.I18615@florence.linkmargin.com> References: <001901c51c1e$d0146000$6800a8c0@opus.corp.root> <002a01c51e93$f3ec90c0$0701a8c0@jon8ccf99e8512> <4224D8CE.9050705@ringworld.org> <20050302091745.GB10682@momentum.poptix.net> <20050302094627.I18615@florence.linkmargin.com> Message-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 thanks for the correction.. can you post the service line items? It's always interesting to see what they tack on. Do you rent or own the modem? (that used to be a $10/month item, now it's less) I guess the thing that really bugs me about broadband access prices, is that dialup is still a valid form of "cheap internet access" - -ben "Unix is user friendly, Its just picky about its friends." On Wed, 2 Mar 2005, Andy Warner wrote: > While avoiding getting dragged into this brawl, I'd like > to offer one minor factual correction: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFCJeORfYg2asD844oRAk1yAJ9yR44mIgDmiRcQAtMO9VwFxR9BSQCgo/YJ zrQVt89rJ0seIbjdgqiYc4U= =4HgJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From andyw at pobox.com Wed Mar 2 10:29:03 2005 From: andyw at pobox.com (Andy Warner) Date: Wed Mar 2 10:33:57 2005 Subject: [tcwug-list] Re: Fwd: Defend Community Internet In-Reply-To: ; from ben@nerp.net on Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 10:02:22AM -0600 References: <001901c51c1e$d0146000$6800a8c0@opus.corp.root> <002a01c51e93$f3ec90c0$0701a8c0@jon8ccf99e8512> <4224D8CE.9050705@ringworld.org> <20050302091745.GB10682@momentum.poptix.net> <20050302094627.I18615@florence.linkmargin.com> Message-ID: <20050302102903.K18615@florence.linkmargin.com> Ben Kochie wrote: > thanks for the correction.. can you post the service line items? It's > always interesting to see what they tack on. Do you rent or own the > modem? (that used to be a $10/month item, now it's less) Road Runner Residential Service................................. 44.95 Your Package Price........................................... 44.95 Total Monthly Service............................................44.95 Total Due........................................................44.95 I don't remember RR ever charging for the modem, I know Comcast did (or did the inverse - gave a discount for not having to provide one.) A few years ago, RR botched a firmware upload to the 3Com modems in my area, and they replaced it with a Toshiba without so much as a peep. > I guess the thing that really bugs me about broadband access prices, is > that dialup is still a valid form of "cheap internet access" I'm going to stick to my role as a fact-hound and continue to keep my opinions to myself (for once in my life.) I am enjoying watching from the peanut gallery, though. -- andyw@pobox.com Andy Warner Voice: (612) 801-8549 Fax: (208) 575-5634 From mellswor at well.com Wed Mar 2 10:44:21 2005 From: mellswor at well.com (Mike Ellsworth) Date: Wed Mar 2 10:53:58 2005 Subject: [tcwug-list] Re: Fwd: Defend Community Internet In-Reply-To: <20050302102903.K18615@florence.linkmargin.com> Message-ID: I used to pay $3 for my modem when I had RoadRunner. I changed the ISP to Earthlink and they "gave" me the modem RR had installed. Plus they were cheaper. Plus they just "upgraded" my download speed to 5MB. However, Earthlink has a disturbing provision in their legal agreement: I am prohibited from using a VoIP provider other than Earthlink. And their VoIP service is fairly expensive. Mike Ellsworth The WiMAX Guys, LLC StratVantage Consulting, LLC 952-525-1584 mellsworth@stratvantage.com www.StratVantage.com www.TheWiMAXGuys.com Get a free one-hour wireless network evaluation. Forward this message to freebie@theWiMAXGuys.com "The freedom which we enjoy in our government extends also to our ordinary life. There, far from exercising a jealous surveillance over each other, we do not feel called upon to be angry with our neighbor for doing what he likes." Pericles, 431 B.C. -----Original Message----- From: tcwug-list-bounces@tcwug.org [mailto:tcwug-list-bounces@tcwug.org] On Behalf Of Andy Warner Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 10:29 AM To: tcwug-list@tcwug.org Subject: Re: [tcwug-list] Re: Fwd: Defend Community Internet Ben Kochie wrote: > thanks for the correction.. can you post the service line items? It's > always interesting to see what they tack on. Do you rent or own the > modem? (that used to be a $10/month item, now it's less) Road Runner Residential Service................................. 44.95 Your Package Price........................................... 44.95 Total Monthly Service............................................44.95 Total Due........................................................44.95 I don't remember RR ever charging for the modem, I know Comcast did (or did the inverse - gave a discount for not having to provide one.) A few years ago, RR botched a firmware upload to the 3Com modems in my area, and they replaced it with a Toshiba without so much as a peep. > I guess the thing that really bugs me about broadband access prices, is > that dialup is still a valid form of "cheap internet access" I'm going to stick to my role as a fact-hound and continue to keep my opinions to myself (for once in my life.) I am enjoying watching from the peanut gallery, though. -- andyw@pobox.com Andy Warner Voice: (612) 801-8549 Fax: (208) 575-5634 _______________________________________________ Twin Cities Wireless Users Group Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota tcwug-list@tcwug.org http://mailman.tcwug.org/mailman/listinfo/tcwug-list --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.859 / Virus Database: 585 - Release Date: 2/14/2005 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.859 / Virus Database: 585 - Release Date: 2/14/2005 From chris at feyen.net Wed Mar 2 10:52:51 2005 From: chris at feyen.net (Chris) Date: Wed Mar 2 11:02:31 2005 Subject: [tcwug-list] Re: Fwd: Defend Community Internet In-Reply-To: <20050302094627.I18615@florence.linkmargin.com> Message-ID: <003d01c51f48$47171a90$aad911ac@NA.compassgroup.corp> andyw@pobox.com wrote: > I don't have cable TV, and my RoadRunner bill's bottom line is $44.95/mo. I live in Coon Rapids, and have Comcast as my provider. I pay $43.00 a month for broadband, I have cable TV and phone as well, so what I pay is about what you pay, even after my discount. Is RoadRunner available in Coon Rapids? The last time I checked, if I wanted the speed of cable internet access, I had to go to the 'one' provider. Chris From mellswor at well.com Wed Mar 2 11:02:29 2005 From: mellswor at well.com (Mike Ellsworth) Date: Wed Mar 2 11:13:56 2005 Subject: [tcwug-list] Re: Fwd: Defend Community Internet Message-ID: Scott Dier wrote: >There is stonebridge, but they will not service areas that they do not recieve a >'USDA/Rural Utility Services' loan for with residental service, it seems. Stonebridge serves Edina. Mike Ellsworth The WiMAX Guys, LLC StratVantage Consulting, LLC 952-525-1584 mellsworth@stratvantage.com www.StratVantage.com www.TheWiMAXGuys.com Get a free one-hour wireless network evaluation. Forward this message to freebie@theWiMAXGuys.com "The freedom which we enjoy in our government extends also to our ordinary life. There, far from exercising a jealous surveillance over each other, we do not feel called upon to be angry with our neighbor for doing what he likes." Pericles, 431 B.C. -----Original Message----- From: tcwug-list-bounces@tcwug.org [mailto:tcwug-list-bounces@tcwug.org] On Behalf Of Scott Dier Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2005 3:04 PM To: tcwug-list@tcwug.org Subject: [tcwug-list] Re: Fwd: Defend Community Internet Jon Kerr wrote: >Second, there are parts of Saint Paul that effectively have no DSL option >and thus effectively no competition at the moment. It is hard to talk about >the free market meeting needs in that climate. > > Hell, ever since the market downturn in the telecom industry even many non-rich subarban areas have not had much for improvements. Qwest has finally equipped many RT's with DSL service, at least. But, facilities based clec's have not expanded and I do not expect them ever to get back to their plans of expanding. The possibility of UNE going away completely (has it yet) also is going to make this a non-starter for most enterprises serving residental customers. Plus, since UNE is near impossible from RT's I really doubt we will be seeing a CLEC in this area anytime soon. This leaves me with two options, Qwest and Comcast. Comcast can not provide me with a connection that has a legal agreement within a reasonable price range. Qwest can, but at a much lower downlink speed (1.5mbps vs. 4mbps) and a faster uplink speed (1mbps vs 384kbps.) My Qwest bill is $58/month, but could be less if I didn't have 1 static IP as $53/month. Qwest is not expanding much, they merely do not have the cash for investments at this point -- this is why we hear about FTTH in verizon and sbc land and not here. We got screwed by a dot bomb company that was lucky enough to pump their stock to buy an ILEC. MCI is trying to stop that from happening -- they are willing to take far less cash (nearly $2bil less) than stock. 256kbps Internet is not broadband. I'm fairly sure there was some false advertising lawsuits at some point on this issue. We've seen attempts at wireless services with ricochet -- which failed. There is stonebridge, but they will not service areas that they do not recieve a 'USDA/Rural Utility Services' loan for with residental service, it seems. That sure sounds like government subsidy. Is that a waste of my tax dollar? HSPDA and WiMAX both might start gate crashing the parade of unlicensed services. Many of the cell phone companies have cash laying around in wait to purchase spectrum and upgrade equipment. They will be a part of our landscape in the near (5 year?) future. At this point I think they have the best chance of addressing the monopoly, but they are not coming tomorrow, either. In any case, if you are a business owner and you feel like meddeling in local politics without actually living or providing services to the city, please find a real argument other than you have a business to run. Even if you are providing services, ask yourself why the city thinks they can get a muni running and doesn't it take a supermajority (65%) of voters to get one started? If taxpayers are *willing* to pay on their own local dollars to handle the problem, let them -- you messed up the market by not being able to satisfy the customers. I see these arguments often in the transit space, many other people want to tell Anoka county that it can't raise taxes on its own taxpayers to help pay for important transportation improvements. The residents voted these people in to make sure this improvement happens. If you don't want the county or city to make improvements with their own money from voting taxpayers who *agree*, get out of the way. If you are in the city and are against it, vote against the proposal. It's fairly simple. >Third, there are areas of our community whose needs have never been and >likely never will be met by the free market without some sort of >intervention or special effort. There really is a digital divide in many of >our communities that starts with money (any yes, there really are working >poor and those who are trying their best to find a better lifestyle to whom >even $20 month is significant) but may also include language, education, and > > I've listed some communities below. The interesting thing would be to go through and find all the broadband options for each community and the cost/speed options. Much of it has more to do with what local monopoly you are stuck with, and not how much money is there. I just don't see communications companies interested in investing right now. It is interesting to note that aside from Minneapolis, St. Paul, and Anoka that none are above 5%. Also, the relatively invisible poor in some of the ivory tower suburbs make the point harder to digest for some, I think. (ie: the GET A JOB attitude) Minneapolis: Median Income $37,974 Family Median Income $48,602 Per Capita Income $22,685 Percent in Poverty 16.9% St. Paul: Median Income $38.774 Family Median Income: $48,925 Per Capita Income: $20,216 Percent in Poverity: 15.6% Coon Rapids: Median Income: $55,550 Family Median Income: $62,260 Per Capita Income: $22,915 Percent in Poverty: 4.8% Anoka: Median Income: $42,659 Family Median Income: $55,311 Per Capita Income: $21,367 Percent in Poverty: 6.8% Dayton: Median Income: $66,875 Family Median Income: $71,356 Per Capita Income: $27,756 Percent in Poverty: 2.7% Rogers: Median Income: $73,143 Family Median Income: $76,984 Per Capita Income: $25,845 Percent in Poverty: 1.8% Maple Grove: Median Income: $76,111 Family Median Income: $81,873 Per Capita Income: $30,544 Percent in Poverty: 1.4% Edina: Median Income: $66,019 Family Median Income: $93,496 Per Capita Income: $44,195 Percent in Poverty: 3.3% Blaine: Median Income: $52,219 Family Median Income: $63,831 Per Capita Income: $22,777 Percent in Poverty: 3.0% -- Scott Dier KC0OBS http://www.ringworld.org/ _______________________________________________ Twin Cities Wireless Users Group Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota tcwug-list@tcwug.org http://mailman.tcwug.org/mailman/listinfo/tcwug-list --- Incoming mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.859 / Virus Database: 585 - Release Date: 2/14/2005 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.859 / Virus Database: 585 - Release Date: 2/14/2005 --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.859 / Virus Database: 585 - Release Date: 2/14/2005 From earl at jarosh.org Wed Mar 2 12:02:03 2005 From: earl at jarosh.org (S. Earl Jarosh) Date: Wed Mar 2 12:13:40 2005 Subject: [tcwug-list] Defend lower cost Internet References: <001901c51c1e$d0146000$6800a8c0@opus.corp.root><002a01c51e93$f3ec90c0$0701a8c0@jon8ccf99e8512><4224D8CE.9050705@ringworld.org><20050302091745.GB10682@momentum.poptix.net><20050302094627.I18615@florence.linkmargin.com> <20050302102903.K18615@florence.linkmargin.com> Message-ID: <00b701c51f51$f0e504c0$a50e000a@D32B5L01> So I am Golden Valley, monopolized by Comcast and I don't do cable TV or digital Telco. DSL would be very slow as I am on fringes of the longest loop with bad wire pairs so DSL is out of the picture. I currently pay: Monthly charges: Modem Rental.............................. 3.00 High Speed Internet Svc............... 57.95 Subtotal........................................ 60.95 Taxes & Fees Sales Tax...................................... .20 Monthly Balence Due.................... 61.15 Any recomendations on how to lower that cost. S. Earl Jarosh (ex. Steve?) N0HZ (ex. KA0VYB) No Hertz, No Gain earl@jarosh.org 6128681313@mobile.att.net searljarosh@moneycenters.com www.moneycenters.com ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andy Warner" To: Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 10:29 AM Subject: Re: [tcwug-list] Re: Fwd: Defend Community Internet > Ben Kochie wrote: > > thanks for the correction.. can you post the service line items? It's > > always interesting to see what they tack on. Do you rent or own the > > modem? (that used to be a $10/month item, now it's less) > > Road Runner Residential Service................................. 44.95 > Your Package Price........................................... 44.95 > Total Monthly Service............................................44.95 > > Total Due........................................................44.95 > > I don't remember RR ever charging for the modem, I know Comcast > did (or did the inverse - gave a discount for not having to provide > one.) A few years ago, RR botched a firmware upload to the 3Com > modems in my area, and they replaced it with a Toshiba without > so much as a peep. > From poptix at techmonkeys.org Wed Mar 2 11:46:58 2005 From: poptix at techmonkeys.org (Matthew S. Hallacy) Date: Wed Mar 2 12:13:45 2005 Subject: [tcwug-list] Re: Fwd: Defend Community Internet In-Reply-To: References: <001901c51c1e$d0146000$6800a8c0@opus.corp.root> <002a01c51e93$f3ec90c0$0701a8c0@jon8ccf99e8512> <4224D8CE.9050705@ringworld.org> <20050302091745.GB10682@momentum.poptix.net> Message-ID: <20050302174658.GE10682@momentum.poptix.net> On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 09:20:03AM -0600, Ben Kochie wrote: > You toaly ignore the $8-10 in "regulator fees" that are basicaly a way of > passing the buck to the customer, and hiding the real cost of services. > > > Providers: > > > > A) Qwest Choice DSL and Internet Basic (256/256kbit) $24.99 > > This now becomes $33, don't have a home phone line, add another $5 > > $38/month > > > B) Qwest Choice DSL MSN Premium (1.5mbit) $26.99/$31.99 > > Wrong again, $39.99 + fees = $48/month > > no phone line = $52/month I will post Qwest info as soon as their qualification page is back up. > > C) Earthlink DSL (3mbit) $39.95 > > No, $39.95 only includes 1.5Mbps service, 3mbit is $44.95 > > Not to mention this is totaly useless because it's not available on RTs > > I don't know what they tack on for fees. Wrong.. http://poptix.net/earthlink.png FYI, the 'up to 3mbits*' is the standard 'speeds may vary' disclaimer, the * is not on the price, it clearly states the 'thereafter' price. > > > D) RoadRunner Cable (6mbit/768kbit) $44.95/? > > Don't forget fees. This is over $50/month > > Oh.. you don't have Cable TV.. tack on another $10, over $60/month Sorry, wrong again.. view the other responses in this thread. > > E) Comcast Cable (4mbit/384kbit) $42.95/$57.95 > > F) Comcast Cable (4mbit/384kbit) - Current Special $29.95/$29.95** > > Same thing here, after your "special" 2 months, it goes up to $43, add > fees to $50, and > $60 if you don't have Cable TV. Yawn. http://poptix.net/comcast1.png http://poptix.net/comcast2.png http://poptix.net/comcast3.png Yes, there is a $5 fee if you use their cable modem, spend $40 on a cable modem and avoid the fee. I found all of these through the isp search tools on dslreports.com and broadbandnational.com > There is not an option on your list that will truely be less than > $35/month > > You're ignoring the details matt. You seem to be looking at data that is over a year old. Where's your proof? -- Matthew S. Hallacy FUBAR, LART, BOFH Certified http://www.poptix.net GPG public key 0x01938203 From poptix at techmonkeys.org Wed Mar 2 12:01:53 2005 From: poptix at techmonkeys.org (Matthew S. Hallacy) Date: Wed Mar 2 12:13:50 2005 Subject: [tcwug-list] Fwd: Defend Community Internet In-Reply-To: References: <001901c51c1e$d0146000$6800a8c0@opus.corp.root> <002a01c51e93$f3ec90c0$0701a8c0@jon8ccf99e8512> <729BFB61-8A96-11D9-A415-000A95DB3176@utne.com> <20050301222149.GI30159@sherohman.org> <20050302092542.GC10682@momentum.poptix.net> Message-ID: <20050302180153.GF10682@momentum.poptix.net> On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 09:05:47AM -0600, Ben Kochie wrote: > > HA! Are you KIDDING? "upgraded to 1.5mbit" is a joke, their > infrastructure has supported those speeds since they've had G.DMT. The > only thing they have done was lower their insane prices to slightly less > than insane. > > The same thing goes for the cable companies, the capacity has always been > there, they just bumped up the limits to LOOK like they were doing > improvements. > No, the DSL upgrades required infrastructure upgrades on both DSL and Cable sides. On the cable side the bandwidth *wasn't* there, they had to upgrade to DOCSIS 1.1 and QAM256 service (which meant replacing a LOT of modems that MediaOne/AT&T handed out years ago) The cost of bandwidth also went down, which allowed them to offer more bandwidth at the same cost. You of all people on this list should know that bandwidth isn't free, or necessarily cheap. > At the same time they enact restrictions to limit what you can download.. > You of all people should know better. Such as? Do you think that a government owned network is going to have a ToS that allows you to download child pornography and copyrighted materials? Those are pretty much the only things Comcast disallows. http://www.comcast.net/terms/use.jsp > Nope.. you're wrong, the city of saint paul sold off the cable > infrastructure 20 years ago. Most of the other cities did as well. That was rather stupid of them, but what do you expect? Inver Grove Heights (the city I live in) still owns their cable network, on one of the public access channels it regularly broadcasts a PSA asking that anyone having *any* problems with their cable (from a customer service standpoint) contact the city. > > Again, it's already there, and it has been handed over to various companies > > to do what they wish with it. Perhaps you should be contacting your local > > city council or state representatives to promote a law that forces them > > to share the *existing* infrastructure before wasting money on yet another > > that will be abused in the same way. > > I don't see it, and that is one thing I have talked to reps about. Most > of what I've heard from the city of minneapolis is they have some fiber, > but nothing that comes close to servicing residential use, only city > building infrastructure. Obviously they do not have fiber in the ground to every home waiting to be plugged in. They do already have what I would consider a large fiber deployment that goes to the scattered government buildings. > >> The city builds the roads, the businesses provide the taxis. > > > > Let's not bring the poor quality of Minnesota's roads into this. > > you havn't seen poor quality roads till you drive in the bay area. MnDoT > is amazing compared to the stupidity of CalTrans. Yeah, StarTrib reported that by 2030 MN DoT will have all of the 494/694 loop up to (at minimum) a whopping three lanes! Way to plan for.. 5 years ago. But that's another thread waiting to happen on another list. -- Matthew S. Hallacy FUBAR, LART, BOFH Certified http://www.poptix.net GPG public key 0x01938203 From chris at feyen.net Wed Mar 2 12:34:12 2005 From: chris at feyen.net (Chris) Date: Wed Mar 2 12:43:57 2005 Subject: [tcwug-list] Defend lower cost Internet In-Reply-To: <00b701c51f51$f0e504c0$a50e000a@D32B5L01> Message-ID: <004501c51f56$6f69cb60$aad911ac@NA.compassgroup.corp> > -----Original Message----- > From: tcwug-list-bounces@tcwug.org > [mailto:tcwug-list-bounces@tcwug.org]On Behalf Of S. Earl Jarosh > Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2005 12:02 PM > To: Andy Warner; tcwug-list@tcwug.org > Subject: [tcwug-list] Defend lower cost Internet > > > So I am Golden Valley, monopolized by Comcast and I don't do > cable TV or > digital Telco. DSL would be very slow as I am on fringes of > the longest loop > with bad wire pairs so DSL is out of the picture. I'm in the same boat. I actually switched to DSL, only to find out my top speed was 256 because I was too far away from the local telco From poptix at techmonkeys.org Wed Mar 2 12:35:13 2005 From: poptix at techmonkeys.org (Matthew S. Hallacy) Date: Wed Mar 2 12:44:00 2005 Subject: [tcwug-list] Defend lower cost Internet In-Reply-To: <00b701c51f51$f0e504c0$a50e000a@D32B5L01> References: <20050302102903.K18615@florence.linkmargin.com> <00b701c51f51$f0e504c0$a50e000a@D32B5L01> Message-ID: <20050302183513.GG10682@momentum.poptix.net> On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 12:02:03PM -0600, S. Earl Jarosh wrote: > So I am Golden Valley, monopolized by Comcast and I don't do cable TV or > digital Telco. DSL would be very slow as I am on fringes of the longest loop > with bad wire pairs so DSL is out of the picture. > > I currently pay: > > Monthly charges: > Modem Rental.............................. 3.00 > High Speed Internet Svc............... 57.95 > Subtotal........................................ 60.95 > Taxes & Fees > Sales Tax...................................... .20 > > Monthly Balence Due.................... 61.15 > > Any recomendations on how to lower that cost. > > S. Earl Jarosh (ex. Steve?) > N0HZ (ex. KA0VYB) No Hertz, No Gain > earl@jarosh.org > 6128681313@mobile.att.net > searljarosh@moneycenters.com > www.moneycenters.com Call and order basic cable(*), which costs $8.41/mo and qualifies as a second comcast service, which takes $15 off your cable internet ($42.95/mo base rate for existing customers) If you spend $20-30 on a cable modem (ebay) that will take another $3 off your bill. That would make your monthly bill around $51.36 plus 50 cents tax or so, and you get the local TV stations (even if you don't want/need it) Thanks for posting your bill by the way, it appears that you're hit with a whopping $.20 in evil added fees and surcharges by the big bad monopoly! (*) Don't let them talk you into digital cable, make it very clear that you want basic analog cable for $8.41/mo. You can find the details here: https://www.comcast.com/Localization/default.asp?Referer=/Buyflow/default.ashx -- Matthew S. Hallacy FUBAR, LART, BOFH Certified http://www.poptix.net GPG public key 0x01938203 From ben at nerp.net Wed Mar 2 13:16:42 2005 From: ben at nerp.net (Ben Kochie) Date: Wed Mar 2 13:23:57 2005 Subject: [tcwug-list] Re: Fwd: Defend Community Internet In-Reply-To: <20050302174658.GE10682@momentum.poptix.net> References: <001901c51c1e$d0146000$6800a8c0@opus.corp.root> <002a01c51e93$f3ec90c0$0701a8c0@jon8ccf99e8512> <4224D8CE.9050705@ringworld.org> <20050302091745.GB10682@momentum.poptix.net> <20050302174658.GE10682@momentum.poptix.net> Message-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I was going by Earthlink's pricing page: http://www.earthlink.net/highspeed/pricing/ Option 1: Regular monthly rate (after introductory period): $39.95/month: 1.5Mbps service (2 year averaged $35) $44.95/month: 3.0Mbps service (2 year averaged $38) Option 2: Regular monthly rate (after introductory period): $39.95/month Of course, I don't have any idea what the regulatory fees and taxes are on earthlink DSL. I checked availablily for some addresses in Shoreview, no 3mb service availalble. I don't have a POTS line in Saint Paul to check. Earthlink also limits uploads to 128kbps, which would be very painfull if you ever want to upload 4+ mpixel photos. Cable: Ok.. they have a special going on for non-cable-tv people. Price is still $33/month plus regulatory fees. - -ben "Unix is user friendly, Its just picky about its friends." -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFCJhEcfYg2asD844oRAkqnAJ4uDzxJ8k18/9iA8OdigdkZw394WQCgoC64 PQVZqSWeybgt8YekZs179mE= =qZqp -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From ben at nerp.net Wed Mar 2 13:20:52 2005 From: ben at nerp.net (Ben Kochie) Date: Wed Mar 2 13:25:34 2005 Subject: [tcwug-list] Fwd: Defend Community Internet In-Reply-To: <20050302180153.GF10682@momentum.poptix.net> References: <001901c51c1e$d0146000$6800a8c0@opus.corp.root> <002a01c51e93$f3ec90c0$0701a8c0@jon8ccf99e8512> <729BFB61-8A96-11D9-A415-000A95DB3176@utne.com> <20050301222149.GI30159@sherohman.org> <20050302092542.GC10682@momentum.poptix.net> <20050302180153.GF10682@momentum.poptix.net> Message-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 >> At the same time they enact restrictions to limit what you can download.. >> You of all people should know better. > > Such as? Do you think that a government owned network is going to have a ToS > that allows you to download child pornography and copyrighted > materials? Those are pretty much the only things Comcast disallows. > > http://www.comcast.net/terms/use.jsp I was talking about bandwidth limits, not ToS. >> Nope.. you're wrong, the city of saint paul sold off the cable >> infrastructure 20 years ago. Most of the other cities did as well. > > That was rather stupid of them, but what do you expect? > yep.. I agree.. a very dumb move, and many many cities are now stuck with crappy cable providers. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFCJhIYfYg2asD844oRAqG5AKCLMV0asP1o4vIldbizEHh6zSipCACeNyL3 UHiiF1F6FLYPyRYrm/PkCi8= =mpAm -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From ben at nerp.net Wed Mar 2 13:53:16 2005 From: ben at nerp.net (Ben Kochie) Date: Wed Mar 2 13:59:02 2005 Subject: [tcwug-list] Qwest DSL breakdown In-Reply-To: References: <001901c51c1e$d0146000$6800a8c0@opus.corp.root> <002a01c51e93$f3ec90c0$0701a8c0@jon8ccf99e8512> <4224D8CE.9050705@ringworld.org> <20050302091745.GB10682@momentum.poptix.net> <20050302174658.GE10682@momentum.poptix.net> Message-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Ok.. here is the breakdown for my DSL bill: CHOICE DSL 1.5M STANDALONE $33.00 ($5 is for standalone DSL, no phone line) FEDERAL UNIVERSAL SERV FUND PRIVATE LINE $3.53 STATE TAX $2.37 Bottom Line: $39.08 This of course does not include ISP fees, but that is my choice. I will correct my previous statement: MSN Premium DSL: $44.99 + fees is $51.07/month - -ben "Unix is user friendly, Its just picky about its friends." -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFCJhmufYg2asD844oRAkniAJ9N3GZVVJhBc5ZaH9d0uuKxJlnVSQCgic5U hWMcxb/DKoXed/kT3nqAATo= =rj4m -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From poptix at techmonkeys.org Wed Mar 2 14:53:35 2005 From: poptix at techmonkeys.org (Matthew S. Hallacy) Date: Wed Mar 2 14:58:59 2005 Subject: [tcwug-list] Re: Fwd: Defend Community Internet In-Reply-To: References: <001901c51c1e$d0146000$6800a8c0@opus.corp.root> <002a01c51e93$f3ec90c0$0701a8c0@jon8ccf99e8512> <4224D8CE.9050705@ringworld.org> <20050302091745.GB10682@momentum.poptix.net> <20050302174658.GE10682@momentum.poptix.net> Message-ID: <20050302205335.GH10682@momentum.poptix.net> On Wed, Mar 02, 2005 at 01:16:42PM -0600, Ben Kochie wrote: > > I checked availablily for some addresses in Shoreview, no 3mb service > availalble. I don't have a POTS line in Saint Paul to check. Earthlink > also limits uploads to 128kbps, which would be very painfull if you ever > want to upload 4+ mpixel photos. http://maps.google.com/ punch in "john near st paul, mn" =) > > Cable: Ok.. they have a special going on for non-cable-tv people. > > Price is still $33/month plus regulatory fees. Any fees are built into the base price, the only additions to the quoted base rate are a $5 modem rental fee and $.20 or so in tax. rental fee is easily dealt with. -- Matthew S. Hallacy FUBAR, LART, BOFH Certified http://www.poptix.net GPG public key 0x01938203 From kaze0010 at umn.edu Wed Mar 2 16:02:10 2005 From: kaze0010 at umn.edu (Haudy Kazemi) Date: Wed Mar 2 16:08:59 2005 Subject: [tcwug-list] (comments to FCC due today) FWD: FCC to Rule on 3650-3700MHz Band --Could be a Boon or Bane for Mesh Networking Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.20050302160210.02183a18@kaze0010.email.umn.edu> >X-From_: general-bounces@lists.personaltelco.net Mon Feb 28 23:37:46 2005 >X-Umn-Remote-Mta: [N] mtain-c.tc.umn.edu [160.94.128.20] #+LO+NM >X-Umn-Remote-Mta: [N] personaltelco.net [64.122.195.142] #+NR (I,-) >X-Umn-Report-As-Spam: >X-Original-To: general@personaltelco.net >Delivered-To: general@personaltelco.net >From: Darrin Eden >Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2005 21:37:34 -0800 >To: general@personaltelco.net >X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.712) >Cc: >Subject: [ptp-general] Fwd: [CWN-Summit] FCC to Rule on 3650-3700MHz Band -- > Could be a Boon or Bane for Mesh Networking: >X-BeenThere: general@lists.personaltelco.net >X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.4 >List-Id: General discussion related to Personal Telco > >List-Unsubscribe: , > >List-Archive: >List-Post: >List-Help: >List-Subscribe: , > >Sender: general-bounces@lists.personaltelco.net > >Begin forwarded message: > >> Last week I [1] got the word from DC that FCC is about to rule on the >> prime spectrum located between the frequencies of 3650 and 3700MHz. >> In a nutshell, the ruling may decide to open this frequency up for >> unlicensed use, _or_ the FCC may decide to allow high-power, a type >> of licensed usage of these frequencies. >> >> We've got until March 2, 2005 to send our comments to the FCC. >> Luckily, I have the e-mail addresses of the counsels to the FCC >> commissioners who will be deciding this issue and who need to hear >> the grassroots' perspectives on things. This is a chance for you to >> _directly_ impact national telecommunications policy -- supporting >> mesh networking and community wireless development -- all in one fell >> swoop. And it'll take you less than five minutes; *here's all you >> need to do in 4 easy steps*: >> >> 1. Draft up an e-mail to the following five folks: >> >> paul.margie@fcc.gov >> barry.ohlson@fcc.gov >> sheryl.wilkerson@fcc.gov >> Jennifer.Manner@fcc.gov >> Sam.feder@fcc.gov >> hfeld@mediaaccess.org >> >> 2. Ask the FCC (and these folks in particular) to: >> >> A. Support and facilitate mesh networking; >> B. Not obstruct or jeapardize, in any way, the primary function in >> this band of low-power transmissions at the community level; >> C. Not establish a first-in-time, first-in-right site licensing >> regime for high-power in a so-called "unlicensed" frequency (which >> would set a horrendous precedent for the future of unlicensed). >> >> 3. Go to the FCC's Comment Upload Page [2] and file your comment >> (the proceeding number is 04-151). >> >> 4. Pass along this information -- we've got 48 hours to rally the >> troops. >> >> *Want to read more background?* No problem -- just point your browser >> to [3] for more information on the proceeding and why is so vitally >> important for those of us who support wireless networking. > >More spectrum operated in a similar fashion to where 802.11 operates at >the moment is a good thing in my humble opinion. Please support this >effort by commenting on proceeding number 04-151 with the FCC [2]. > >Thanks, > Darrin > >[1] >[2] >[3] > >-- >The Personal Telco Project - http://www.personaltelco.net/ >Donate to PTP: http://www.personaltelco.net/donate >Un/Subscribe: http://lists.personaltelco.net/mailman/listinfo/general/ >Archives: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.wireless.portland.general/ >Etiquette: http://www.personaltelco.net/index.cgi/MailingListEtiquette > > From kaze0010 at umn.edu Wed Mar 2 17:01:55 2005 From: kaze0010 at umn.edu (Haudy Kazemi) Date: Wed Mar 2 17:08:57 2005 Subject: [tcwug-list] (comments to FCC due today) FWD: FCC to Rule on 3650-3700MHz Band (update/comments) Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.20050302170155.00ae4008@kaze0010.email.umn.edu> A few updates in a posting by Harold Feld on [CWN-Summit]: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/cwn-summit/2005-March/000124.html --- 1) you _must_ file your comments with the FCC through ECFS (step three) or they don't count. (hk: Harold is refering to this link: http://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/upload_v2.cgi ) 2) Jennifer Manner is no longer at the Commission. (hk: her email has an autoreply saying to send FCC related messages to john.branscome@fcc.gov) Relevant information is also available on my blog, Tales of the Sausage Factory, at http://www.wetmachine.com/index.php/item/227 Harold --- --- http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/cwn-summit/2005-March/000125.html I have been making calls today. The situation is moving in a more favorable direction. The relevant decision makers are getting our emails and see broad popular support for mesh as well as high-power. Key issues on which decisions have not yet been made and where comments may prove helpful: 1) Allowing low power mobile devices in the band is critical to expanding mesh. 2) Low power mesh requires non-exclusivity and cheap equipment. The Commission should not impose overly conservative interference protection criteria that drive up price. Flexibility has been critical to the success of unlicensed as a networking solution. 3) Mesh devices must be allowed to communicate with each other in a peer-to-peer fashion, rather than requiring mesh devices to communicate with a high power base station. 4) Any system of licensing or registration must be non-exclusive; the Commission must not create a "first in time, first in right" licensing systems. Remember, things are turning our way. Be polite, be informative, and BE PERSISTENT. Harold Feld --- and some related comments in Harold's blog: --- http://www.wetmachine.com/index.php/item/227 : Last Gasp on Unlicensed Order As those who follow unlicensed proceedings at the FCC here know, the FCC has been considering opening up the 2650-3700 MHz band to unlicensed use. The rumor is that the FCC will vote on the item at its March 10 meeting. I have also heard that the item is not particularly friendly to mesh networks. We have until Wed. March 2, 2005, 5 p.m. Eastern Time to turn this around. Wanna help? The 3650-3700 MHz band is relatively open and is under consideration by the FCC for expanded unlicensed use. The FCC proposed to allow fixed “high power” (25 watts EIRP) unlicensed operation and more standard mobile “low power” (1 watt EIRP) operation-- as long as certain incumbent operations are proetcted. I have heard that the FCC instead is likely to authorize high power as a “licensed lite” regime in which the first operator is protected against interference and all subsequent operators must seek permission of the first operator to activate their systems. This is known as a “first in time, first in right” scheme. I have heard from the good folks at CUWIN that this would be a disaster for low power mesh networks in urban areas. Basically, the party that gets to the tallest building first will be able to blanket the entire area and prevent other systems from going live. Under federal law, parties may file comments with the FCC until Wed., March 2, 5 p.m. Eastern time. I am urging anyone who cares about the future of mesh networks to file at the FCC and emphasize the following points: 1) Open spectrum/open source is a volunteer community. Barriers to entry must be low, and the FCC must recognize that investment happens without big corporations or well-funded start ups. Rules that prohibit or limit the ability of multiple entrants will make it next to impossible for open source mesh systems to deploy. 2) Low power is more important in many communities than high-power. The FCC must not sacrifice the possibility of low power mesh in the 3650-3700 MHz band for the sake of high-power in the band. Ideally, the FCC should have rules that permit both, as high power is necessary for backhaul and can be useful in point to point. But if the FCC insists on chosing, it should keep the low power option and implement high power when cognative radio technology has improved. 3) Above all, the FCC must not establish exclusive licensing or “first in time, first in right” site licensing that will make it impossible for communities to deploy numerous open source solutions. Intel's filing opposing us on this can be found here. While Intel supports open source and open spectrum in some bands, it supports closed proprietary systems in others. This is why open source/open spectrum supporters cannot rely on our “friends” in private industry. In any given proceeding, they will file in accordance with their interests of the moment. To file a comment, go to the FCC's ECFS comment upload page. In the “proceeding” field, type 04-151. The rest is self-explanatory. You do not need to be a U.S. citizen to file a comment. Anyone can do so. You should, however, explain your interest in the proceeding (e.g., “I am an open source developer and I wish to take advantage of new opportunities for open source-based wireless networking”). Then reiterate from the key points in your own words. Remember, if the FCC does not hear from smart people, it will only make dumb rules. Stay tuned . . . --- From jon at oldmanriver.com Thu Mar 3 16:38:02 2005 From: jon at oldmanriver.com (Jon Kerr) Date: Thu Mar 3 16:14:10 2005 Subject: [tcwug-list] Wi-fi's importance in the economic future? Message-ID: <001001c52041$a9da3460$0701a8c0@jon8ccf99e8512> The attached piece from Washington Monthly may be a stretch for this forum and it does have a political perspective. But it does include some interesting perspectives on the importance of encouraging wifi / fiber optics / broadband development as an absolutely vital part of U.S. technical and economic competitiveness. This isn't just for the benefit of the poor or undereducated, whether you believe they exist and are deserving or not. Check it out: http://www.alternet.org/story/21400/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://shadowknight.real-time.com/pipermail/tcwug-list/attachments/20050303/11058f38/attachment.html From cschlough at na.cokecce.com Tue Mar 8 16:59:39 2005 From: cschlough at na.cokecce.com (cschlough@na.cokecce.com) Date: Tue Mar 8 17:03:01 2005 Subject: [tcwug-list] meeting tonight? Message-ID: Is there a meeting tonight? -Chris ***************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************** This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential and privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact the sender immediately and delete it from your system. Thank You ***************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************** From kaze0010 at umn.edu Thu Mar 10 00:34:42 2005 From: kaze0010 at umn.edu (Haudy Kazemi) Date: Thu Mar 10 00:39:29 2005 Subject: [tcwug-list] meeting tonight? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <3.0.5.32.20050310003442.02331620@kaze0010.email.umn.edu> If there was a meeting, I wasn't there. I wasn't in town. I do hope we can do something to get the meetings happening again. At 04:59 PM 3/8/2005 -0600, cschlough@na.cokecce.com wrote: >Is there a meeting tonight? > >-Chris >*************************************************************************** **************************************************************************** ********************************** >This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to which >it is addressed and may contain information that is confidential and >privileged and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader >of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that >any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is >strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, >please contact the sender immediately and delete it from your system. >Thank You >*************************************************************************** **************************************************************************** ********************************** > > >_______________________________________________ >Twin Cities Wireless Users Group Mailing List - Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota >tcwug-list@tcwug.org >http://mailman.tcwug.org/mailman/listinfo/tcwug-list > > From mail at RobWentworth.com Sun Mar 20 20:27:01 2005 From: mail at RobWentworth.com (Rob Wentworth) Date: Sun Mar 20 20:28:11 2005 Subject: [tcwug-list] Wi-Fi Humor from The Onion Message-ID: <002001c52dbd$782b4e20$6400a8c0@server> http://www.theonion.com/infograph/index.php?issue=4111 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Wi-Fi-Humor.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 20990 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://shadowknight.real-time.com/pipermail/tcwug-list/attachments/20050320/227ccd89/Wi-Fi-Humor-0001.jpg From poptix at techmonkeys.org Sun Mar 20 22:35:35 2005 From: poptix at techmonkeys.org (Matthew S. Hallacy) Date: Sun Mar 20 22:42:12 2005 Subject: [tcwug-list] Wi-Fi Humor from The Onion In-Reply-To: <002001c52dbd$782b4e20$6400a8c0@server> References: <002001c52dbd$782b4e20$6400a8c0@server> Message-ID: <20050321043535.GD10682@momentum.poptix.net> Haha, and it's so relevant to the previous thread... On Sun, Mar 20, 2005 at 08:27:01PM -0600, Rob Wentworth wrote: > http://www.theonion.com/infograph/index.php?issue=4111 -- Matthew S. Hallacy FUBAR, LART, BOFH Certified http://www.poptix.net GPG public key 0x01938203 From barken at rohan.sdsu.edu Thu Mar 17 22:36:56 2005 From: barken at rohan.sdsu.edu (Lee Barken) Date: Thu Mar 24 21:25:36 2005 Subject: [tcwug-list] Article: SoCalFreeNet.org believes free Wi-Fi means greater access for everyone Message-ID: hi, Just wanted to share an article from the North Park Times about community wireless activities over in San Diego... we don't have an online link to the article, but the author provided this copy and permission to share. It's a good read about SoCalFreeNet and our activities. BTW- We're doing a deployment in National City this Saturday (local rec center, details here: www.socalfreenet.org/eltoyon)... if you happen to be around and you'd like to lend a hand, drop us a note... :-) Thanks, -Lee President, SoCalFreeNet.org -------- Nonprofit introducing neighborhoods to easy wireless Internet service SoCalFreeNet believes free Wi-Fi means greater access for everyone By Jennifer McEntee North Park News, April 2005 Jay Porter, a North Park businessman and Golden Hill resident, gets free wireless Internet service. And because he allowed special Wi-Fi equipment to be installed at his home, so do his neighbors. Porter is among residents taking advantage of a new grassroots program intended to provide free wireless networks to the greater public. Implemented by the nonprofit SoCalFreeNet.org, the idea is to make the Internet a resource for everyone, regardless of income. "What they do is so good for the community," says Porter, who had a wireless network node implemented at his house. "It's so neat that the whole neighborhood can be a part of this." Participating neighborhoods so far include Golden Hill, Sherman Heights, Normal Heights, Little Italy and most recently, Barrio Logan. Porter and SoCalFreeNet volunteers hope to drum up interest in other surrounding neighborhoods, including North Park. The genesis The program was started by volunteers from the San Diego Wireless Users Group, who wanted to put their skills to practical use. Wi-Fi, short for wireless fidelity, is a wireless networking technology that allows multiple computers to share a single Internet connection over short distances. The reach of an antenna depends on signal impediments, from trees and buildings to weather. The first SoCalFreeNet wireless network node was set up in Little Italy. It gained enough attention to attract the interest of Bart Ziegler, landlord of the pink apartment complex at 21st and Broadway in Golden Hill. He asked the users group if his building would be a suitable site for the next node. Drew MacCullough, a resident of the Pink Palace, heard that the SoCalFreeNet volunteers would be in the building setting up the Wi-Fi network. MacCullough, who had a computer but no Internet connection, was intrigued. He got to know the volunteers as they set up his computer and those of his neighbors. Before he knew it, he was acting as a liaison between the free net group and his neighbors, both in his building and in the surrounding community. "For me personally, it was a really great balance between a technical challenge, the real sort of geek part of it, which is a lot of fun, and it's a really great chance to help people," says MacCullough. "It does sound kind of corny, but it is about bridging the digital divide." MacCullough says the idea is to make the Internet universally ubiquitous. "This particular area is a pretty mixed socioeconomic area at this point. It used to be predominantly affordable housing, low-income, but it's come up quite a bit," he says. "If you look at an area like Normal Heights, or North Park, or City Heights. Any one of those areas may have well-off tenants, but down the street, not everyone in the area is. "We don't know who we're helping out a lot of times. We're happy to put out the possibility." SoCalFreeNet works with organizations including the San Diego Futures Foundation to obtain refurbished computers for those in need. The set-up Each Wi-Fi network requires one major outlay of equipment that serves as the hub for smaller setups throughout the building or neighborhood. For Porter, though his Internet service is free, his role as a hub was not. The necessary equipment to set up the wireless node cost him about $600. "I figure I probably broke even by now," he says. Property owners with a node pay the recurring costs for the Internet access, which must be a sharable network such as those offered by DSLExtreme, Speakeasy or Cox Business Services. Neighbors within the available Wi-Fi area get the benefit of the network for free. They only need to have a computer that is already Internet-enabled, as most new laptops are, or buy the necessary equipment at any electronics retailer. SoCalFreeNet makes an easy-setup kit available for $90, at cost, at Influx coffee shop on Broadway in Golden Hill. Users aren't left to go it alone. Volunteers for SoCalFreeNet answer questions by e-mail, and hold educational sessions on the second Saturday of each month at Influx. The sessions typically run from 9 a.m. to 11 a.m. The volunteers often make house calls to help users set up their service or troubleshoot problems. In use David Moore is among the neighbors taking advantage of the six Wi-Fi nodes available in Golden Hill. He read about the program several months ago and attended an install day at Influx. Now, instead of paying $40 a month to a large provider for Internet access, he gets it for free. As a postal carrier and artist, Moore uses his computer mostly for news headlines, e-mail and looking up art exhibitions. The Wi-Fi access has proven especially useful for downloading large images of art, he says. "With MSN, it would take 15 minutes to download a file," Moore says. "With this, it's almost instantaneous." MacCullough says the networks are set up to handle normal Internet surfing, while larger downloads put users further down in the queue. Security measures including firewalls and anti-virus software are used to protect the network, though individual users are encouraged to take their own precautions as well. Plans for expansion As the organization grows from a small group of weekend hobbyists to a large association of active volunteers, SoCalFreeNet is trying to formalize how it establishes Wi-Fi sites. While the organization has previously set up sites on request, they intend to begin seeking out sites where free Internet access might be put to good use, MacCullough says. Porter has talked to the SoCalFreeNet volunteers about eventually implementing a node at his new restaurant, the Linkery in North Park. SoCalFreeNet also has plans to set up a computer lab in a National City community center. While SoCalFreeNet didn't invent Wi-Fi access, its approach to making it more widely available has gained acclaim. The group regularly updates its installation progress on its Web site, www.socalfreenet.org, attracting hits and page links from as far away as the Republic of Estonia, which borders Russia. Says MacCullough: "We like to say, 'We're big in Estonia.'" _______________________________________________ SoCalFreeNet.org General Discussion List To unsubscribe, please visit: http://socalfreenet.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_socalfreenet.org