Wireless Community

Icon

December 28, 2005 • 4:54 pm 0

Signing of Public Broadband Commission into Law

Michael Santorelli, the Legislative Policy Analyst for the New York City Council informs me that on Thursday, December 29, 2005, at 2pm Mayor Michael Bloomberg will sign Int. No. 625-A into law establishing a Public Broadband Commission! The signing will take place in the Blue Room at City Hall is open to the public, so everyone should attend.

I’d encourage everyone that reads this blog should attend to show Mayor Bloomberg how much we, the people, care about this issue. As “I’ve written about in the past”:/2005/12/21/nyc-council-creates-public-broadband-commission/, the Public Broadband Commission is a great first step for New York City in establishing affordable, universally available broadband.

There’s been some more coverage in “Crains NY Business”:http://www.newyorkbusiness.com/news.cms?id=12559, “Government Technology online”:http://www.govtech.net/news/news.php?id=97698, and “Telecom Web”:http://www.telecomweb.com/news/1135359085.htm.

Filed under: New York City, News, Policy

December 23, 2005 • 8:03 am 0

Non-Profit Help Desk Supports Broadband Advisory Committee

Kayza, from the “Non-Profit Help Desk”:http://www.nphd.org/, writes in “the NPHD blog”:http://nphd.org/blog/index.php?mode=viewid&post_id=17:

bq. And, the nice thing about this legislation is hat it doesnt jump in with perconceived notions about ONE technology or ONE model that will amke all of this available. Rather it mandates two things that should move us forward: 1. Take a good hard lookat ALL the technology alternatives and make reccommendations based on the merits – technical, cost, social and security related. There is no mandate for chosing ONE technology, and it seems to me that the weight would be on looking at chosing multiple modalities, to spur innvation. 2. Educate the public and engender public discussion, not just from the elites andtechnocrats, but from all sectors of our city.

I agree completely with the need for the broadband advisory committee. And I agree about how it should be done in order to help those that are most in need.

I’m very excited about the way the legislature was written because NYCwireless has worked hard to get across the 2 things you mention: evaluating all available technology (not just wireless) and helping to educate the public.

This is the only way that this work can be successful.

Filed under: New York City, NYCwireless, Policy

December 22, 2005 • 8:01 am 0

Free Wireless Fever — Community Wireless in Canada

The Tyee has a “great article”:http://www.thetyee.ca/Mediacheck/2005/12/21/FreeWirelessFever/ about Community Wireless in Canada, especially in Vancouver. They mention some of the work of our friends up north in Montreal (“IleSansFil”:http://www.ilesansfil.org) and Toronto (“Wireless Toronto”:http://www.wirelesstoronto.ca/):

bq. While the city governments ponder the issue, activist groups across the continent spread the word about free wireless access through the grassroots. In Toronto, there are two organizations working towards a free wireless network: Wireless Toronto and the Toronto Wireless Community Network. Montreal has Île sans Fil, which created the open source application WifiDog for managing wireless access.

bq. In this province, the main advocate of public wireless is the BC Wireless Network Society, an all-volunteer organization with no outside funding. Incorporated in 2004, the BCWN has about 500 registered users and more than 90 volunteers. Matthew Asham, the society’s director, says, “We have geeks, we have nerds, we have socialists, we have hackers, we’ve got pharmacists, we’ve got city councilors, we have lots of people.”

bq. In BC’s cities, BCWN’s main project is to encourage the growth of free hotspots, local wireless access points at coffee shops, restaurants and other businesses.

bq. Deborah Moffat, BCWN’s volunteer coordinator and the manager of the ABC Country restaurant in Burnaby, says offering free wireless is valuable to businesses. “Maybe you have thirty “customers in the restaurant], and five of them are logged on, that’s pretty good. That’s five “customers] you might not have had, had you not had wireless. If I were alone, and I would choose the place with wireless. Also, if I had a meeting, I would choose the place that had wireless.”

bq. But businesses often lack the technical skill to prevent malicious users from launching viruses or spam or hogging bandwidth. That’s why BCWN’s programmers are working on modified version of Île sans Fil’s WifiDog application. WifiDog makes it simpler to prevent hotspot misuse, by requiring the user to log in with a central server, which would be run by BCWN.

NYCwireless is also using “WifiDog”:http://www.ilesansfil.org/tiki-index.php?page=Wifidog to run our “new hotspots”:http://auth.nycwireless.net.

Filed under: Community Wireless, News

December 21, 2005 • 6:00 pm 0

NYCwireless December Meeting on December 28th at 7:15pm

_All are invited – please re-post everywhere!_

*Wednesday, December 28th, 2005 at 7:15pm*
_if transit strike is over — check “NYCwireless.net”:http://www.nycwireless.net for updates_

“*Bway.net*”:http://www.bway.net
*568 Broadway at Prince St, NE corner*
*Suite 404*
*New York, NY 10012*
“*Google Map*”:gmap

_Please note: Everybody will need to sign-in in the lobby._

*Agenda:*

  1. Steve Morton/Boundless Security Systems: Can City-Scale WiFi Reduce Crime?

    What are the obstacles and opportunities for city-scale wireless video surveillance, especially in crime-plagued neighborhoods? A fascinating discussion about Boundlesss.com’s new wifi surveillance system that greatly enhances image clarity, network capacity and mobility. This could be a tremendously effective tool for law enforcement that could help reduce crime. How can privacy concerns be balanced? Steve will also cover system design, and possible deployment schemes — followed by an extended Q&A session.

    Steven G. Morton is CEO and CTO of “Boundless Security Systems, Inc.”:http://www.boundlesss.com in Newtown, CT.

    He is the architect of an ultra low bandwidth, digital video surveillance system. It has been shown to multiply the number of wireless video surveillance channels 100-fold, and to enable video surveillance to easily be moved to wherever the most crime is this week. As a result, increasingly popular, city-scale WiFi networks can be used for video surveillance without being overloaded by video.

  2. Year-end roundup and NYCwireless-2006 resolutions
  3. Workshop breakout sessions: small group discussions from novice to advanced questions

_”NYCwireless”:http://www.nycwireless.net is a non-profit organization that advocates for, and enables the growth of free, public wireless networks._

[gmap]http://maps.google.com/?q=568+Broadway,ny+ny+(Bway.net)

Filed under: Community Wireless, Event, NYCwireless

December 21, 2005 • 11:58 am 1

NYC Council Creates Public Broadband Commission

The New York City Council has voted today to pass “Intro. 625-A”:council, which establishes a task force to study how affordable broadband access can be made available for residents of New York City.

Intro. 625-A is establishes “a temporary advisory committee to advise the mayor and the speaker of the council on issues pertaining to access to broadband technologies within the city of New York”.

This is a great first step in the battle for universal, affordable internet service for all New Yorkers, and is something that NYCwireless has testified in support of at hearings. Many thanks to “Councilmember Gale Brewer”:http://www.galebrewer.com/ and her staff for having the foresight of sponsoring this bill and working diligently to get it enacted.´

[council]http://www.nyccouncil.info/issues/bill_details.cfm?ID=Int%200625-2005&TYPE=all&YEAR=2005&SPONSORS=YES&REPORTS=YES&HISTORY=YES

Filed under: New York City, News, Policy

December 21, 2005 • 8:00 am 0

Vint Cerf Speaking Out in Support of Internet Neutrality

I can’t believe I forgot to post this “great letter Vint Cerf presented to Congress in support for Network Neutrality”:http://www.circleid.com/posts/vint_cerf_speaking_out_on_internet_neutrality/. Its from a while ago, but even more relevant now that SBC and BellSouth have been lobbying and speaking publicly about putting up toll booths on the internet.

bq. Dear Chairman Barton and Ranking Member Dingell,

bq. I appreciate the inquiries by your staff about my availability to appear before the Committee and to share Google’s views about draft telecommunications legislation and the issues related to “network neutrality.” These are matters of great importance to the Internet and Google welcomes the Committee’s hard work and attention. The hearing unfortunately conflicts with another obligation, and I am sorry I will not be able to attend. (Along with my colleague Robert Kahn, I am honored to be receiving the Presidential Medal of Freedom on Wednesday at the White House for our work in creating the Internet protocol TCP/IP.)

bq. Despite my inability to participate in the planned hearing in person, I hope that you will accept some brief observations about this legislation.

bq. The remarkable social impact and economic success of the Internet is in many ways directly attributable to the architectural characteristics that were part of its design. The Internet was designed with no gatekeepers over new content or services. The Internet is based on a layered, end-to-end model that allows people at each level of the network to innovate free of any central control. By placing intelligence at the edges rather than control in the middle of the network, the Internet has created a platform for innovation. This has led to an explosion of offerings – from VOIP to 802.11x wi-fi to blogging – that might never have evolved had central control of the network been required by design.

bq. My fear is that, as written, this bill would do great damage to the Internet as we know it. Enshrining a rule that broadly permits network operators to discriminate in favor of certain kinds of services and to potentially interfere with others would place broadband operators in control of online activity. Allowing broadband providers to segment their IP offerings and reserve huge amounts of bandwidth for their own services will not give consumers the broadband Internet our country and economy need. Many people will have little or no choice among broadband operators for the foreseeable future, implying that such operators will have the power to exercise a great deal of control over any applications placed on the network.

bq. As we move to a broadband environment and eliminate century-old non-discrimination requirements, a lightweight but enforceable neutrality rule is needed to ensure that the Internet continues to thrive. Telephone companies cannot tell consumers who they can call; network operators should not dictate what people can do online.

bq. I am confident that we can build a broadband system that allows users to decide what websites they want to see and what applications they want to use – and that also guarantees high quality service and network security. That network model has and can continue to provide economic benefits to innovators and consumers—and to the broadband operators who will reap the rewards for providing access to such a valued network.

bq. We appreciate the efforts in your current draft to create at least a starting point for net neutrality principles. Google looks forward to working with you and your staff to draft a bill that will maintain the revolutionary potential of the broadband Internet.

bq. Thank you for your attention and for your efforts on these important issues.

bq. Sincerely,

bq. Vinton Cerf
bq. Chief Internet Evangelist
bq. Google Inc.

Filed under: Network Neutrality, Policy

December 20, 2005 • 8:10 am 0

Network Neutrality Provisions Unnecessary, BellSouth Says

SBC started it, now BellSouth is getting into the act. Two articles (“1″:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/30/AR2005113002109.html), “2″:http://www.njtelecomupdate.com/lenya/telco/live/tb-JEAV1133469048556.html) highlight comments made by William L. Smith, CTO of BellSouth, about how he’d really like to be able to charge internet companies for priority access to his network and customers.

bq. A senior telecommunications executive said yesterday that Internet service providers should be allowed to strike deals to give certain Web sites or services priority in reaching computer users, a controversial system that would significantly change how the Internet operates.

bq. William L. Smith, chief technology officer for Atlanta-based BellSouth Corp., told reporters and analysts that an Internet service provider such as his firm should be able, for example, to charge Yahoo Inc. for the opportunity to have its search site load faster than that of Google Inc.

bq. Or, Smith said, his company should be allowed to charge a rival voice-over-Internet firm so that its service can operate with the same quality as BellSouth’s offering.

Network Neutrality is about ensuring that incumbent, monopolist telcos and cable companies cannot use their landline infrastructure (a monopoly which was granted by taxpayers and government many years ago) to unfairly compete against other internet services. Mr. Smith creates an artificial distintion between “prioritization” and “discrimination” of internet packets.

*Prioritizing your own packets because you have access to the physical network where others do not is exactly the same as discriminating against rival services. Furthermore, “allowing” them to pay for privileged access is tantamount to extortion.*

Thank you, Mr. Smith, for proving our argument for us.

Filed under: Network Neutrality, News, Policy

December 18, 2005 • 10:57 pm 0

Cato Institute Researcher Who Preached Against Muniwireless Revealed to be Taking Money From Washington Lobbyist for Articles

The “New York Times reported on Saturday”:http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/17/politics/17abramoff.html?hp&ex=1134882000&en=215fb6d614b7a14d&ei=5094 that Cato Institute Doug Bandow took money from Lobbyist Jack Abramoff for writing sympathetic articles:

bq. A senior scholar at the Cato Institute, the respected libertarian research organization, has resigned after revelations that he took payments from the lobbyist Jack Abramoff in exchange for writing columns favorable to his clients.

bq. The scholar, Doug Bandow, who wrote a column for the Copley News Service in addition to serving as a Cato fellow, acknowledged to executives at the organization that he had taken money from Mr. Abramoff after he was confronted about the payments by a reporter from BusinessWeek Online.

Why is this important? Mr. Bandow is the author of Cato Institute “columns that attack municipal wireless”:http://www.catoinstitute.org/dailys/07-05-04.html. We’ve known for a while that many of the “research institutes” that come out against any type of government involvement in telecom and internet service “have been aligned with telco and cable companies”:http://wifinetnews.com/archives/cat_sock_puppets.html that lobby against such initiatives.

Now, in at least one instance, we can connect the dots between the money paid to lobbyists by the telco/cable duopolies to advance their agenda, and the anti-municipal wireless and municipal internet position taken by at least one conservative think-tank. While the evidence isn’t direct (yet), it is pretty damning.

Filed under: Muniwireless, News, Policy

December 16, 2005 • 12:44 pm 0

Network Neutrality Unsupported by FCC Chief Martin

FCC Chief Martin “seems to be no friend of either Business or Consumers”:reuters, and seems to be firmly planted in the pocket of the incumbent telco’s.

bq. There is no immediate need for the U.S. Federal Communications Commission to adopt rules protecting consumers’ ability to surf anywhere on the Internet, the agency’s chairman Kevin Martin said on Wednesday.

bq. …

bq. “I’m hesitant to adopt rules that would prevent anti-competitive behavior where there hasn’t been significant evidence of a problem,” Martin said at a conference luncheon by Comptel, a group representing competitive telephone carriers.

This announcement comes a day after “BellSouth declared that they want the ability to prioritize their own services over those of everyone else”:/2005/12/13/telecoms-want-their-products-to-travel-on-a-faster-internet/ that uses their networks, and a few weeks after SBC CEO Whittaker announced that he thinks that “SBC has the right to install a toll booth on his networks wires”:/2005/11/02/sbc-ceo-claims-he-owns-the-internet-and-will-charge-everyone-for-its-use/.

So where does this leave us, the consumers? After helping to fund the wires built by incumbent, monopoly telco’s in the form of tax breaks and subsidies, we’re being subject to a bait-and-switch executed by these same companies (or their corporate owners) who claim that they own everything and that they will use their monopoly power to extract more revenue out of us and businesses. And to top it all off, the FCC appears not only powerless, but willing to let these companies do this.

More info at “Broadband Reports”:http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/703960

[reuters]http://today.reuters.com/investing/financeArticle.aspx?type=governmentFilingsNews&storyID=URI:urn:newsml:reuters.com:20051214:MTFH69691_2005-12-14_22-25-22_N14302230:1

Filed under: Network Neutrality, News, Policy

December 13, 2005 • 2:30 pm 0

Telecoms want their products to travel on a faster Internet

“Hiawatha Bray writes about a very scary debate currently going on in DC”:1: Whether telco’s can prioritize their own services over those of “competitors”, and whether incumbent telcos can charge both end users and content providers for access to this “prioritized” delivery service. Why is this scary? Because if the incumbent telcos get their way, both consumers and most businesses suffer. Hiawatha’s article covers the basics of the fight.

There are really two points that get completely lost in this discussion, however:

# This whole attempt by incumbent telcos only is possible because of the SBC+AT&T and Verizon+Sprint mergers. We had a good thing going when we kept end user delivery and backbone internet service separate, and our FCC and FTC both screwed us–consumers and small and medium businesses.
# Incumbent telcos keep “squawking about how they are due some return on their investments”:2. Bullshit. No one owes them anything. There are no certainties in business. If you have a good product and people want it, you can make money. If you don’t or they don’t, then you go bankrupt. Just because you’re investing billions on new fiber optic networks doesn’t mean anything. You don’t invest unless its going to be a good way to make money. BellSouth and SBC both are trying to make _us_ — consumers — bear the risk of the investment they are making.

“Why do fundamental business economics not apply to the Internet?”, Bill Smith, CTO of BellSouth asks. They do. The Internet _proves_ fundamental business economics better than any other technology. The real question to ask, Bill, is “Why don’t you understand fundamental economics enough to see this?”

[1]http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2005/12/13/telecoms_want_their_products_to_travel_on_a_faster_internet/?page=full
[2]/2005/11/02/sbc-ceo-claims-he-owns-the-internet-and-will-charge-everyone-for-its-use

Filed under: Network Neutrality, News, Policy

Twitter

Blog Stats

  • 451 hits
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.