Wireless Community

Icon

March 13, 2006 • 12:28 pm 0

New York State Community Access Networks Bill by State Senator Brennan

“State Assemblymember Brennan”:1 has introduced “Bill A09937, the Community Access Networks Bill”:2, into the New York State Assembly. This bill is innovative in that it seeks to create “free internet access across New York State” by requiring that any local or state governments that are creating or sponsoring any wireless information networks — including New York City’s private public safety wireless network — “either create a community access network or allow for collocation of a community access network”.

The bill highlights that New York State lags behind other states in broadband competition, noting especially that 42% of New York zip codes have four (4) or fewer broadband providers.

bq. Here in New York, the effort to create free internet zones has been piecemeal, most notably private volunteer groups like Nycwireless.org (sic) have created free internet access in public places, at a handful of New York City parks. This legislation seeks to expand such kinds of access so that it can be enjoyed by all New York State residents. A statewide initiative like this seeks to create new opportunities all across our state.

The bill rightly notes that by encouraging the creation of a state-wide wireless network, “Governments and first responder groups could have a communications system which is cheaper to tap into because off the shelf components could be used to access CANs instead of other, more expensive equipment.”

Brennan highlights that “In the same way that road and shipping lanes served the manufacturing economy, information conduits and connectivity power the information age” and that “Part of the goal of government is to help people help themselves.” These are two ideas that NYCwireless has long supported and promoted. The only way to build sustainable networks and communities is to allow and help local residents and organizations to help themselves.

The specifics of the bill itself are worth noting. Brennan’s bill requires that “OPERATORS OF AN APPROVED INFORMATION NETWORK SHALL NOT EXERCISE ANY EDITORIAL CONTROL OVER ANY PUBLIC, EDUCATIONAL, OR GOVERNMENTAL USE OF CAPACITY PROVIDED PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION, EXCEPT THAT THEY MAY REFUSE TO TRANSMIT ANY CONTENT WHICH CONTAINS OBSCENITY, INDECENCY, OR NUDITY.” Non-discriminatory access to content is critical to any network that is intended to help serve underprivileged residents.

But the most interesting part of the bill comes all the way at the end: “IF ANY ENTITY IDENTIFIED IN SUBPARAGRAPH (II) OF PARAGRAPH A OF SUBDIVISION ONE OF THIS SECTION SENDS A STATUS REPORT INDICATING THEIR INTENT TO SPONSOR OR APPROVE THE CREATION OF A COMMUNITY ACCESS NETWORK, THEY SHALL BE GIVEN ACCESS TO DARK FIBER LEASED BY ANY ENTITY IDENTIFIED IN SUBPARAGRAPH (I) OF PARAGRAPH A OF SUBDIVISION ONE OF THIS SECTION FREE OF CHARGE FOR THE PURPOSES OF CREATION OF COMMUNITY ACCESS NETWORKS OR FOR GOVERNMENT ENTITY USE.” *Free dark fiber usage if you provide free wireless network services.*

I would say that the only potential issue with this legislation, when it comes to issues of public good, is that it doesn’t define the speed of internet access that must be provided for free in order to get access to free dark fiber and free collocation. I would recommend to Assemblymember Brennan that the right way to write this legislation is to require that free wireless network internet access be provided at prevailing broadband speeds, which are between 1mbps-3mbps in New York State. This could be a boon to ISPs small and large, including Verizon and Time Warner Cable, who are having great difficulties rolling out higher speed services (TWC hasn’t even announced anything more than their existing, aging 5mbps network).

For any organization that is seeking to provide large-scale wireless networks in New York City, this legislation is even more important. The “franchise for the New York City lamp post access”:3 hasn’t seen any deployments or announcements since the original 6 private companies were granted their access. NYCwireless has sought access to this franchise, only to be rebuffed by NYC DoITT, claming that no new franchises can be granted. Through Assemblymember Brennan’s legislation, an organization like NYCwireless can get free access to this city resource.

[1]http://assembly.state.ny.us/mem/?ad=044
[2]http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=A09937
[3]http://www.wirelesscommunity.info/2004/12/07/poor-reporting-by-the-bbc-about-nycs-wireless-lamp-post-licensing-deal/

Filed under: Community Wireless, Muniwireless, New York City, Policy

March 13, 2006 • 1:16 am 1

Vonage Requests CRTC Investigation Into Shaw VoIP Charges

“Michael Geist reports”:1 on a complaint that Vonage Canada has filed against Shaw for Shaw’s “quality of service enhancement”, which appears to be the first major discriminatory move against Vonage by a telco or cableco. The issues involved in this case are far-reaching, and particularly pertinent to the “Network Neutrality”:2 issue. If Shaw is providing a proper high-speed internet service, then Vonage users should generally be provided good quality phone service via their high-speed internet connection. But issues with VoIP service might be nothing more than anti-competitive tactics by the incumbent telco or cableco, and the end user would be none the wiser.

bq. Vonage Canada has filed a complaint with the CRTC against Shaw over Shaw’s VoIP premium surcharge. The cable company charges a $10 “quality of service enhancement” fee for VoIP users, which Vonage is characterizing as a VoIP tax. Vonage argues that because it “competes directly with the telephone services of the network operators that also provide the high-speed Internet access, the incentives to discriminate against us are clear. This will result in less innovation, less choice and higher prices for Canadian consumers in the long run.”

bq. This could become a hugely important case since much of the two-tier Internet is based on similar enhancement fees for either customers or web services. The CRTC mistakenly declined to address the net neutrality last year in its VoIP decision, despite considerable evidence that this was an emerging issue that could have debilitating effect on the Internet. In the months since that decision, both the telcos and cable cos have openly discussed their plans for a two-tier Internet. While it appears that Vonage has focused primarily on the need for greater transparency with the Shaw fee, this has opened the door to the CRTC becoming more engaged on network neutrality.

[1]http://michaelgeist.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1147&Itemid=85
[2]http://www.wirelesscommunity.info/network-neutrality

Filed under: Network Neutrality, News, Policy

March 12, 2006 • 1:27 pm 1

Why Muni-wireless advocates should be pushing for more public spectrum

J.H. Snider writes on his “Telecom Policy Blog”:1 about why “Municipal WiFi and Spectrum Policy go hand in hand”:2. His arguments are clear and to the point, and this is something that I wholeheartedly agree with. I would go a step further and say that in addition to muniwireless advocates, both techno-savvy consumers and technology companies that create hardware that uses unlicensed spectrum — such as Wi-Fi and network equipment vendors like Cisco, Netgear, and Apple — should be pushing for more public spectrum as well. These are people and companies that are going to be crowded by the addition of city-wide Wi-Fi deployments, and there’s no reason why we shouldn’t create a larger public resource for everyone to play in.

bq. For the last several years municipal WiFi policy advocates have been in survival mode. With more than a dozen legislatures — and many more waiting in the wings — seeking various ways to fatally wound municipal WiFi, the overwhelming first priority of municipal WiFi advocates has been to fight off this mortal threat. This agenda made sense. If you’re dead, the rest of life’s treats become irrelevant.

bq. But it’s now clear that municipal WiFi will not die. Sure, attempts to kill it will continue. And, here and there, some of those attempts will probably succeed. But the municipal WiFi movement is no longer in its cradle. It’s now a strapping adolescent and couldn’t be destroyed without a highly visible, blood spattered battle–a type of battle disliked by the vast majority of successful politicians.

bq. Thus, I believe the time is right for municipal WiFi advocates to shift at least some of their focus to spectrum policy. Why is this important? Because municipal WiFi uses unlicensed spectrum, and the quality and quantity of that spectrum has a direct bearing on the cost and quality of the broadband services they can provide. The more unlicensed spectrum they have, especially in the lower frequencies, the better and more affordable the service they can provide.

[1]http://www.jhsnider.net/telecompolicy/
[2]http://quixote.blogs.com/telecompolicy/2006/03/spectrum_policy.html

Filed under: Community Wireless, Muniwireless, Policy

March 8, 2006 • 12:37 pm 0

Toronto, Canada to deploy large municipal wireless network

Toronto Hydro Telecom “has announced”:1 that they will be installing a municipal wireless network throughout Toronto. This will make Toronto the largest municipal wireless effort in Canada, and is similar to similar efforts in Philadelphia and San Francisco. One of the interesting aspects of the project is how Toronto Hydro Telecom became a proponent of muni-wireless:

bq. In Ontario, where smart meters have been mandated, electrical utilities are looking at various telecommunications technologies for retrieving data from people’s homes and businesses for time-of-day billing purposes.

bq. Sources say Toronto Hydro has decided to support its smart meter plan using Wi-Fi technology, which can be accessed by any properly equipped laptop or handheld computing device.

bq. Brian Sharwood, a telecom analyst with the Seaboard Group in Toronto, said it makes sense for a utility to recoup the cost of supporting smart meters by also selling wireless broadband services. “In a way that’s the excuse to do all of this,” he said. “You’re going to run it past a lot of people anyway.”

bq. …

bq. But municipalities argue that competition is healthy and that blanketing communities with low-cost broadband access helps bridge the digital divide.

[1]http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1141643034143&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home

Filed under: International, Muniwireless, News, Policy

March 7, 2006 • 8:14 am 0

Out of the loop

Esme Vos of “MuniWireless”:2 writes in the New York Daily News about how “New Yorkers are left behind when it comes to low-cost, high-speed Internet”:1. Esme is absolutely correct when she highlights the lack of attention our City government has given this issue:

bq. Although New York City has recently awarded pilot contracts for building a Wi-Fi network for the Police and Fire Departments, this system is not intended for use by the public. And although New York recognizes how wireless communications can enhance public security, it has not fully grasped the potential that low-cost wireless networks provide in reducing the cost of other city services. Nor has it fully tackled the market failure that exists when consumers have only two equally expensive choices for high-speed Internet access (Verizon or Time Warner Cable in some boroughs; Verizon or Cablevision in others).

NYCwireless has been pushing these ideas for some time, and while there are certainly some attentive members of government like City Councilmember Gale Brewer, mostly what we say and do (like build free public hotspots in parks) falls on deaf ears.

[1]http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ideas_opinions/story/396732p-336268c.html
[2]http://www.muniwireless.com

Filed under: Community Wireless, Muniwireless, New York City, News, NYCwireless, Policy

March 6, 2006 • 12:18 am 0

Dutch telecoms regulator to force cable companies to open their networks

Esme Vos “reports on MuniWireless”:1 about the telecom policies being enacted in the Netherlands. The policies, which will force cable companies to open their networks to competitors. This policy brings their cable regulation in line with their telco regulation that requires the phone companies to provide open access to their competitors:

bq. OPTA, the Netherlands telecoms regulator, is planning to force cable companies in the Netherlands to open up their networks to competitors. This comes as no surprise to people following European telecoms regulatory affairs. The EU member states have forced the incumbent telcos to open up their networks to competitors, so it just makes sense for them to force the cable companies to do the same.

What strikes me is how this is *the exact opposite* of how the FCC decided this issue last year. It also strikes me that the Netherlands policy is far more forward thinking and promotes healthy competition, unlike the monopoly policy of the FCC.

[1]http://www.muniwireless.com/municipal/watch/1078/

Filed under: International, Network Neutrality, News, Policy

March 3, 2006 • 12:09 pm 0

Wireless news from Philadelphia this week

Laura Forlano, one of the “NYCwireless Board Members”:3, was a speaker at Wireless Day in Philadelphia. She reports:

bq. In terms of the Philadelphia project, the most interesting thing that I learned is that the government has been able to significantly influence the type of network that Earthlink is building through extensive negotiations about the social-economic goals of the network. By being the first city to announce such plans, Philadelphia had a lot of leverage in the negotiations. In addition, the Wireless Philadelphia organization intends to remain involved as a 501(c)(3) following the implementation of the network. Specifically, the organization would work to insure that low-income communities are getting the benefits of the network through skills training and other activities. Also, I learned that the Philadelphia City Council still needs to approve the overall project, which is complicated because Philadelphia is made up of a number of neighborhoods that had their own governments. The best person to talk to for more information is Derek Pew, the Interim CEO of Wireless Philadelphia.

bq. Also, Wireless Philadelphia does not replace the need for a more grassroots community organization in Philadelphia to drive innovative uses and applications on the network once it is built.

And on Wi-Fi Net News, Glenn Fleishman “reports”:1 on the details of the Philadelphia Municipal Wireless network deal with Earthlink, which was finalized on March 1:

bq. “The AP reports that Philadelphia has signed its contracts with EarthLink”:2: The deal includes 4,000 utility poles and $300,000 in utility payments from EarthLink per year plus $2 million in advance payments against revenue. These funds will be used to purchase 10,000 computers and training for low-income families; Phila. has a huge computer ownership gap as well as broadband and Internet access gap. The non-profit Wireless Philadelphia will receive five percent of EarthLink’s revenue, which is roughly the same as cable franchise fees. EarthLink will also provide $9.95 per month accounts for up to 25,000 low-income households, and 22 free Wi-Fi hotspots around down.

bq. The contract spans 10 years and is estimated to cost $20 to $22 million to fulfill. Note that this isn’t a different number from earlier expectations. The network was originally expected to cost $10 to $12 million to build and $1m per year to maintain. Over 10 years, an estimated $20-$22m conforms to that range.

bq. The city government will receive 3,000 accounts -— 1,250 free, 1,750 discounted -— and 700 discounted “T-1″ accounts, the AP reports, which are really point-to-multipoint broadband wireless connections over the Motorola Canopy aggregation network. Not mentioned here is Philadelphia moving other chunks of its existing data and telecom spending to Wireless Philadelphia and EarthLink; that amount was once estimated in the millions per year.

bq. EarthLink’s wholesale rate will be higher than the rate that Wireless Philadelphia initially anticipated: $12 per month rather than $9 per month. This rate could vary based on volume of customers by retail partners. Retail pricing isn’t noted here, but an EarthLink representative confirmed Thursday that the expect rate is about $20 per month, but that some retail partners will certainly offer lower prices.

bq. The next step? A 15-square-mile test network.

[1]http://wifinetnews.com/archives/006332.html
[2]http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/business/13992299.htm
[3]http://www.nycwireless.net/about

Filed under: Community Wireless, Muniwireless, News, NYCwireless, Policy

March 2, 2006 • 2:38 pm 0

Celebrate the release of Bruce Kushnick's new ebook — $200 Billion Broadband Scandal

bq. TELETRUTH NEWS ALERT: All are invited!

bq. *Special Book Signing Edition — Jeweled Boxed CD Version.*

bq. *Monday, March 6th, 2006, 7PM*

bq. “*The Half King*”:1
*505 W 23rd Street*
*New York, NY 10011*
212.462.4300

bq. Did America pay over $200 billion for fiber optic broadband services we never received? Is this why America is 16th in the world in broadband? Are you owed $2000.00 from Verizon, SBC, BellSouth or Qwest?

bq. Get your own autographed (CD) copy — Help Send Kushnick to Washington!

bq. The New York Times, Muniwireless, Good Morning Silicon Alley, Techdirt, Media Access — “a ‘sordid story’ of business fraud” — “damning list of indictments” — “meticulously documents” — “a powerful critique” — “serve as a warning for the promises made by the Bells today.” — “A Rant: All 406 Pages of it.”

bq. DSLPrime, Broadband Reports, Cook, Voic.us, Sociate, NYCwireless board member: “talented, persistent, honest” — “brilliantly documented this fraud” — “stunning in its implications.” — “Kushnick is in a long tradition of advocates like Ida Tarbell and Jane Jacobs” — “Anyone who wants the U.S. to thrive in this connected future should read Kushnick’s book.”

bq. Can’t make it and want to make a difference: Buy the book, donate money to help send Kushnick to Washington DC.

bq. More about the Book, Donate, Online ebook Version, about the Author: “http://www.newnetworks.com/broadbandscandals.htm”:2

bq. Read what the Experts are Blogging About: “http://200billionscandal.typepad.com”:4

bq. “Teletruth”:4 is a nationwide, independent customer alliance dedicated to broadband and telecommunications issues and a former member of the FCC Consumer Advisory Committee (2003-2004).

[1]http://www.thehalfking.com
[2]http://www.newnetworks.com/broadbandscandals.htm
[3]http://200billionscandal.typepad.com/
[4]http://www.teletruth.org

Filed under: Community Wireless, Event, New York City, Policy

February 27, 2006 • 8:57 am 0

Hillary Clinton: South Bronx needs wi-fi link

Hillary Clinton says what I have been saying for some time now. Its nice to see that Mrs. Clinton is promoting the idea of municipal networks. The “New York Daily News reports”:1:

bq. Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), making an appearance in the South Bronx yesterday, said the borough needs a wireless broadband network.

bq. “We need to expand the technological infrastructure in the Bronx,” Clinton said at a breakfast forum of the South Bronx Overall Economic Development Corporation (SoBRO). “We have to expand broadband access.”

bq. …

bq. “There are many places … that just are not profitable for these companies to serve,” Clinton said.

bq. The answer for places like the South Bronx, Clinton said, is publicly funded high-speed networks, such as the one SoBRO hopes to build.

bq. …

bq. But Clinton warned of attempts by the big telecom companies to push laws banning municipally owned networks, which they see as publicly subsidized competition.

bq. “We can’t let the utilities and telecommunications companies block community-owned networks,” she said.

[1]http://www.nydailynews.com/boroughs/story/393430p-333616c.html

Filed under: Muniwireless, News, Policy

February 27, 2006 • 1:58 am 1

High-speed Internet adoption slowing in the US

“C|Net”:1 and “InformationWeek”:2 report on a “study from Parks Associates”:3 that shows that high-speed internet adoption in the US is slowing. From “C|Net”:1:

bq. Americans’ home adoption of the Internet has stalled, and doesn’t appear likely to increase much in the next few years, according to a new research report issued Thursday.

bq. About 64 percent of Americans had some form of Internet access at home in 2005, said Dallas-based Parks Associates. That’s up from 62 percent in 2004, the research firm reported, while also predicting that Internet adoption will grow only 3 percentage points by 2009.

bq. “I think (adoption) is slowing down,” said John Barrett, director of research at Parks Associates. “Part of it is that it’s hard to get cheaper on the dial-up side than where prices are already at.”

bq. Last year, a study from the Pew Internet & American Life Project concluded that Americans’ adoption of broadband was slowing.

bq. The Parks Associates report said that 42 percent of Americans now have some form of broadband access at home, while 22 percent more have dial-up. An additional 13 percent get Internet access only outside of the home — at work or a library, for example — and 23 percent don’t use the Internet at all.

[1]http://news.com.com/Study+Americans+home+Net+adoption+slowing/2100-1034_3-6042670.html?tag=nefd.top
[2]http://www.informationweek.com/internet/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=180207781
[3]http://www.parksassociates.com/press/press_releases/2006/nat-scan_pr1.html

Filed under: News, Policy

Twitter

Blog Stats

  • 710 hits
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.