From dlc at lampinc.com Fri Jan 12 15:19:01 2018 From: dlc at lampinc.com (Dale Carstensen) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 16:19:01 -0700 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] Harvard finds less expensive internet (motherboard.vice.com) Message-ID: <20180112231902.09733264@lacn.los-alamos.net> Harvard Study Shows Why Big Telecom Is Terrified of Community-Run Broadband https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/d345pv/harvard-study-shows-why-big-telecom-is-terrified-of-community-run-broadband Hacker News comments https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16133890 Karl Bode Jan 12 2018, 4:00pm A new study out of Harvard once again makes it clear why incumbent ISPs like Comcast, Verizon and AT&T are so terrified by the idea of communities building their own broadband networks. According to the new study by the Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University, community-owned broadband networks provide consumers with significantly lower rates than their private-sector counterparts. ... From rl at 1st-mile.org Fri Jan 12 19:46:53 2018 From: rl at 1st-mile.org (Richard Lowenberg) Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 20:46:53 -0700 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] Fwd: NMEDD, Funding Agencies Call on Communities to Submit Economic Development Project Proposals for Funding Opportunities In-Reply-To: <1129809364221.1105697510508.2432.0.121450JL.2002@scheduler.constantcontact.com> References: <1129809364221.1105697510508.2432.0.121450JL.2002@scheduler.constantcontact.com> Message-ID: Of possible interest to some rural and tribal communities for broadband initiatives. RL -------- Original Message -------- Subject: NMEDD, Funding Agencies Call on Communities to Submit Economic Development Project Proposals for Funding Opportunities Date: 2018-01-12 12:51 From: New Mexico Economic Development Department Reply-To: edd.info at state.nm.us NMEDD, Funding Agencies Call on Communities to Submit Economic Development Project Proposals for Funding Opportunities Deadline for communities to submit a project for consideration is Feb. 16th. The New Mexico Economic Development Department will host the next FUNDIT meeting on March 6th to help local leaders identify funding for economic development projects. New Mexico FUNDIT, is a streamlined approach to help communities identify funding opportunities in one centralized location by bringing local, state and federal funding agencies together to analyze and compare proposals for capital projects. The state is calling on communities to submit project proposals by February 16th, for review during its upcoming meeting. New Mexico FUNDIT is an informal group of funding agencies that meets regularly to review potential projects. Over 13 Federal and State entities are represented in the group. Their goal is to improve the effectiveness of project review and support, while ensuring communities have the information they need to obtain full funding for projects. Projects should be of public interest; projects from commercial businesses are not eligible for this program. The types of projects to be considered include: * Business Development * Community Development * Infrastructure Development * Housing Projects * Downtown Redevelopment The meeting will take place from 1:30 p.m. - 3:30 p.m. The meeting is on March 6th, at MRCOG, 809 Copper Ave NW, Albuquerque, NM 87102. For more information, to submit a project application or to RSVP contact Johanna Nelson at Johanna.Nelson at state.nm.us, 505-827-0264. The application can also be accessed online HERE. https://gonm.biz/business-resource-center/edd-programs-for-business/finance-development/fundit/ Visit the New Mexico Economic Development Department online at gonm.biz New Mexico Economic Development Department, 1100 St. Francis Dr. , Joseph M. Montoya Building, Santa Fe, NM 87505-4147 --------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org --------------------------------------------------------------- From rl at 1st-mile.org Tue Jan 16 09:23:02 2018 From: rl at 1st-mile.org (Richard Lowenberg) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 10:23:02 -0700 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] Small Cell Legislation in NM Message-ID: <1d5a6afc4cc6dee3b22cbd0c554e6a0e@1st-mile.org> Small Cell Legislation in NM http://nmpolitics.net/index/2018/01/lawmakers-try-to-help-state-boost-cell-service/ From the SF New Mexican --------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org --------------------------------------------------------------- From rl at 1st-mile.org Tue Jan 16 09:31:08 2018 From: rl at 1st-mile.org (Richard Lowenberg) Date: Tue, 16 Jan 2018 10:31:08 -0700 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] CenturyLink Again Makes it Clear Rural Upgrades not a Priority Message-ID: <1d2a6ea2571d83247efd9b90437635c8@1st-mile.org> CenturyLink Again Makes it Clear Rural Upgrades not a Priority http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/CenturyLink-Again-Makes-it-Clear-Rural-Upgrades-not-a-Priority-141045 Speaking at an investor conference this week, CenturyLink CFO Sunit Patel once again made it clear that CenturyLink doesn't have much of an interest in the countless rural customers it serves. Or in getting those users closer to the FCC's actual definition of broadband (25 Mbps down, 3 Mbps up). (snip) --------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org --------------------------------------------------------------- From rl at 1st-mile.org Wed Jan 17 18:21:12 2018 From: rl at 1st-mile.org (Richard Lowenberg) Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2018 19:21:12 -0700 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] Fwd: Indigenous Connectivity Summit report In-Reply-To: <881D5BF4-3EA1-4539-9DDC-D0EC0DDB376D@isoc.org> References: <881D5BF4-3EA1-4539-9DDC-D0EC0DDB376D@isoc.org> Message-ID: <6c9f04ea56a76a29bb1f7aedd9025263@1st-mile.org> The following email is from Mark Buell, of the Internet Society, reporting on the Indigenous Connectivity Summit recently held in Santa Fe. Follow the link to download the excellent report. RL -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Indigenous Connectivity Summit report Date: 2018-01-17 18:17 From: Mark Buell To: Indigenous Connectivity Summit Hello, I am pleased to send the report from the Indigenous Connectivity Summit to you. At this landmark event in Santa Fe last November, nearly 200 people from across North America gathered in-person or online to discuss connecting Indigenous communities. It was such a great success, we?ve already started planning the next Summit for November 2018! The report includes a number of recommendations identified by the participants to create an environment for sustainable connectivity for Indigenous communities across the U.S. and Canada, including: * Creative connectivity solutions that focus on sustainability. * An enabling environment of supportive policies, funding opportunities and public education. * Capacity building and education within communities. * Easier access to spectrum for Indigenous communities. * Collaborative backhaul solutions founded on future-proof technology. * Research on the state of Indigenous connectivity across North America. I want to take the opportunity to thank you for your participation at this important event. The report is also available on our website. https://www.internetsociety.org/resources/doc/2018/indigenous-connectivity-summit-community-report/ If you have any questions or would like to discuss the report and next steps, please contact me. Thanks! Mark Buell Regional Bureau Director, North America Internet Society Follow us on Twitter! @isoc_na Skype: mark_at_isoc www.isoc.org --------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org --------------------------------------------------------------- From david at breeckerassociates.com Thu Jan 18 13:30:24 2018 From: david at breeckerassociates.com (David Breecker [dba]) Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2018 14:30:24 -0700 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] =?utf-8?q?Fwd=3A_Banks=2C_broadband_and_CRA_?= =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=93_financing_innovation_opportunity_=7C_SSTI?= Message-ID: <0255D014-EB95-4E6B-9FFD-AD87C023C169@breeckerassociates.com> Of possible interest: Can banks meet Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) obligations by helping address high-speed broadband gaps and the digital divide? Participants in a recent Federal Reserve webinar said yes and provided tips on how. https://ssti.org/blog/banks-broadband-and-cra-%E2%80%93-financing-innovation-opportunity?utm_source=SSTI+Weekly+Digest&utm_campaign=e296950526-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_01_18&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_ecf5992d4c-e296950526-212409789 David Breecker, President David Breecker Associates www.breeckerassociates.com Santa Fe Office: 505-690-2335 Abiquiu Office: 505-685-4891 Skype: dbreecker -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PastedGraphic-7.png Type: image/png Size: 7371 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rl at 1st-mile.org Mon Jan 22 11:26:28 2018 From: rl at 1st-mile.org (Richard Lowenberg) Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 12:26:28 -0700 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] Fwd: Join Us for Internet Society NM Chapter Meeting and Panel Discussion in Santa Fe - January 25, 2018 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <50b582a1646f7589605b77f87147388f@1st-mile.org> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Join Us for Internet Society NM Chapter Meeting and Panel Discussion in Santa Fe - January 25, 2018 Date: 2018-01-18 13:44 From: To: Dear Internet Society Friends, Happy 2018! On the heels of the Internet Society's November Indigenous Connectivity Summit in Santa Fe--which you helped to make a critical success--we are thrilled to announce that the New Mexico Chapter of the Internet Society is holding its first chapter meeting on Thursday, Jan. 25, from 2:30-4:30 at the Santa Fe Indian School at 1501 Cerrillos Road, Santa Fe, NM 87502 (in the Rotunda room in the Dorm building), and we hope you can come. _ REGISTER TO ATTEND HERE [1] __(This event is free and open to anyone. Please arrive at least 15 minutes early to proceed through the security gate and find the correct building on campus. Also, please feel free to share this invitation with others)._ THE EVENT WILL BEGIN WITH A PANEL DISCUSSION AMONG KEY PLAYERS IN NEW MEXICO?S GROWING DIY INTERNET MOVEMENT, AND WILL INCLUDE REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE MIDDLE RIO GRANDE PUEBLO TRIBAL CONSORTIUM (COMPRISING THE COCHITI, SAN FELIPE, SANTA ANA AND SANTO DOMINGO PUEBLOS), THE NAVAJO NATION, AND THE LAGUNA PUEBLO, AMONG OTHERS. These pueblos are breaking new ground in tribal internet networking, and in doing so, leading the charge in advancing network connectivity throughout the state. They will be talking about what they are doing, how they're doi ng it, and sharing insights and best practices. The panel discussion, which will include an audience Q&A, will be followed by a networking hour, so you can meet panel participants and others who are helping grow the internet ecosystem. The meeting will also include an update on the chapter's working plans for 2018. If you have not yet become a member [2] of the chapter, please do so now! Whether or not you can attend, we would love your help shaping the chapter's support for New Mexico (you can also connect with us on Facebook [3] and Twitter [4]). We hope you can join us on the 25th to help forge New Mexico's digital future! Warmest regards, NEW MEXICO CHAPTER OF THE INTERNET SOCIETY Internet Society New Mexico [5] Jennifer Nevarez (Chair) jennifernevarez at nmtechworks.com Merridith Ingram (Vice-chair) mingram at 66and.co Links: ------ [1] https://www.eventbrite.com/e/internet-society-new-mexico-chapter-2018-meeting-and-panel-discussion-tickets-42300066638?utm-medium=discovery&utm-campaign=social&utm-content=attendeeshare&aff=escb&utm-source=cp&utm-term=listing [2] https://portal.isoc.org/join [3] https://www.facebook.com/ISOCNewMexico [4] https://twitter.com/isocnewmexico [5] http://www.internetsocietynm.org/ --------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org --------------------------------------------------------------- From jhill at cybermesa.com Tue Jan 23 08:48:55 2018 From: jhill at cybermesa.com (Jane M. Hill) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 09:48:55 -0700 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] Montana Supports and Requires Net Neutrality Message-ID: <3ee4c94c-4602-d260-2d85-79d16631885c@cybermesa.com> *It's a start!* https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/montana-setsown-net-neutrality-rules_us_5a66cdede4b0e5630072de40?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009 -- *** Jane *** Cyber Mesa Telecom Santa Fe Headquarters Tel 505-988-9200 /Local Contact Numbers/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From john at citylinkfiber.com Tue Jan 23 09:12:20 2018 From: john at citylinkfiber.com (John Brown) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 10:12:20 -0700 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] Montana Supports and Requires Net Neutrality In-Reply-To: <3ee4c94c-4602-d260-2d85-79d16631885c@cybermesa.com> References: <3ee4c94c-4602-d260-2d85-79d16631885c@cybermesa.com> Message-ID: Wouldn't it be nice if New Mexico would be serious about this ?? If NM is, then it should include Pole Attachment rights for Broadband providers, not just CLEC/ILEC/Cable. It should also apply to co-ops as well On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 9:48 AM, Jane M. Hill wrote: > It's a start! > > > https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/montana-setsown-net-neutrality-rules_us_5a66cdede4b0e5630072de40?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009 > -- > > *** Jane *** > > Cyber Mesa Telecom > Santa Fe Headquarters > Tel 505-988-9200 > > Local Contact Numbers > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm > From coffin at isoc.org Tue Jan 23 09:23:23 2018 From: coffin at isoc.org (Jane Coffin) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 17:23:23 +0000 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] Montana Supports and Requires Net Neutrality In-Reply-To: <3ee4c94c-4602-d260-2d85-79d16631885c@cybermesa.com> References: <3ee4c94c-4602-d260-2d85-79d16631885c@cybermesa.com> Message-ID: Wow! Internet Society | www.internetsociety.org Skype: janercoffin Mobile/WhatsApp: +1.202.247.8429 From: 1st-mile-nm <1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org> on behalf of "Jane M. Hill" Date: Tuesday, January 23, 2018 at 11:49 AM To: "1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org" <1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org> Subject: [1st-mile-nm] Montana Supports and Requires Net Neutrality It's a start! https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/montana-setsown-net-neutrality-rules_us_5a66cdede4b0e5630072de40?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009 -- *** Jane *** Cyber Mesa Telecom Santa Fe Headquarters Tel 505-988-9200 Local Contact Numbers -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 4497 bytes Desc: not available URL: From coffin at isoc.org Tue Jan 23 11:31:46 2018 From: coffin at isoc.org (Jane Coffin) Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2018 19:31:46 +0000 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] Montana Supports and Requires Net Neutrality In-Reply-To: References: <3ee4c94c-4602-d260-2d85-79d16631885c@cybermesa.com> Message-ID: <8148A4D4-D5C4-4C54-B09E-C4D8E822A029@isoc.org> Have they ever done business overseas ? Internet Society | www.internetsociety.org Skype: janercoffin Mobile/WhatsApp: +1.202.247.8429 From: on behalf of Owen Densmore Date: Tuesday, January 23, 2018 at 12:43 PM To: Jane Coffin Cc: "Jane M. Hill" , "1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org" <1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org> Subject: Re: [1st-mile-nm] Montana Supports and Requires Net Neutrality I love this quote: "We simply cannot have 50 different regulations governing our internet" from "the broadband industry". Oh yes you can if you have a mentally deficient federal government! The internet routes around breakage. -- Owen On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 10:23 AM, Jane Coffin wrote: Wow! Internet Society | www.internetsociety.org Skype: janercoffin Mobile/WhatsApp: +1.202.247.8429 From: 1st-mile-nm <1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org> on behalf of "Jane M. Hill" Date: Tuesday, January 23, 2018 at 11:49 AM To: "1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org" <1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org> Subject: [1st-mile-nm] Montana Supports and Requires Net Neutrality It's a start! https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/montana-setsown-net-neutrality-rules_us_5a66cdede4b0e5630072de40?ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009 -- *** Jane *** Cyber Mesa Telecom Santa Fe Headquarters Tel 505-988-9200 Local Contact Numbers _______________________________________________ 1st-mile-nm mailing list 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 4497 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tom at jtjohnson.com Thu Jan 25 08:58:55 2018 From: tom at jtjohnson.com (Tom Johnson) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 11:58:55 -0500 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] 750+ American Communities Have Built Their Own Internet Networks | beSpacific Message-ID: https://www.bespacific.com/750-american-communities-have-built-their-own-internet-networks/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rl at 1st-mile.org Thu Jan 25 09:18:04 2018 From: rl at 1st-mile.org (Richard Lowenberg) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 10:18:04 -0700 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] 750+ American Communities Have Built Their Own Internet Networks In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1d33eca8fd4c93b2a96677f1dcb7ed5c@1st-mile.org> The original source of the story: https://muninetworks.org/communitymap I would take issue with Santa Fe being noted for a (muni) network, however. Otherwise, great work from the ILSR. Thanks Chris. RL On 2018-01-25 09:58, Tom Johnson wrote: > https://www.bespacific.com/750-american-communities-have-built-their-own-internet-networks/ > _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm --------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org --------------------------------------------------------------- From drew.einhorn at gmail.com Thu Jan 25 10:14:00 2018 From: drew.einhorn at gmail.com (Drew Einhorn) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 18:14:00 +0000 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] SB0039 Message-ID: https://www.nmlegis.gov/Sessions/18%20Regular/bills/senate/SB0039.pdf -- I don't remember, I don't recall I got no memory of anything at all -- Peter Gabriel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Mike.Ripperger at state.nm.us Thu Jan 25 10:43:52 2018 From: Mike.Ripperger at state.nm.us (Ripperger, Mike, PRC) Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2018 18:43:52 +0000 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] SB0039 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <17def7b4a0a64470bc9e2c08d806be41@MBXCAS005.nmes.lcl> See also companion bills SB 155 and HB 144. Michael Ripperger Telecom Bureau Chief Utility Division New Mexico Public Regulation Commission Phone 1-505-827-6902 Fax 1-505-827-4402 From: 1st-mile-nm [mailto:1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org] On Behalf Of Drew Einhorn Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2018 11:14 AM To: 1st-Mile-NM Subject: [1st-mile-nm] SB0039 https://www.nmlegis.gov/Sessions/18%20Regular/bills/senate/SB0039.pdf -- I don't remember, I don't recall I got no memory of anything at all -- Peter Gabriel -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From john at citylinkfiber.com Fri Jan 26 15:50:40 2018 From: john at citylinkfiber.com (John Brown) Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2018 16:50:40 -0700 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] If you don't get Net Neutrality, then this story will help you Message-ID: http://www.adweek.com/creativity/burger-king-deviously-explains-net-neutrality-by-making-people-wait-longer-for-whoppers/ From rl at 1st-mile.org Mon Jan 29 11:36:40 2018 From: rl at 1st-mile.org (Richard Lowenberg) Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 12:36:40 -0700 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] Joanne Hovis to testify tomorrow on Capitol Hill about "A Better (Broadband) Game Plan" Message-ID: I am posting this because Joanne and her company have been working under contract with the NM DoIT State Broadband Program on some good study/reports and actions, and because the following list of six steps forward are clear, intelligent, achievable and economy- stimulating. Click on the URL for the web site and links for tomorrow. RL ------ CLIC CEO, Joanne Hovis, will testify tomorrow on Capitol Hill about "A Better Game Plan" on how to utilize broadband infrastructure to reduce the digital divide. https://mailchi.mp/2f4a755016d4/our-way-forward-2661433?e=c51c3e32df Joanne Hovis, CLIC?s CEO and owner of CTC Technology and Energy, will be testifying at the House Energy & Commerce Communications & Technology Subcommittee tomorrow during a hearing titled ? Closing the Digital Divide: Broadband Infrastructure Solutions.? During her testimony, Joanne will be offering ?a better game plan,? one whose strategies ?address the core reason the digital divide persists: a lack of return on investment in many areas of the country.? Its six components include: Support public-private partnerships that ease the economic challenges of constructing rural and urban infrastructure; Incent local efforts to build infrastructure -- ones that private service providers can use -- by making bonding and other financing strategies more feasible; Target meaningful infrastructure capital support to rural and urban broadband deserts, not only to attract private capital but also to stimulate private efforts to gain or retain competitive advantage; Empower local governments to pursue broadband solutions of all types, including use of public assets to attract and shape private investment patterns, so as to leverage taxpayer-funded property and create competitive dynamics that attract incumbent investment; Require all entities that benefit from public subsidy to make enforceable commitments to build in areas that are historically unserved or underserved; and Maximize the benefits of competition by requiring that all federal subsidy programs are offered on a competitive and neutral basis for bid by any qualified entity. --------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org --------------------------------------------------------------- From rl at 1st-mile.org Thu Feb 8 10:40:02 2018 From: rl at 1st-mile.org (Richard Lowenberg) Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2018 11:40:02 -0700 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] NLR recollection Message-ID: <4feab5e4514e357bb7c2577ad0facd7c@1st-mile.org> While there is much featured news about the purchase of the L.A. Times and other publications by billionaire Patrick Soon-Shiung, I recalled the demise of the National LambdaRail (NLR) Network a few years back, and thought I'd note: From Wikipedia: >> In November 2011 the control of NLR was purchased from its university >> membership by a billionaire Patrick Soon-Shiong for $100M, who >> indicated his intention to upgrade NLR infrastructure and repurpose >> portions of it to support an ambitious healthcare project through >> NantHealth. The upgrade never took place. NLR ceased operations in >> March 2014.<< RL --------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org --------------------------------------------------------------- From john at citylinkfiber.com Thu Feb 8 11:20:39 2018 From: john at citylinkfiber.com (John Brown) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2018 12:20:39 -0700 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] NLR recollection In-Reply-To: <4feab5e4514e357bb7c2577ad0facd7c@1st-mile.org> References: <4feab5e4514e357bb7c2577ad0facd7c@1st-mile.org> Message-ID: And how much did our State and UNM spend of tax payer money on this 'wonderful' NLR. It was suppose to enhance NM connectivity to the world. In the end it looks like it didn't come thru on that mission. More wasted tax payer money on broadband projects that don't deliver. It makes much more sense for our State to create some simple policies that enable competitive providers to actually compete. One stop process for rights of way access. Instead of over 200 different agreements. One stop process for pole attachment, instead of seeing if PNM or CenturyLink will or will not drag their feet and let you on the poles. Dig Once requirements for when a Muni does construction to allow providers access to the trench at the same time.. Huge savings there On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 11:40 AM, Richard Lowenberg wrote: > While there is much featured news about the purchase of the L.A. Times and > other publications by billionaire Patrick Soon-Shiung, I recalled the demise > of the > National LambdaRail (NLR) Network a few years back, and thought I'd note: > > From Wikipedia: >>> >>> In November 2011 the control of NLR was purchased from its university >>> membership by a billionaire Patrick Soon-Shiong for $100M, who indicated his >>> intention to upgrade NLR infrastructure and repurpose portions of it to >>> support an ambitious healthcare project through NantHealth. The upgrade >>> never took place. NLR ceased operations in March 2014.<< > > > RL > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director > 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 > Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, > rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org > --------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm From rl at 1st-mile.org Thu Feb 8 16:56:10 2018 From: rl at 1st-mile.org (Richard Lowenberg) Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2018 17:56:10 -0700 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] Civic Switchboard Message-ID: <9c64bbd2efb7aae8917e60ce4da126e0@1st-mile.org> We all know that Libraries (in all their dimensions) are key nodes amid the internetworking of societies. They can serve as anchor institutions for community fiber initiatives. They can also be community content and applications providers. Here's a small initiative of possible interest. https://civic-switchboard.github.io Civic Switchboard is an Institute of Museum and Library Services supported effort that aims to develop the capacity of academic and public libraries in civic data ecosystems. This project encourages partnerships between libraries and local data intermediaries; these partnerships will better serve data users, further democratize data, and support equitable access to information. The project will create a toolkit for libraries interested in expanding (or beginning) their role around civic information. RL --------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org --------------------------------------------------------------- From josmon at rigozsaurus.com Thu Feb 8 16:56:53 2018 From: josmon at rigozsaurus.com (John Osmon) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2018 17:56:53 -0700 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] NLR recollection In-Reply-To: References: <4feab5e4514e357bb7c2577ad0facd7c@1st-mile.org> Message-ID: <20180209005653.GA12252@jeeves.rigozsaurus.com> > It makes much more sense for our State to create some simple policies > that enable competitive providers to actually compete. How about a single, simple rule to help drive competition: If you use the public right of way, you prohibited from being an ISP. You can provide transport from consumer sites to an ISP, but you can't play as one. Your job is to interconnect consumers and ISPs. The model worked well in the dial-up and DSL days. It's working with "modern" access models in other geographic areas. Anyone else have some simple ideas that would help? From christopher at ilsr.org Thu Feb 8 18:22:28 2018 From: christopher at ilsr.org (Christopher Mitchell) Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2018 20:22:28 -0600 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] NLR recollection In-Reply-To: <20180209005653.GA12252@jeeves.rigozsaurus.com> References: <4feab5e4514e357bb7c2577ad0facd7c@1st-mile.org> <20180209005653.GA12252@jeeves.rigozsaurus.com> Message-ID: In addition to what John Brown said and something that does not violate federal law as I believe John Osmon's suggestions do (though they are valid ideas, just not under current federal rules) - I would suggest what Kentucky is doing. Rather than paying leasing lines from AT&T for its many state offices and facilities, it is taking the money it would have used for leases and building an open access fiber network to those areas with a point of presence in each county. This is something that doesn't solve all the problems, but it does help in a number of areas. Christopher Mitchell Director, Community Broadband Networks Institute for Local Self-Reliance MuniNetworks.org @communitynets 612-545-5185 On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 6:56 PM, John Osmon wrote: > > It makes much more sense for our State to create some simple policies > > that enable competitive providers to actually compete. > > How about a single, simple rule to help drive competition: > If you use the public right of way, you prohibited from being an ISP. > > > You can provide transport from consumer sites to an ISP, but you can't > play as one. Your job is to interconnect consumers and ISPs. > > The model worked well in the dial-up and DSL days. It's working with > "modern" access models in other geographic areas. > > > Anyone else have some simple ideas that would help? > _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From john at citylinkfiber.com Fri Feb 9 07:36:48 2018 From: john at citylinkfiber.com (John Brown) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2018 08:36:48 -0700 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] NM Net Neutrality, apartment complexes Message-ID: As we ponder net neutrality here in our state, lets consider a few things. Apartment complexes. Over 1/3 of all people in the US live in an apartment and I suspect more so in New Mexico. Cable and incumbent phone companies have long wiggled around the various rules and created economic and contractual barriers to enter an apartment complex as a new provider. Comcast has a documented history of creating various agreements to prevent apartment renters from having an Open Choice. These agreements create a monopoly or a duopoly. New entrants to the broadband providing market place are basically blocked from entry. Apartment complex owners are not likely to want to change because they GET PAID by the incumbent provider(s) for Door Fees, Revenue Shares and other special deals. So if you own a home, you have FAR MORE CHOICES than if you rent an apartment In general an apartment complex is creating a defacto Fast/Slow lane to the internet. Companies like Comcast and CenturyLink know that customers have no other choice so there is no market force to do better, either for speed or customer service. They know the customer is locked in. So we need to break that down. Sure, private property owners have a right to do what they want on their property. Push the rule to the public rights of way. Make it a requirement that there is no special deals, no kick backs, no blocking at an apartment if you want to use the public rights of way. Change the zoning laws to require multi-tenant complexes to NOT block other providers. If we don't make some of these changes we will be STUCK with the same that we have had. From rl at 1st-mile.org Fri Feb 9 11:45:24 2018 From: rl at 1st-mile.org (Richard Lowenberg) Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2018 12:45:24 -0700 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] FCC Tribal Matters Message-ID: The FCC Office of Native Affairs and Policy announced (in Feb.) that it finds it appropriate to renew and seek applications for membership on the Native Nations Communications Task Force. The issues to be considered by the Task Force may include, but are not limited to: (i) executing the Commission?s Tribal Consultation policy; (ii) identifying barriers to broadband deployment that are unique to Tribal lands; (iii) ensuring Tribal concerns are considered in all Commission proceedings related to broadband and other Commission undertakings that affect Tribal interests regarding communications services and facilities. See attachment. Also of note: Broadband adoption rates on Tribal Lands is just 32.6%. From the FCC's just issued 2018 Broadband Deployment Report. RL --------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org --------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: DA-18-127A1.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 131089 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Carroll at Cagleandassociates.com Fri Feb 9 12:38:21 2018 From: Carroll at Cagleandassociates.com (Carroll Cagle) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2018 13:38:21 -0700 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] NM Net Neutrality, apartment complexes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000c01d3a1e5$ed32aba0$c79802e0$@Cagleandassociates.com> The experience that I and fellow open-access team members found over time was just as John describes. Anyplace the incumbents can squeeze out others, they do. It is good to illuminate the often-overlooked "apartment exclusion" strategy, because it is big and important. Although, unfortunately, it is only one of many ways that the incumbent duopoly do things to their advantage, and contrary to the advantages of their customers, and the precepts of free market economics. Carroll -----Original Message----- From: 1st-mile-nm [mailto:1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org] On Behalf Of John Brown Sent: Friday, February 09, 2018 8:37 AM To: 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org Subject: [1st-mile-nm] NM Net Neutrality, apartment complexes As we ponder net neutrality here in our state, lets consider a few things. Apartment complexes. Over 1/3 of all people in the US live in an apartment and I suspect more so in New Mexico. Cable and incumbent phone companies have long wiggled around the various rules and created economic and contractual barriers to enter an apartment complex as a new provider. Comcast has a documented history of creating various agreements to prevent apartment renters from having an Open Choice. These agreements create a monopoly or a duopoly. New entrants to the broadband providing market place are basically blocked from entry. Apartment complex owners are not likely to want to change because they GET PAID by the incumbent provider(s) for Door Fees, Revenue Shares and other special deals. So if you own a home, you have FAR MORE CHOICES than if you rent an apartment In general an apartment complex is creating a defacto Fast/Slow lane to the internet. Companies like Comcast and CenturyLink know that customers have no other choice so there is no market force to do better, either for speed or customer service. They know the customer is locked in. So we need to break that down. Sure, private property owners have a right to do what they want on their property. Push the rule to the public rights of way. Make it a requirement that there is no special deals, no kick backs, no blocking at an apartment if you want to use the public rights of way. Change the zoning laws to require multi-tenant complexes to NOT block other providers. If we don't make some of these changes we will be STUCK with the same that we have had. _______________________________________________ 1st-mile-nm mailing list 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm From mimcom at sw-ei.com Thu Feb 15 08:43:08 2018 From: mimcom at sw-ei.com (Mimbres Communications) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2018 09:43:08 -0700 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] Stop Saying 'Smart Cities' Message-ID: Digital stardust won?t magically make future cities more affordable or resilient. https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/02/stupid-cities/553052/ ...the cities of the future won?t be ?smart,? or well-engineered, cleverly designed, just, clean, fair, green, sustainable, safe, healthy, affordable, or resilient. They won?t have any particularly higher ethical values of liberty, equality, or fraternity, either. The future smart city will be the internet, the mobile cloud, and a lot of weird paste-on gadgetry, deployed by City Hall, mostly for the sake of making towns more attractive to capital. Whenever that?s done right, it will increase the soft power of the more alert and ambitious towns and make the mayors look more electable. When it?s done wrong, it?ll much resemble the ragged downsides of the previous waves of urban innovation, such as railways, electrification, freeways, and oil pipelines. There will also be a host of boozy side effects and toxic blowback that even the wisest urban planner could never possibly expect. -- Kurt Albershardt | Mimbres Communications, LLC | 575-342-0042 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rl at 1st-mile.org Thu Feb 15 08:59:54 2018 From: rl at 1st-mile.org (Richard Lowenberg) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2018 09:59:54 -0700 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] San Luis Valley (CO) Rural Electric Cooperative's Fiber Initiative Message-ID: <2178a580d28f0a5b8dbac7e5008d7a86@1st-mile.org> From the ILSR / Community Networks, on a project in south-central CO, just north of NM. San Luis Valley Rural Electric Cooperative Connecting Colorado With Pioneering Fiber Wed, February 14, 2018 | Posted by lgonzalez https://muninetworks.org/content/san-luis-valley-rural-electric-cooperative-connecting-colorado-pioneering-fiber When the San Luis Valley Rural Electric Cooperative (SLVREC) decided to invest in fiber for more efficient electrical operations, they also took the first step toward improving Internet access for residents and businesses in Colorado?s San Luis Valley. The cooperative is building a network for both members and local nonmembers in some of Colorado?s least populated and worst connected areas. (snip) Check out their beautifully produced video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ifnLJz8vUw --------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org --------------------------------------------------------------- From lpascual at asoundlook.com Thu Feb 15 09:54:44 2018 From: lpascual at asoundlook.com (Leonard Pascual) Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2018 10:54:44 -0700 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] Stop Saying 'Smart Cities' In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This is why the they need to be led by Integrators not just the big communication organizations On Thu, Feb 15, 2018 at 9:43 AM, Mimbres Communications wrote: > Digital stardust won?t magically make future cities more affordable or > resilient. > > https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/02/ > stupid-cities/553052/ > > ...the cities of the future won?t be ?smart,? or well-engineered, cleverly > designed, just, clean, fair, green, sustainable, safe, healthy, affordable, > or resilient. They won?t have any particularly higher ethical values of > liberty, equality, or fraternity, either. The future smart city will be the > internet, the mobile cloud, and a lot of weird paste-on gadgetry, deployed > by City Hall, mostly for the sake of making towns more attractive to > capital. > > Whenever that?s done right, it will increase the soft power of the more > alert and ambitious towns and make the mayors look more electable. When > it?s done wrong, it?ll much resemble the ragged downsides of the previous > waves of urban innovation, such as railways, electrification, freeways, and > oil pipelines. There will also be a host of boozy side effects and toxic > blowback that even the wisest urban planner could never possibly expect. > > > > -- > > Kurt Albershardt | Mimbres Communications, LLC | 575-342-0042 <(575)%20342-0042> > > > _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm > > -- Leonard Pascual A Sound Look 502 Cerrillos Road Santa Fe, NM 87501 505.983.5509 ext 201 *Office* lpascual at asoundlook.com leonard.pascual *SKYPE* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rl at 1st-mile.org Fri Feb 23 09:09:34 2018 From: rl at 1st-mile.org (Richard Lowenberg) Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2018 10:09:34 -0700 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] 2018 FCC Fixed Broadband Map Message-ID: The FCC Has just released a new, interactive Fixed Broadband Map, based on telco's Form 477 filings. Take a look. https://broadbandmap.fcc.gov/#/ There are inaccuracies. See: http://www.telecompetitor.com/national-broadband-map-updates-newer-data-speed-tiers-some-still-see-flaws/ There's a link at article end, to (inaccurate) wireless coverages, as well. http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/The-FCCs-New-Broadband-Availability-Map-is-a-Misleading-Joke-141303 Not sure how the new FCC mapping jives with our NM DoIT Broadband Maps. https://nmbbmapping.org/mapping/ RL --------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org --------------------------------------------------------------- From david at breeckerassociates.com Mon Feb 26 15:01:01 2018 From: david at breeckerassociates.com (David Breecker [dba]) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 16:01:01 -0700 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] Fwd: Are you ready for 5G? | McKinsey & Company Message-ID: <1B3B161D-6D4D-4455-AA03-FE6FC2A2245F@breeckerassociates.com> Interesting stuff; 100mbps fixed wireless? The fifth generation of wireless technology promises lightning-fast speed, incredibly low latency, and the capacity to carry massive numbers of connections simultaneously. Not surprisingly, the imminent arrival of 5G is creating a buzz in both the industry and the wider world. https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/telecommunications/our-insights/are-you-ready-for-5g?cid=other-eml-alt-mip-mck-oth-1802&hlkid=7013db8b39cb44799aa67e3c925af7a7&hctky=2005659&hdpid=33ced573-471c-4a91-859e-c60e93b75630 David Breecker, President David Breecker Associates www.breeckerassociates.com Santa Fe Office: 505-690-2335 Abiquiu Office: 505-685-4891 Skype: dbreecker -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PastedGraphic-7.png Type: image/png Size: 7371 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mimcom at sw-ei.com Mon Feb 26 21:17:23 2018 From: mimcom at sw-ei.com (Mimbres Communications) Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2018 22:17:23 -0700 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] Fwd: Are you ready for 5G? | McKinsey & Company In-Reply-To: <1B3B161D-6D4D-4455-AA03-FE6FC2A2245F@breeckerassociates.com> References: <1B3B161D-6D4D-4455-AA03-FE6FC2A2245F@breeckerassociates.com> Message-ID: Can we bang this McKinsey guy on the head? Multiple factual errors on the urban use case. No apparent understanding that the combination of geography and basic physics conspire to make the rural use case truly challenging. On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 4:01 PM, David Breecker [dba] < david at breeckerassociates.com> wrote: > Interesting stuff; 100mbps fixed wireless? > > *The fifth generation of wireless technology* promises lightning-fast > speed, incredibly low latency, and the capacity to carry massive numbers of > connections simultaneously. Not surprisingly, the imminent arrival of 5G is > creating a buzz in both the industry and the wider world. > > https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/telecommunications/ > our-insights/are-you-ready-for-5g?cid=other-eml-alt-mip- > mck-oth-1802&hlkid=7013db8b39cb44799aa67e3c925af7a7&hctky=2005659&hdpid= > 33ced573-471c-4a91-859e-c60e93b75630 > > David Breecker, > President > > > *David Breecker Associates* > *www.breeckerassociates.com * > > Santa Fe Office: 505-690-2335 <(505)%20690-2335> > Abiquiu Office: 505-685-4891 <(505)%20685-4891> > Skype: dbreecker > > > _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm > > -- Kurt Albershardt | Mimbres Communications, LLC | 575-342-0042 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PastedGraphic-7.png Type: image/png Size: 7371 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rl at 1st-mile.org Wed Feb 28 12:47:36 2018 From: rl at 1st-mile.org (Richard Lowenberg) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 13:47:36 -0700 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold In-Reply-To: References: <1B3B161D-6D4D-4455-AA03-FE6FC2A2245F@breeckerassociates.com> Message-ID: <91f1aab07d08099b4651f3530b85710f@1st-mile.org> Following on recent postings. RL ------- Commercial service is years away, but even then, 5G won?t fulfill all of its promises https://spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/internet/5g-is-in-danger-of-being-oversold By Stacey Higginbotham Just like graphene or Elon Musk?s startups, 5G has become a technology savior. Proponents tout the poorly defined wireless technology as the path to virtual reality, telemedicine, and self-?driving cars. But 5G is not a technology?it?s a buzzword unleashed by marketing departments. As early as 2012, Broadcom was using it to sell Wi-Fi. In reality, 5G is a term that telecommunications investors and executives sling around as the solution to high infrastructure costs, the need for more bandwidth, and a desire to boost margins. The unifying component behind 5G is faster wireless broadband service. A more stringent?and practical?definition is the use of high-frequency millimeter waves (in addition to the microwaves that 4G LTE relies on today) to deliver over-the-air broadband to phones or homes. If you?re talking about phones, 5G is still years away. And new services aren?t really on the menu. Just listen to the heads of several telecommunications companies, who have begun to tamp down investors? expectations around what 5G can deliver. (snip) --------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org --------------------------------------------------------------- From doug.orr at gmail.com Wed Feb 28 16:16:04 2018 From: doug.orr at gmail.com (Doug Orr) Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2018 00:16:04 +0000 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold In-Reply-To: <91f1aab07d08099b4651f3530b85710f@1st-mile.org> References: <1B3B161D-6D4D-4455-AA03-FE6FC2A2245F@breeckerassociates.com> <91f1aab07d08099b4651f3530b85710f@1st-mile.org> Message-ID: I'm unclear as to why 5g fixed is going to be cheaper to deploy than fiber. If the state charges $250/antenna... that buys a lot of hardwired installer time. And the antennas need backhaul, presumably, so lighting up a neighborhood in anticipation of new customer uptake... that seems a lot like upgrading infrastructure that would be needed if the idea is to offer faster aggregate speeds. What's the model here? Does anyone know of real world benchmarks for 5G applications (e.g., netflix)? Doug On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 1:47 PM Richard Lowenberg wrote: > Following on recent postings. RL > > ------- > > Commercial service is years away, but even then, 5G won?t fulfill all of > its promises > > > https://spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/internet/5g-is-in-danger-of-being-oversold > > By Stacey Higginbotham > > Just like graphene or Elon Musk?s startups, 5G has become a technology > savior. Proponents tout the poorly defined wireless technology as the > path to virtual reality, telemedicine, and self-?driving cars. > > But 5G is not a technology?it?s a buzzword unleashed by marketing > departments. As early as 2012, Broadcom was using it to sell Wi-Fi. In > reality, 5G is a term that telecommunications investors and executives > sling around as the solution to high infrastructure costs, the need for > more bandwidth, and a desire to boost margins. > > The unifying component behind 5G is faster wireless broadband service. A > more stringent?and practical?definition is the use of high-frequency > millimeter waves (in addition to the microwaves that 4G LTE relies on > today) to deliver over-the-air broadband to phones or homes. > > If you?re talking about phones, 5G is still years away. And new services > aren?t really on the menu. Just listen to the heads of several > telecommunications companies, who have begun to tamp down investors? > expectations around what 5G can deliver. > > (snip) > > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director > 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 <(505)%20603-5200> > Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, > rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org > --------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From masha at bbcmag.com Wed Feb 28 16:29:58 2018 From: masha at bbcmag.com (Masha Zager) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 19:29:58 -0500 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold In-Reply-To: References: <1B3B161D-6D4D-4455-AA03-FE6FC2A2245F@breeckerassociates.com> <91f1aab07d08099b4651f3530b85710f@1st-mile.org> Message-ID: <011701d3b0f4$6f134900$4d39db00$@bbcmag.com> It?s not. See this: http://www.bbcmag.com/2017mags/Mar_Apr/BBC_Mar17_5GNotAnswer.pdf Masha Zager Editor-in-Chief, Broadband Communities masha at bbcmag.com 518-943-0374 www.bbcmag.com www.twitter.com/bbcmag From: 1st-mile-nm [mailto:1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org] On Behalf Of Doug Orr Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 7:16 PM To: rl at 1st-mile.org Cc: 1st-Mile-NM Subject: Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold I'm unclear as to why 5g fixed is going to be cheaper to deploy than fiber. If the state charges $250/antenna... that buys a lot of hardwired installer time. And the antennas need backhaul, presumably, so lighting up a neighborhood in anticipation of new customer uptake... that seems a lot like upgrading infrastructure that would be needed if the idea is to offer faster aggregate speeds. What's the model here? Does anyone know of real world benchmarks for 5G applications (e.g., netflix)? Doug On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 1:47 PM Richard Lowenberg wrote: Following on recent postings. RL ------- Commercial service is years away, but even then, 5G won?t fulfill all of its promises https://spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/internet/5g-is-in-danger-of-being-oversold By Stacey Higginbotham Just like graphene or Elon Musk?s startups, 5G has become a technology savior. Proponents tout the poorly defined wireless technology as the path to virtual reality, telemedicine, and self-?driving cars. But 5G is not a technology?it?s a buzzword unleashed by marketing departments. As early as 2012, Broadcom was using it to sell Wi-Fi. In reality, 5G is a term that telecommunications investors and executives sling around as the solution to high infrastructure costs, the need for more bandwidth, and a desire to boost margins. The unifying component behind 5G is faster wireless broadband service. A more stringent?and practical?definition is the use of high-frequency millimeter waves (in addition to the microwaves that 4G LTE relies on today) to deliver over-the-air broadband to phones or homes. If you?re talking about phones, 5G is still years away. And new services aren?t really on the menu. Just listen to the heads of several telecommunications companies, who have begun to tamp down investors? expectations around what 5G can deliver. (snip) --------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org --------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ 1st-mile-nm mailing list 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JBadal at sacred-wind.com Wed Feb 28 16:48:45 2018 From: JBadal at sacred-wind.com (John Badal) Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2018 00:48:45 +0000 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold In-Reply-To: <011701d3b0f4$6f134900$4d39db00$@bbcmag.com> References: <1B3B161D-6D4D-4455-AA03-FE6FC2A2245F@breeckerassociates.com> <91f1aab07d08099b4651f3530b85710f@1st-mile.org> <011701d3b0f4$6f134900$4d39db00$@bbcmag.com> Message-ID: 5G has the same sexy appeal to the uniformed as fiber to the home. Rural communities are crying for both, afraid they?d fall deeper into the digital divide, but unaware that the vast majority of consumers could never use gigabit speeds outside of recreating in the home Star Trek-like virtual reality holodecks. What makes much more sense to me is for Albuquerque to build 20-lane highways and 10-lane boulevards throughout the city to eliminate any congestion during rush hours, along with robotic car removal systems to dispense with cars damaged in an accident. John From: 1st-mile-nm [mailto:1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org] On Behalf Of Masha Zager Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 5:30 PM To: 'Doug Orr' ; rl at 1st-mile.org Cc: '1st-Mile-NM' <1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org> Subject: Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold It?s not. See this: http://www.bbcmag.com/2017mags/Mar_Apr/BBC_Mar17_5GNotAnswer.pdf Masha Zager Editor-in-Chief, Broadband Communities masha at bbcmag.com 518-943-0374 www.bbcmag.com www.twitter.com/bbcmag From: 1st-mile-nm [mailto:1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org] On Behalf Of Doug Orr Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 7:16 PM To: rl at 1st-mile.org Cc: 1st-Mile-NM Subject: Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold I'm unclear as to why 5g fixed is going to be cheaper to deploy than fiber. If the state charges $250/antenna... that buys a lot of hardwired installer time. And the antennas need backhaul, presumably, so lighting up a neighborhood in anticipation of new customer uptake... that seems a lot like upgrading infrastructure that would be needed if the idea is to offer faster aggregate speeds. What's the model here? Does anyone know of real world benchmarks for 5G applications (e.g., netflix)? Doug On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 1:47 PM Richard Lowenberg > wrote: Following on recent postings. RL ------- Commercial service is years away, but even then, 5G won?t fulfill all of its promises https://spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/internet/5g-is-in-danger-of-being-oversold By Stacey Higginbotham Just like graphene or Elon Musk?s startups, 5G has become a technology savior. Proponents tout the poorly defined wireless technology as the path to virtual reality, telemedicine, and self-?driving cars. But 5G is not a technology?it?s a buzzword unleashed by marketing departments. As early as 2012, Broadcom was using it to sell Wi-Fi. In reality, 5G is a term that telecommunications investors and executives sling around as the solution to high infrastructure costs, the need for more bandwidth, and a desire to boost margins. The unifying component behind 5G is faster wireless broadband service. A more stringent?and practical?definition is the use of high-frequency millimeter waves (in addition to the microwaves that 4G LTE relies on today) to deliver over-the-air broadband to phones or homes. If you?re talking about phones, 5G is still years away. And new services aren?t really on the menu. Just listen to the heads of several telecommunications companies, who have begun to tamp down investors? expectations around what 5G can deliver. (snip) --------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org --------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ 1st-mile-nm mailing list 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nicholas at espeset.net Wed Feb 28 22:18:49 2018 From: nicholas at espeset.net (Nicholas Espeset) Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2018 23:18:49 -0700 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold In-Reply-To: References: <1B3B161D-6D4D-4455-AA03-FE6FC2A2245F@breeckerassociates.com> <91f1aab07d08099b4651f3530b85710f@1st-mile.org> <011701d3b0f4$6f134900$4d39db00$@bbcmag.com> Message-ID: So, will this compete with the incredibly awesome power of White Space radios? Are those still a thing with people who can't do the math? On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 5:48 PM, John Badal wrote: > 5G has the same sexy appeal to the uniformed as fiber to the home. Rural > communities are crying for both, afraid they?d fall deeper into the digital > divide, but unaware that the vast majority of consumers could never use > gigabit speeds outside of recreating in the home Star Trek-like virtual > reality holodecks. What makes much more sense to me is for Albuquerque > to build 20-lane highways and 10-lane boulevards throughout the city to > eliminate any congestion during rush hours, along with robotic car removal > systems to dispense with cars damaged in an accident. > > > > John > > > > *From:* 1st-mile-nm [mailto:1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org] *On > Behalf Of *Masha Zager > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 28, 2018 5:30 PM > *To:* 'Doug Orr' ; rl at 1st-mile.org > *Cc:* '1st-Mile-NM' <1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org> > > *Subject:* Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold > > > > It?s not. See this: http://www.bbcmag.com/2017mags/Mar_Apr/BBC_Mar17_ > 5GNotAnswer.pdf > > > > > > > *Masha Zager *Editor-in-Chief, Broadband Communities > masha at bbcmag.com > 518-943-0374 <(518)%20943-0374> > www.bbcmag.com > www.twitter.com/bbcmag > > > > *From:* 1st-mile-nm [mailto:1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org > <1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org>] *On Behalf Of *Doug Orr > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 28, 2018 7:16 PM > *To:* rl at 1st-mile.org > *Cc:* 1st-Mile-NM > *Subject:* Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold > > > > I'm unclear as to why 5g fixed is going to be cheaper to deploy than > fiber. If the state charges $250/antenna... that buys a lot of hardwired > installer time. And the antennas need backhaul, presumably, so lighting up > a neighborhood in anticipation of new customer uptake... that seems a lot > like upgrading infrastructure that would be needed if the idea is to offer > faster aggregate speeds. > > > > What's the model here? > > > > Does anyone know of real world benchmarks for 5G applications (e.g., > netflix)? > > > > Doug > > > > On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 1:47 PM Richard Lowenberg wrote: > > Following on recent postings. RL > > ------- > > Commercial service is years away, but even then, 5G won?t fulfill all of > its promises > > https://spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/internet/5g-is-in- > danger-of-being-oversold > > By Stacey Higginbotham > > Just like graphene or Elon Musk?s startups, 5G has become a technology > savior. Proponents tout the poorly defined wireless technology as the > path to virtual reality, telemedicine, and self-?driving cars. > > But 5G is not a technology?it?s a buzzword unleashed by marketing > departments. As early as 2012, Broadcom was using it to sell Wi-Fi. In > reality, 5G is a term that telecommunications investors and executives > sling around as the solution to high infrastructure costs, the need for > more bandwidth, and a desire to boost margins. > > The unifying component behind 5G is faster wireless broadband service. A > more stringent?and practical?definition is the use of high-frequency > millimeter waves (in addition to the microwaves that 4G LTE relies on > today) to deliver over-the-air broadband to phones or homes. > > If you?re talking about phones, 5G is still years away. And new services > aren?t really on the menu. Just listen to the heads of several > telecommunications companies, who have begun to tamp down investors? > expectations around what 5G can deliver. > > (snip) > > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director > 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 <(505)%20603-5200> > Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, > rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org > --------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm > > > _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm > > -- Nicholas Espeset Espeset Associates, LLC 8 Melado Drive Santa Fe, New Mexico 87508-2254 USA nicholas at espeset.net 505.466.TECH (office) 505.466.6025 (fax) 505.231.7535 (cell) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From christopher at ilsr.org Thu Mar 1 07:31:45 2018 From: christopher at ilsr.org (Christopher Mitchell) Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2018 07:31:45 -0800 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold In-Reply-To: References: <1B3B161D-6D4D-4455-AA03-FE6FC2A2245F@breeckerassociates.com> <91f1aab07d08099b4651f3530b85710f@1st-mile.org> <011701d3b0f4$6f134900$4d39db00$@bbcmag.com> Message-ID: The point of a gig is not to use all of it anymore than the point of a highway is to experiment with the maximum number of cars you can put on it. The point of a gig is abundance - sure 452 Mbps would probably do that too, but a gig resonates and is a standard. It would be difficult for me to use all of the electricity that can flow into my house - but we overprovision certain kinds of infrastructure when that can unlock additional value. And finally, if we assume that communities will still need high quality Internet access in 30 years, everyone I talk to that does both fiber and wireless says that while fiber is more expensive on the front end, the much lower operating and future upgrade costs ultimately make it MORE cost effective than wireless over a period of decades. There are many legitimate reasons for people in rural areas to "cry" for better connectivity even if they have the same number of gigabit applications as we do cars that are 5 lanes wide. Christopher Mitchell Director, Community Broadband Networks Institute for Local Self-Reliance MuniNetworks.org @communitynets 612-545-5185 On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 4:48 PM, John Badal wrote: > 5G has the same sexy appeal to the uniformed as fiber to the home. Rural > communities are crying for both, afraid they?d fall deeper into the digital > divide, but unaware that the vast majority of consumers could never use > gigabit speeds outside of recreating in the home Star Trek-like virtual > reality holodecks. What makes much more sense to me is for Albuquerque > to build 20-lane highways and 10-lane boulevards throughout the city to > eliminate any congestion during rush hours, along with robotic car removal > systems to dispense with cars damaged in an accident. > > > > John > > > > *From:* 1st-mile-nm [mailto:1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org] *On > Behalf Of *Masha Zager > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 28, 2018 5:30 PM > *To:* 'Doug Orr' ; rl at 1st-mile.org > *Cc:* '1st-Mile-NM' <1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org> > > *Subject:* Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold > > > > It?s not. See this: http://www.bbcmag.com/2017mags/Mar_Apr/BBC_Mar17_ > 5GNotAnswer.pdf > > > > > > > *Masha Zager *Editor-in-Chief, Broadband Communities > masha at bbcmag.com > 518-943-0374 <(518)%20943-0374> > www.bbcmag.com > www.twitter.com/bbcmag > > > > *From:* 1st-mile-nm [mailto:1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org > <1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org>] *On Behalf Of *Doug Orr > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 28, 2018 7:16 PM > *To:* rl at 1st-mile.org > *Cc:* 1st-Mile-NM > *Subject:* Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold > > > > I'm unclear as to why 5g fixed is going to be cheaper to deploy than > fiber. If the state charges $250/antenna... that buys a lot of hardwired > installer time. And the antennas need backhaul, presumably, so lighting up > a neighborhood in anticipation of new customer uptake... that seems a lot > like upgrading infrastructure that would be needed if the idea is to offer > faster aggregate speeds. > > > > What's the model here? > > > > Does anyone know of real world benchmarks for 5G applications (e.g., > netflix)? > > > > Doug > > > > On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 1:47 PM Richard Lowenberg wrote: > > Following on recent postings. RL > > ------- > > Commercial service is years away, but even then, 5G won?t fulfill all of > its promises > > https://spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/internet/5g-is-in- > danger-of-being-oversold > > By Stacey Higginbotham > > Just like graphene or Elon Musk?s startups, 5G has become a technology > savior. Proponents tout the poorly defined wireless technology as the > path to virtual reality, telemedicine, and self-?driving cars. > > But 5G is not a technology?it?s a buzzword unleashed by marketing > departments. As early as 2012, Broadcom was using it to sell Wi-Fi. In > reality, 5G is a term that telecommunications investors and executives > sling around as the solution to high infrastructure costs, the need for > more bandwidth, and a desire to boost margins. > > The unifying component behind 5G is faster wireless broadband service. A > more stringent?and practical?definition is the use of high-frequency > millimeter waves (in addition to the microwaves that 4G LTE relies on > today) to deliver over-the-air broadband to phones or homes. > > If you?re talking about phones, 5G is still years away. And new services > aren?t really on the menu. Just listen to the heads of several > telecommunications companies, who have begun to tamp down investors? > expectations around what 5G can deliver. > > (snip) > > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director > 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 <(505)%20603-5200> > Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, > rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org > --------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm > > > _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JBadal at sacred-wind.com Thu Mar 1 07:36:55 2018 From: JBadal at sacred-wind.com (John Badal) Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2018 15:36:55 +0000 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold In-Reply-To: References: <1B3B161D-6D4D-4455-AA03-FE6FC2A2245F@breeckerassociates.com> <91f1aab07d08099b4651f3530b85710f@1st-mile.org> <011701d3b0f4$6f134900$4d39db00$@bbcmag.com> Message-ID: Business case? Even the well heeled Google has rethought its FTTH plans in urban areas far more densely populated than NM?s rural areas. The sizzle got ahead of the steak. John From: Christopher Mitchell [mailto:christopher at ilsr.org] Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2018 8:32 AM To: John Badal Cc: masha at bbcmag.com; Doug Orr ; rl at 1st-mile.org; 1st-Mile-NM <1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org> Subject: Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold The point of a gig is not to use all of it anymore than the point of a highway is to experiment with the maximum number of cars you can put on it. The point of a gig is abundance - sure 452 Mbps would probably do that too, but a gig resonates and is a standard. It would be difficult for me to use all of the electricity that can flow into my house - but we overprovision certain kinds of infrastructure when that can unlock additional value. And finally, if we assume that communities will still need high quality Internet access in 30 years, everyone I talk to that does both fiber and wireless says that while fiber is more expensive on the front end, the much lower operating and future upgrade costs ultimately make it MORE cost effective than wireless over a period of decades. There are many legitimate reasons for people in rural areas to "cry" for better connectivity even if they have the same number of gigabit applications as we do cars that are 5 lanes wide. Christopher Mitchell Director, Community Broadband Networks Institute for Local Self-Reliance MuniNetworks.org @communitynets 612-545-5185 On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 4:48 PM, John Badal > wrote: 5G has the same sexy appeal to the uniformed as fiber to the home. Rural communities are crying for both, afraid they?d fall deeper into the digital divide, but unaware that the vast majority of consumers could never use gigabit speeds outside of recreating in the home Star Trek-like virtual reality holodecks. What makes much more sense to me is for Albuquerque to build 20-lane highways and 10-lane boulevards throughout the city to eliminate any congestion during rush hours, along with robotic car removal systems to dispense with cars damaged in an accident. John From: 1st-mile-nm [mailto:1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org] On Behalf Of Masha Zager Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 5:30 PM To: 'Doug Orr' >; rl at 1st-mile.org Cc: '1st-Mile-NM' <1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org> Subject: Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold It?s not. See this: http://www.bbcmag.com/2017mags/Mar_Apr/BBC_Mar17_5GNotAnswer.pdf Masha Zager Editor-in-Chief, Broadband Communities masha at bbcmag.com 518-943-0374 www.bbcmag.com www.twitter.com/bbcmag From: 1st-mile-nm [mailto:1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org] On Behalf Of Doug Orr Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 7:16 PM To: rl at 1st-mile.org Cc: 1st-Mile-NM Subject: Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold I'm unclear as to why 5g fixed is going to be cheaper to deploy than fiber. If the state charges $250/antenna... that buys a lot of hardwired installer time. And the antennas need backhaul, presumably, so lighting up a neighborhood in anticipation of new customer uptake... that seems a lot like upgrading infrastructure that would be needed if the idea is to offer faster aggregate speeds. What's the model here? Does anyone know of real world benchmarks for 5G applications (e.g., netflix)? Doug On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 1:47 PM Richard Lowenberg > wrote: Following on recent postings. RL ------- Commercial service is years away, but even then, 5G won?t fulfill all of its promises https://spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/internet/5g-is-in-danger-of-being-oversold By Stacey Higginbotham Just like graphene or Elon Musk?s startups, 5G has become a technology savior. Proponents tout the poorly defined wireless technology as the path to virtual reality, telemedicine, and self-?driving cars. But 5G is not a technology?it?s a buzzword unleashed by marketing departments. As early as 2012, Broadcom was using it to sell Wi-Fi. In reality, 5G is a term that telecommunications investors and executives sling around as the solution to high infrastructure costs, the need for more bandwidth, and a desire to boost margins. The unifying component behind 5G is faster wireless broadband service. A more stringent?and practical?definition is the use of high-frequency millimeter waves (in addition to the microwaves that 4G LTE relies on today) to deliver over-the-air broadband to phones or homes. If you?re talking about phones, 5G is still years away. And new services aren?t really on the menu. Just listen to the heads of several telecommunications companies, who have begun to tamp down investors? expectations around what 5G can deliver. (snip) --------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org --------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ 1st-mile-nm mailing list 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm _______________________________________________ 1st-mile-nm mailing list 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JBadal at sacred-wind.com Thu Mar 1 07:48:24 2018 From: JBadal at sacred-wind.com (John Badal) Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2018 15:48:24 +0000 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold In-Reply-To: References: <1B3B161D-6D4D-4455-AA03-FE6FC2A2245F@breeckerassociates.com> <91f1aab07d08099b4651f3530b85710f@1st-mile.org> <011701d3b0f4$6f134900$4d39db00$@bbcmag.com> Message-ID: If White Space refers to unused but available capacity, then that term applies to the distance between one?s ears as folks dream of making a business case out of FTTH in Jal or 5G in McKinley County. With a dash of Fairy Dust, I guess anything can fly. John From: nicholas.espeset at gmail.com [mailto:nicholas.espeset at gmail.com] On Behalf Of Nicholas Espeset Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 11:19 PM To: John Badal Cc: masha at bbcmag.com; Doug Orr ; rl at 1st-mile.org; 1st-Mile-NM <1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org> Subject: Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold So, will this compete with the incredibly awesome power of White Space radios? Are those still a thing with people who can't do the math? On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 5:48 PM, John Badal > wrote: 5G has the same sexy appeal to the uniformed as fiber to the home. Rural communities are crying for both, afraid they?d fall deeper into the digital divide, but unaware that the vast majority of consumers could never use gigabit speeds outside of recreating in the home Star Trek-like virtual reality holodecks. What makes much more sense to me is for Albuquerque to build 20-lane highways and 10-lane boulevards throughout the city to eliminate any congestion during rush hours, along with robotic car removal systems to dispense with cars damaged in an accident. John From: 1st-mile-nm [mailto:1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org] On Behalf Of Masha Zager Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 5:30 PM To: 'Doug Orr' >; rl at 1st-mile.org Cc: '1st-Mile-NM' <1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org> Subject: Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold It?s not. See this: http://www.bbcmag.com/2017mags/Mar_Apr/BBC_Mar17_5GNotAnswer.pdf Masha Zager Editor-in-Chief, Broadband Communities masha at bbcmag.com 518-943-0374 www.bbcmag.com www.twitter.com/bbcmag From: 1st-mile-nm [mailto:1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org] On Behalf Of Doug Orr Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 7:16 PM To: rl at 1st-mile.org Cc: 1st-Mile-NM Subject: Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold I'm unclear as to why 5g fixed is going to be cheaper to deploy than fiber. If the state charges $250/antenna... that buys a lot of hardwired installer time. And the antennas need backhaul, presumably, so lighting up a neighborhood in anticipation of new customer uptake... that seems a lot like upgrading infrastructure that would be needed if the idea is to offer faster aggregate speeds. What's the model here? Does anyone know of real world benchmarks for 5G applications (e.g., netflix)? Doug On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 1:47 PM Richard Lowenberg > wrote: Following on recent postings. RL ------- Commercial service is years away, but even then, 5G won?t fulfill all of its promises https://spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/internet/5g-is-in-danger-of-being-oversold By Stacey Higginbotham Just like graphene or Elon Musk?s startups, 5G has become a technology savior. Proponents tout the poorly defined wireless technology as the path to virtual reality, telemedicine, and self-?driving cars. But 5G is not a technology?it?s a buzzword unleashed by marketing departments. As early as 2012, Broadcom was using it to sell Wi-Fi. In reality, 5G is a term that telecommunications investors and executives sling around as the solution to high infrastructure costs, the need for more bandwidth, and a desire to boost margins. The unifying component behind 5G is faster wireless broadband service. A more stringent?and practical?definition is the use of high-frequency millimeter waves (in addition to the microwaves that 4G LTE relies on today) to deliver over-the-air broadband to phones or homes. If you?re talking about phones, 5G is still years away. And new services aren?t really on the menu. Just listen to the heads of several telecommunications companies, who have begun to tamp down investors? expectations around what 5G can deliver. (snip) --------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org --------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ 1st-mile-nm mailing list 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm _______________________________________________ 1st-mile-nm mailing list 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm -- Nicholas Espeset Espeset Associates, LLC 8 Melado Drive Santa Fe, New Mexico 87508-2254 USA nicholas at espeset.net 505.466.TECH (office) 505.466.6025 (fax) 505.231.7535 (cell) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From editorsteve at gmail.com Thu Mar 1 08:24:47 2018 From: editorsteve at gmail.com (Steve Ross) Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2018 11:24:47 -0500 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold In-Reply-To: References: <1B3B161D-6D4D-4455-AA03-FE6FC2A2245F@breeckerassociates.com> <91f1aab07d08099b4651f3530b85710f@1st-mile.org> <011701d3b0f4$6f134900$4d39db00$@bbcmag.com> Message-ID: See also http://www.bbcmag.com/2018mags/Jan_Feb/BBC_Jan18_BandwidthHawk.pdf Oddly enough, outside densely populated areas, carriers will have to share microcells -- and that makes their lease value greater than their construction value. That means sharing the fiber backhaul as well. So national carriers should devolve into small regional carriers having monopolies on the access but not on the content. That's the worldwide ideal. In dense areas and on interstates, driverless cars will be communicating with each other through microcells and exchanging data among themselves at about a Gbps. Peak use (morning rush hour) is TWICE the bits transferred as today's residential video-driven peak use in the evening. On lightly traveled roads, driverless cars could communicate car-to-car rather than through a microcell, or use 4G. There's an experiment on that going on in San Diego now, using 4G and a "bursty" version of wifi, to get a better idea of real-world dynamics. AT&T is handling it. BTW, in general, gigabit networks are easier to manage than slower nets. Requested data is in the network for much less time, overall latency is lower, the next generation of PON equipment is amenable to SDA and more amenable to SDN, more of the "action" happens at the network edge (improving reliability) and on and on. Steve Ross Editor-at-Large, Broadband Communities Magazine (www.bbcmag.com) 201-456-5933 mobile 707-WOW-SSR3 (707-969-7773) Google Voice editorsteve (Facebook, LinkedIn) editorsteve1 (Twitter) steve at bbcmag.com editorsteve at gmail.com On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 10:48 AM, John Badal wrote: > If White Space refers to unused but available capacity, then that term > applies to the distance between one?s ears as folks dream of making a > business case out of FTTH in Jal or 5G in McKinley County. With a dash of > Fairy Dust, I guess anything can fly. > > > > John > > > > *From:* nicholas.espeset at gmail.com [mailto:nicholas.espeset at gmail.com] *On > Behalf Of *Nicholas Espeset > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 28, 2018 11:19 PM > *To:* John Badal > *Cc:* masha at bbcmag.com; Doug Orr ; rl at 1st-mile.org; > 1st-Mile-NM <1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org> > > *Subject:* Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold > > > > So, will this compete with the incredibly awesome power of White Space > radios? > > > > Are those still a thing with people who can't do the math? > > > > On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 5:48 PM, John Badal > wrote: > > 5G has the same sexy appeal to the uniformed as fiber to the home. Rural > communities are crying for both, afraid they?d fall deeper into the digital > divide, but unaware that the vast majority of consumers could never use > gigabit speeds outside of recreating in the home Star Trek-like virtual > reality holodecks. What makes much more sense to me is for Albuquerque > to build 20-lane highways and 10-lane boulevards throughout the city to > eliminate any congestion during rush hours, along with robotic car removal > systems to dispense with cars damaged in an accident. > > > > John > > > > *From:* 1st-mile-nm [mailto:1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org] *On > Behalf Of *Masha Zager > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 28, 2018 5:30 PM > *To:* 'Doug Orr' ; rl at 1st-mile.org > *Cc:* '1st-Mile-NM' <1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org> > > > *Subject:* Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold > > > > It?s not. See this: http://www.bbcmag.com/2017mags/Mar_Apr/BBC_Mar17_ > 5GNotAnswer.pdf > > > > > > > *Masha Zager *Editor-in-Chief, Broadband Communities > masha at bbcmag.com > 518-943-0374 <(518)%20943-0374> > www.bbcmag.com > www.twitter.com/bbcmag > > > > *From:* 1st-mile-nm [mailto:1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org > <1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org>] *On Behalf Of *Doug Orr > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 28, 2018 7:16 PM > *To:* rl at 1st-mile.org > *Cc:* 1st-Mile-NM > *Subject:* Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold > > > > I'm unclear as to why 5g fixed is going to be cheaper to deploy than > fiber. If the state charges $250/antenna... that buys a lot of hardwired > installer time. And the antennas need backhaul, presumably, so lighting up > a neighborhood in anticipation of new customer uptake... that seems a lot > like upgrading infrastructure that would be needed if the idea is to offer > faster aggregate speeds. > > > > What's the model here? > > > > Does anyone know of real world benchmarks for 5G applications (e.g., > netflix)? > > > > Doug > > > > On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 1:47 PM Richard Lowenberg wrote: > > Following on recent postings. RL > > ------- > > Commercial service is years away, but even then, 5G won?t fulfill all of > its promises > > https://spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/internet/5g-is-in- > danger-of-being-oversold > > By Stacey Higginbotham > > Just like graphene or Elon Musk?s startups, 5G has become a technology > savior. Proponents tout the poorly defined wireless technology as the > path to virtual reality, telemedicine, and self-?driving cars. > > But 5G is not a technology?it?s a buzzword unleashed by marketing > departments. As early as 2012, Broadcom was using it to sell Wi-Fi. In > reality, 5G is a term that telecommunications investors and executives > sling around as the solution to high infrastructure costs, the need for > more bandwidth, and a desire to boost margins. > > The unifying component behind 5G is faster wireless broadband service. A > more stringent?and practical?definition is the use of high-frequency > millimeter waves (in addition to the microwaves that 4G LTE relies on > today) to deliver over-the-air broadband to phones or homes. > > If you?re talking about phones, 5G is still years away. And new services > aren?t really on the menu. Just listen to the heads of several > telecommunications companies, who have begun to tamp down investors? > expectations around what 5G can deliver. > > (snip) > > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director > 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 <(505)%20603-5200> > Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, > rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org > --------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm > > > _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm > > > > > > -- > > > Nicholas Espeset > Espeset Associates, LLC > 8 Melado Drive > Santa Fe, New Mexico > 87508-2254 > USA > > nicholas at espeset.net > 505.466.TECH (office) > 505.466.6025 <(505)%20466-6025> (fax) > 505.231.7535 <(505)%20231-7535> (cell) > > _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From josmon at rigozsaurus.com Thu Mar 1 09:37:14 2018 From: josmon at rigozsaurus.com (John Osmon) Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2018 10:37:14 -0700 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold In-Reply-To: References: <1B3B161D-6D4D-4455-AA03-FE6FC2A2245F@breeckerassociates.com> <91f1aab07d08099b4651f3530b85710f@1st-mile.org> <011701d3b0f4$6f134900$4d39db00$@bbcmag.com> Message-ID: <20180301173714.GX32323@jeeves.rigozsaurus.com> On Thu, Mar 01, 2018 at 11:24:47AM -0500, Steve Ross wrote: > [...] That means sharing the fiber backhaul as well. So > national carriers should devolve into small regional carriers having > monopolies on the access but not on the content. That's the worldwide ideal. Preach it brother! An imperfect mapping to the OSI layers gives us: Access == network layer 2 (Access) Content == network layer 3 (Internet) The combination of Access/Internet in a single entity gives rise to the stanglehold that most want to fix with Network Neutrality. Access providers have the means to provide connectivity between customers and Internet providers. The choose to use the two layers in a monopolistic fashion. In New Mexico, Qwest and Windstream DSL services used to have a clear demarcation between Access (DSL) and Content (which ISP you used). During this time, there was a lot of competition in the ISP market -- if you wanted to change, you'd call the DSL provider, and have them switch your access link to another ISP. Creating environments that encourage the separation of the two services will promote competition. But how do you explain this to the common man? They just want their Internet to work... From editorsteve at gmail.com Thu Mar 1 10:41:38 2018 From: editorsteve at gmail.com (Steve Ross) Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2018 13:41:38 -0500 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold In-Reply-To: <20180301173714.GX32323@jeeves.rigozsaurus.com> References: <1B3B161D-6D4D-4455-AA03-FE6FC2A2245F@breeckerassociates.com> <91f1aab07d08099b4651f3530b85710f@1st-mile.org> <011701d3b0f4$6f134900$4d39db00$@bbcmag.com> <20180301173714.GX32323@jeeves.rigozsaurus.com> Message-ID: I have been noting it. Preached it in my Hawk column in the nov/dec issue. But it will happen because carriers will make more money. Carriers are already doing this. The national carriers sold their big towers several years ago. They may own the antennas themselves but even that is changing outside of cities. In cities the need will eventually be evident as well, so SDA can allocate as needed. This also makes Wall Street happier. Spreads the cost and widens the business case possibilities for what will eventually be 25 million microcells. Steve Ross On Mar 1, 2018 12:37 PM, "John Osmon" wrote: > On Thu, Mar 01, 2018 at 11:24:47AM -0500, Steve Ross wrote: > > [...] That means sharing the fiber backhaul as well. So > > national carriers should devolve into small regional carriers having > > monopolies on the access but not on the content. That's the worldwide > ideal. > > Preach it brother! An imperfect mapping to the OSI layers gives us: > Access == network layer 2 (Access) > Content == network layer 3 (Internet) > > The combination of Access/Internet in a single entity gives rise to the > stanglehold that most want to fix with Network Neutrality. > > Access providers have the means to provide connectivity between > customers and Internet providers. The choose to use the two layers > in a monopolistic fashion. > > In New Mexico, Qwest and Windstream DSL services used to have a clear > demarcation between Access (DSL) and Content (which ISP you used). > During this time, there was a lot of competition in the ISP market -- if > you wanted to change, you'd call the DSL provider, and have them switch > your access link to another ISP. > > Creating environments that encourage the separation of the two services > will promote competition. But how do you explain this to the common > man? They just want their Internet to work... > _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From christopher at ilsr.org Thu Mar 1 13:50:29 2018 From: christopher at ilsr.org (Christopher Mitchell) Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2018 13:50:29 -0800 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold In-Reply-To: References: <1B3B161D-6D4D-4455-AA03-FE6FC2A2245F@breeckerassociates.com> <91f1aab07d08099b4651f3530b85710f@1st-mile.org> <011701d3b0f4$6f134900$4d39db00$@bbcmag.com> Message-ID: Any place that has electricity, especially those served by co-ops could get fiber ultimately. It may take a well-designed grant program, but it can be done far more efficiently than any of the universal service programs in operation today. Google decided to focus on dominating AI and driverless cars and such rather than deployment. There is no evidence that they were losing money, rather anyone that understands how such businesses make decisions should be aware that while there are fiber models that are profitable, they may not offer the return that some in Google were expecting. That's fine. the small ISPs I see building fiber steadily year after year are profitable. They aren't going to buy NFL stadium sponsorships, but they are providing a service that is desperately desired and they are making a good return. Google will focus on dominating the future of AI and driverless cars and who knows what. They have a different calculus. The vast majority of North Dakota has FTTH. I believe it is the 4th most sparsely populated state in the union. But it is very easy to simply ignore the evidence and pretend that it just can't be done. We have documented where rural fiber is available, and it is far more than most realize. https://muninetworks.org/content/rural-cooperatives-page Christopher Mitchell Director, Community Broadband Networks Institute for Local Self-Reliance MuniNetworks.org @communitynets 612-545-5185 On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 7:36 AM, John Badal wrote: > Business case? Even the well heeled Google has rethought its FTTH plans > in urban areas far more densely populated than NM?s rural areas. The > sizzle got ahead of the steak. > > > > John > > > > *From:* Christopher Mitchell [mailto:christopher at ilsr.org] > *Sent:* Thursday, March 1, 2018 8:32 AM > *To:* John Badal > *Cc:* masha at bbcmag.com; Doug Orr ; rl at 1st-mile.org; > 1st-Mile-NM <1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org> > > *Subject:* Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold > > > > The point of a gig is not to use all of it anymore than the point of a > highway is to experiment with the maximum number of cars you can put on it. > > > > The point of a gig is abundance - sure 452 Mbps would probably do that > too, but a gig resonates and is a standard. > > > > It would be difficult for me to use all of the electricity that can flow > into my house - but we overprovision certain kinds of infrastructure when > that can unlock additional value. > > > > And finally, if we assume that communities will still need high quality > Internet access in 30 years, everyone I talk to that does both fiber and > wireless says that while fiber is more expensive on the front end, the much > lower operating and future upgrade costs ultimately make it MORE cost > effective than wireless over a period of decades. > > > > There are many legitimate reasons for people in rural areas to "cry" for > better connectivity even if they have the same number of gigabit > applications as we do cars that are 5 lanes wide. > > > Christopher Mitchell > Director, Community Broadband Networks > Institute for Local Self-Reliance > > > MuniNetworks.org > > @communitynets > > 612-545-5185 <(612)%20545-5185> > > > > On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 4:48 PM, John Badal > wrote: > > 5G has the same sexy appeal to the uniformed as fiber to the home. Rural > communities are crying for both, afraid they?d fall deeper into the digital > divide, but unaware that the vast majority of consumers could never use > gigabit speeds outside of recreating in the home Star Trek-like virtual > reality holodecks. What makes much more sense to me is for Albuquerque > to build 20-lane highways and 10-lane boulevards throughout the city to > eliminate any congestion during rush hours, along with robotic car removal > systems to dispense with cars damaged in an accident. > > > > John > > > > *From:* 1st-mile-nm [mailto:1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org] *On > Behalf Of *Masha Zager > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 28, 2018 5:30 PM > *To:* 'Doug Orr' ; rl at 1st-mile.org > *Cc:* '1st-Mile-NM' <1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org> > > > *Subject:* Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold > > > > It?s not. See this: http://www.bbcmag.com/2017mags/Mar_Apr/BBC_Mar17_ > 5GNotAnswer.pdf > > > > > > > *Masha Zager *Editor-in-Chief, Broadband Communities > masha at bbcmag.com > 518-943-0374 <(518)%20943-0374> > www.bbcmag.com > www.twitter.com/bbcmag > > > > *From:* 1st-mile-nm [mailto:1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org > <1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org>] *On Behalf Of *Doug Orr > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 28, 2018 7:16 PM > *To:* rl at 1st-mile.org > *Cc:* 1st-Mile-NM > *Subject:* Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold > > > > I'm unclear as to why 5g fixed is going to be cheaper to deploy than > fiber. If the state charges $250/antenna... that buys a lot of hardwired > installer time. And the antennas need backhaul, presumably, so lighting up > a neighborhood in anticipation of new customer uptake... that seems a lot > like upgrading infrastructure that would be needed if the idea is to offer > faster aggregate speeds. > > > > What's the model here? > > > > Does anyone know of real world benchmarks for 5G applications (e.g., > netflix)? > > > > Doug > > > > On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 1:47 PM Richard Lowenberg wrote: > > Following on recent postings. RL > > ------- > > Commercial service is years away, but even then, 5G won?t fulfill all of > its promises > > https://spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/internet/5g-is-in- > danger-of-being-oversold > > By Stacey Higginbotham > > Just like graphene or Elon Musk?s startups, 5G has become a technology > savior. Proponents tout the poorly defined wireless technology as the > path to virtual reality, telemedicine, and self-?driving cars. > > But 5G is not a technology?it?s a buzzword unleashed by marketing > departments. As early as 2012, Broadcom was using it to sell Wi-Fi. In > reality, 5G is a term that telecommunications investors and executives > sling around as the solution to high infrastructure costs, the need for > more bandwidth, and a desire to boost margins. > > The unifying component behind 5G is faster wireless broadband service. A > more stringent?and practical?definition is the use of high-frequency > millimeter waves (in addition to the microwaves that 4G LTE relies on > today) to deliver over-the-air broadband to phones or homes. > > If you?re talking about phones, 5G is still years away. And new services > aren?t really on the menu. Just listen to the heads of several > telecommunications companies, who have begun to tamp down investors? > expectations around what 5G can deliver. > > (snip) > > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director > 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 <(505)%20603-5200> > Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, > rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org > --------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm > > > _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JBadal at sacred-wind.com Thu Mar 1 14:10:09 2018 From: JBadal at sacred-wind.com (John Badal) Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2018 22:10:09 +0000 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold In-Reply-To: References: <1B3B161D-6D4D-4455-AA03-FE6FC2A2245F@breeckerassociates.com> <91f1aab07d08099b4651f3530b85710f@1st-mile.org> <011701d3b0f4$6f134900$4d39db00$@bbcmag.com> Message-ID: You mean by subsidizing the costs of FTTH through allocation of some of the network to the electric coops? SCADA systems, and then increasing pole attachment fees for their broadband competitors, the electric coops make their business case? I?m envious. I haven?t seen that shell game since the old AT&T/Ma Bell days. John From: Christopher Mitchell [mailto:christopher at ilsr.org] Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2018 2:50 PM To: John Badal Cc: masha at bbcmag.com; Doug Orr ; rl at 1st-mile.org; 1st-Mile-NM <1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org> Subject: Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold Any place that has electricity, especially those served by co-ops could get fiber ultimately. It may take a well-designed grant program, but it can be done far more efficiently than any of the universal service programs in operation today. Google decided to focus on dominating AI and driverless cars and such rather than deployment. There is no evidence that they were losing money, rather anyone that understands how such businesses make decisions should be aware that while there are fiber models that are profitable, they may not offer the return that some in Google were expecting. That's fine. the small ISPs I see building fiber steadily year after year are profitable. They aren't going to buy NFL stadium sponsorships, but they are providing a service that is desperately desired and they are making a good return. Google will focus on dominating the future of AI and driverless cars and who knows what. They have a different calculus. The vast majority of North Dakota has FTTH. I believe it is the 4th most sparsely populated state in the union. But it is very easy to simply ignore the evidence and pretend that it just can't be done. We have documented where rural fiber is available, and it is far more than most realize. https://muninetworks.org/content/rural-cooperatives-page Christopher Mitchell Director, Community Broadband Networks Institute for Local Self-Reliance MuniNetworks.org @communitynets 612-545-5185 On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 7:36 AM, John Badal > wrote: Business case? Even the well heeled Google has rethought its FTTH plans in urban areas far more densely populated than NM?s rural areas. The sizzle got ahead of the steak. John From: Christopher Mitchell [mailto:christopher at ilsr.org] Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2018 8:32 AM To: John Badal > Cc: masha at bbcmag.com; Doug Orr >; rl at 1st-mile.org; 1st-Mile-NM <1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org> Subject: Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold The point of a gig is not to use all of it anymore than the point of a highway is to experiment with the maximum number of cars you can put on it. The point of a gig is abundance - sure 452 Mbps would probably do that too, but a gig resonates and is a standard. It would be difficult for me to use all of the electricity that can flow into my house - but we overprovision certain kinds of infrastructure when that can unlock additional value. And finally, if we assume that communities will still need high quality Internet access in 30 years, everyone I talk to that does both fiber and wireless says that while fiber is more expensive on the front end, the much lower operating and future upgrade costs ultimately make it MORE cost effective than wireless over a period of decades. There are many legitimate reasons for people in rural areas to "cry" for better connectivity even if they have the same number of gigabit applications as we do cars that are 5 lanes wide. Christopher Mitchell Director, Community Broadband Networks Institute for Local Self-Reliance MuniNetworks.org @communitynets 612-545-5185 On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 4:48 PM, John Badal > wrote: 5G has the same sexy appeal to the uniformed as fiber to the home. Rural communities are crying for both, afraid they?d fall deeper into the digital divide, but unaware that the vast majority of consumers could never use gigabit speeds outside of recreating in the home Star Trek-like virtual reality holodecks. What makes much more sense to me is for Albuquerque to build 20-lane highways and 10-lane boulevards throughout the city to eliminate any congestion during rush hours, along with robotic car removal systems to dispense with cars damaged in an accident. John From: 1st-mile-nm [mailto:1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org] On Behalf Of Masha Zager Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 5:30 PM To: 'Doug Orr' >; rl at 1st-mile.org Cc: '1st-Mile-NM' <1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org> Subject: Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold It?s not. See this: http://www.bbcmag.com/2017mags/Mar_Apr/BBC_Mar17_5GNotAnswer.pdf Masha Zager Editor-in-Chief, Broadband Communities masha at bbcmag.com 518-943-0374 www.bbcmag.com www.twitter.com/bbcmag From: 1st-mile-nm [mailto:1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org] On Behalf Of Doug Orr Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 7:16 PM To: rl at 1st-mile.org Cc: 1st-Mile-NM Subject: Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold I'm unclear as to why 5g fixed is going to be cheaper to deploy than fiber. If the state charges $250/antenna... that buys a lot of hardwired installer time. And the antennas need backhaul, presumably, so lighting up a neighborhood in anticipation of new customer uptake... that seems a lot like upgrading infrastructure that would be needed if the idea is to offer faster aggregate speeds. What's the model here? Does anyone know of real world benchmarks for 5G applications (e.g., netflix)? Doug On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 1:47 PM Richard Lowenberg > wrote: Following on recent postings. RL ------- Commercial service is years away, but even then, 5G won?t fulfill all of its promises https://spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/internet/5g-is-in-danger-of-being-oversold By Stacey Higginbotham Just like graphene or Elon Musk?s startups, 5G has become a technology savior. Proponents tout the poorly defined wireless technology as the path to virtual reality, telemedicine, and self-?driving cars. But 5G is not a technology?it?s a buzzword unleashed by marketing departments. As early as 2012, Broadcom was using it to sell Wi-Fi. In reality, 5G is a term that telecommunications investors and executives sling around as the solution to high infrastructure costs, the need for more bandwidth, and a desire to boost margins. The unifying component behind 5G is faster wireless broadband service. A more stringent?and practical?definition is the use of high-frequency millimeter waves (in addition to the microwaves that 4G LTE relies on today) to deliver over-the-air broadband to phones or homes. If you?re talking about phones, 5G is still years away. And new services aren?t really on the menu. Just listen to the heads of several telecommunications companies, who have begun to tamp down investors? expectations around what 5G can deliver. (snip) --------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org --------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ 1st-mile-nm mailing list 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm _______________________________________________ 1st-mile-nm mailing list 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From josmon at rigozsaurus.com Thu Mar 1 14:24:12 2018 From: josmon at rigozsaurus.com (John Osmon) Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2018 15:24:12 -0700 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold In-Reply-To: References: <1B3B161D-6D4D-4455-AA03-FE6FC2A2245F@breeckerassociates.com> <91f1aab07d08099b4651f3530b85710f@1st-mile.org> <011701d3b0f4$6f134900$4d39db00$@bbcmag.com> Message-ID: <20180301222412.GZ32323@jeeves.rigozsaurus.com> On Thu, Mar 01, 2018 at 10:10:09PM +0000, John Badal wrote: > You mean by subsidizing the costs of FTTH through allocation of some > of the network to the electric coops? SCADA systems, and then > increasing pole attachment fees for their broadband competitors, the > electric coops make their business case? I?m envious. I haven?t seen > that shell game since the old AT&T/Ma Bell days. Not all coop ventures are as you characterize. In northern New Mexico, one of the coops built a dial-up ISP in the last 1990s, and early 2000s. The did it on request of their members, because all of their ISP alternatives were long distance calls -- making Internet connectivity prohibitively expensive. They weren't a *great* ISP, but they provided service where others wouldn't. Eventually, the local dialing area expanded, their local presence wasn't required anymore. They sold the customers to a regional ISP, who kept the access number and folded it into their service portfolio. The Coop helped their members, and at the end, recouped some of the investment they'd made. Let's help make more of these success stories. (And to shine light on the types of issues John points out as well!) From christopher at ilsr.org Thu Mar 1 14:32:15 2018 From: christopher at ilsr.org (Christopher Mitchell) Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2018 14:32:15 -0800 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold In-Reply-To: References: <1B3B161D-6D4D-4455-AA03-FE6FC2A2245F@breeckerassociates.com> <91f1aab07d08099b4651f3530b85710f@1st-mile.org> <011701d3b0f4$6f134900$4d39db00$@bbcmag.com> Message-ID: Agree with John Osmon regarding different co-ops having different practices. But I want to tease a few other things out. 1) Your message suggests that you _could_ build networks into these rural areas if only you could get fair access to poles. Fair enough, I agree. I do think that too many pole owners make access more onerous than necessary or that existing attachers can game the system to harm potential rivals. But building networks in these low-density areas is tricky and may require some cross subsidization across densities. So if an electric co-op is going to serve everyone rather than allowing some other ISPs to cherry-pick and ruin the possibility of building a network to all absent subsidies, then I would prefer the electric co-op do it. I am alleging that you, John Badal, would do such things but I know some ISPs do and not with evil intentions. 2) Are you suggesting that SCADA systems should ride the network for free? That doesn't seem fair and makes the case for rural investment more challenging, which is the opposite of what we should be doing. 3) The goal posts have moved. The conversation started with drooling idiots are obsessed with a gig (my paraphrase) and then moved to it isn't possible to build high-capacity rural networks and finally to it is not fair that some are doing it and perhaps stopping others who would totally do it absent dirty tricks. Quite a transition. Christopher Mitchell Director, Community Broadband Networks Institute for Local Self-Reliance MuniNetworks.org @communitynets 612-545-5185 On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 2:10 PM, John Badal wrote: > You mean by subsidizing the costs of FTTH through allocation of some of > the network to the electric coops? SCADA systems, and then increasing pole > attachment fees for their broadband competitors, the electric coops make > their business case? I?m envious. I haven?t seen that shell game since > the old AT&T/Ma Bell days. > > > > John > > > > *From:* Christopher Mitchell [mailto:christopher at ilsr.org] > *Sent:* Thursday, March 1, 2018 2:50 PM > > *To:* John Badal > *Cc:* masha at bbcmag.com; Doug Orr ; rl at 1st-mile.org; > 1st-Mile-NM <1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org> > *Subject:* Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold > > > > Any place that has electricity, especially those served by co-ops could > get fiber ultimately. It may take a well-designed grant program, but it can > be done far more efficiently than any of the universal service programs in > operation today. > > > > Google decided to focus on dominating AI and driverless cars and such > rather than deployment. There is no evidence that they were losing money, > rather anyone that understands how such businesses make decisions should be > aware that while there are fiber models that are profitable, they may not > offer the return that some in Google were expecting. That's fine. the small > ISPs I see building fiber steadily year after year are profitable. They > aren't going to buy NFL stadium sponsorships, but they are providing a > service that is desperately desired and they are making a good return. > Google will focus on dominating the future of AI and driverless cars and > who knows what. They have a different calculus. > > > > The vast majority of North Dakota has FTTH. I believe it is the 4th most > sparsely populated state in the union. But it is very easy to simply ignore > the evidence and pretend that it just can't be done. We have documented > where rural fiber is available, and it is far more than most realize. > > https://muninetworks.org/content/rural-cooperatives-page > > > > > Christopher Mitchell > Director, Community Broadband Networks > Institute for Local Self-Reliance > > > MuniNetworks.org > > @communitynets > > 612-545-5185 <(612)%20545-5185> > > > > On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 7:36 AM, John Badal wrote: > > Business case? Even the well heeled Google has rethought its FTTH plans > in urban areas far more densely populated than NM?s rural areas. The > sizzle got ahead of the steak. > > > > John > > > > *From:* Christopher Mitchell [mailto:christopher at ilsr.org] > *Sent:* Thursday, March 1, 2018 8:32 AM > *To:* John Badal > *Cc:* masha at bbcmag.com; Doug Orr ; rl at 1st-mile.org; > 1st-Mile-NM <1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org> > > > *Subject:* Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold > > > > The point of a gig is not to use all of it anymore than the point of a > highway is to experiment with the maximum number of cars you can put on it. > > > > The point of a gig is abundance - sure 452 Mbps would probably do that > too, but a gig resonates and is a standard. > > > > It would be difficult for me to use all of the electricity that can flow > into my house - but we overprovision certain kinds of infrastructure when > that can unlock additional value. > > > > And finally, if we assume that communities will still need high quality > Internet access in 30 years, everyone I talk to that does both fiber and > wireless says that while fiber is more expensive on the front end, the much > lower operating and future upgrade costs ultimately make it MORE cost > effective than wireless over a period of decades. > > > > There are many legitimate reasons for people in rural areas to "cry" for > better connectivity even if they have the same number of gigabit > applications as we do cars that are 5 lanes wide. > > > Christopher Mitchell > Director, Community Broadband Networks > Institute for Local Self-Reliance > > > MuniNetworks.org > > @communitynets > > 612-545-5185 <(612)%20545-5185> > > > > On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 4:48 PM, John Badal > wrote: > > 5G has the same sexy appeal to the uniformed as fiber to the home. Rural > communities are crying for both, afraid they?d fall deeper into the digital > divide, but unaware that the vast majority of consumers could never use > gigabit speeds outside of recreating in the home Star Trek-like virtual > reality holodecks. What makes much more sense to me is for Albuquerque > to build 20-lane highways and 10-lane boulevards throughout the city to > eliminate any congestion during rush hours, along with robotic car removal > systems to dispense with cars damaged in an accident. > > > > John > > > > *From:* 1st-mile-nm [mailto:1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org] *On > Behalf Of *Masha Zager > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 28, 2018 5:30 PM > *To:* 'Doug Orr' ; rl at 1st-mile.org > *Cc:* '1st-Mile-NM' <1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org> > > > *Subject:* Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold > > > > It?s not. See this: http://www.bbcmag.com/2017mags/Mar_Apr/BBC_Mar17_ > 5GNotAnswer.pdf > > > > > > > *Masha Zager *Editor-in-Chief, Broadband Communities > masha at bbcmag.com > 518-943-0374 <(518)%20943-0374> > www.bbcmag.com > www.twitter.com/bbcmag > > > > *From:* 1st-mile-nm [mailto:1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org > <1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org>] *On Behalf Of *Doug Orr > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 28, 2018 7:16 PM > *To:* rl at 1st-mile.org > *Cc:* 1st-Mile-NM > *Subject:* Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold > > > > I'm unclear as to why 5g fixed is going to be cheaper to deploy than > fiber. If the state charges $250/antenna... that buys a lot of hardwired > installer time. And the antennas need backhaul, presumably, so lighting up > a neighborhood in anticipation of new customer uptake... that seems a lot > like upgrading infrastructure that would be needed if the idea is to offer > faster aggregate speeds. > > > > What's the model here? > > > > Does anyone know of real world benchmarks for 5G applications (e.g., > netflix)? > > > > Doug > > > > On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 1:47 PM Richard Lowenberg wrote: > > Following on recent postings. RL > > ------- > > Commercial service is years away, but even then, 5G won?t fulfill all of > its promises > > https://spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/internet/5g-is-in- > danger-of-being-oversold > > By Stacey Higginbotham > > Just like graphene or Elon Musk?s startups, 5G has become a technology > savior. Proponents tout the poorly defined wireless technology as the > path to virtual reality, telemedicine, and self-?driving cars. > > But 5G is not a technology?it?s a buzzword unleashed by marketing > departments. As early as 2012, Broadcom was using it to sell Wi-Fi. In > reality, 5G is a term that telecommunications investors and executives > sling around as the solution to high infrastructure costs, the need for > more bandwidth, and a desire to boost margins. > > The unifying component behind 5G is faster wireless broadband service. A > more stringent?and practical?definition is the use of high-frequency > millimeter waves (in addition to the microwaves that 4G LTE relies on > today) to deliver over-the-air broadband to phones or homes. > > If you?re talking about phones, 5G is still years away. And new services > aren?t really on the menu. Just listen to the heads of several > telecommunications companies, who have begun to tamp down investors? > expectations around what 5G can deliver. > > (snip) > > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director > 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 <(505)%20603-5200> > Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, > rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org > --------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm > > > _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From editorsteve at gmail.com Thu Mar 1 14:34:28 2018 From: editorsteve at gmail.com (Steve Ross) Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2018 17:34:28 -0500 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold In-Reply-To: References: <1B3B161D-6D4D-4455-AA03-FE6FC2A2245F@breeckerassociates.com> <91f1aab07d08099b4651f3530b85710f@1st-mile.org> <011701d3b0f4$6f134900$4d39db00$@bbcmag.com> Message-ID: Chris is absolutely right, but making it happen is not as easy. Few electric coops have been willing to take the risk -- and Chris and I and others do a lot of missionary work. More than half of all new MDUs are not FTTH even though fiber is CHEAPER in that case. We can generally show that fiber can work at about 8 premises per mile taking the service... even less if pole attachment rights are not held hostage. But we don't know how revenue will flow from driverless vehicles to network deployers yet, and Washington is not paying any attention. Steve Ross Editor-at-Large, Broadband Communities Magazine (www.bbcmag.com) 201-456-5933 mobile 707-WOW-SSR3 (707-969-7773) Google Voice editorsteve (Facebook, LinkedIn) editorsteve1 (Twitter) steve at bbcmag.com editorsteve at gmail.com On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 4:50 PM, Christopher Mitchell wrote: > Any place that has electricity, especially those served by co-ops could > get fiber ultimately. It may take a well-designed grant program, but it can > be done far more efficiently than any of the universal service programs in > operation today. > > Google decided to focus on dominating AI and driverless cars and such > rather than deployment. There is no evidence that they were losing money, > rather anyone that understands how such businesses make decisions should be > aware that while there are fiber models that are profitable, they may not > offer the return that some in Google were expecting. That's fine. the small > ISPs I see building fiber steadily year after year are profitable. They > aren't going to buy NFL stadium sponsorships, but they are providing a > service that is desperately desired and they are making a good return. > Google will focus on dominating the future of AI and driverless cars and > who knows what. They have a different calculus. > > The vast majority of North Dakota has FTTH. I believe it is the 4th most > sparsely populated state in the union. But it is very easy to simply ignore > the evidence and pretend that it just can't be done. We have documented > where rural fiber is available, and it is far more than most realize. > https://muninetworks.org/content/rural-cooperatives-page > > > Christopher Mitchell > Director, Community Broadband Networks > Institute for Local Self-Reliance > > MuniNetworks.org > @communitynets > 612-545-5185 <(612)%20545-5185> > > On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 7:36 AM, John Badal wrote: > >> Business case? Even the well heeled Google has rethought its FTTH plans >> in urban areas far more densely populated than NM?s rural areas. The >> sizzle got ahead of the steak. >> >> >> >> John >> >> >> >> *From:* Christopher Mitchell [mailto:christopher at ilsr.org] >> *Sent:* Thursday, March 1, 2018 8:32 AM >> *To:* John Badal >> *Cc:* masha at bbcmag.com; Doug Orr ; rl at 1st-mile.org; >> 1st-Mile-NM <1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org> >> >> *Subject:* Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold >> >> >> >> The point of a gig is not to use all of it anymore than the point of a >> highway is to experiment with the maximum number of cars you can put on it. >> >> >> >> The point of a gig is abundance - sure 452 Mbps would probably do that >> too, but a gig resonates and is a standard. >> >> >> >> It would be difficult for me to use all of the electricity that can flow >> into my house - but we overprovision certain kinds of infrastructure when >> that can unlock additional value. >> >> >> >> And finally, if we assume that communities will still need high quality >> Internet access in 30 years, everyone I talk to that does both fiber and >> wireless says that while fiber is more expensive on the front end, the much >> lower operating and future upgrade costs ultimately make it MORE cost >> effective than wireless over a period of decades. >> >> >> >> There are many legitimate reasons for people in rural areas to "cry" for >> better connectivity even if they have the same number of gigabit >> applications as we do cars that are 5 lanes wide. >> >> >> Christopher Mitchell >> Director, Community Broadband Networks >> Institute for Local Self-Reliance >> >> >> MuniNetworks.org >> >> @communitynets >> >> 612-545-5185 <(612)%20545-5185> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 4:48 PM, John Badal >> wrote: >> >> 5G has the same sexy appeal to the uniformed as fiber to the home. Rural >> communities are crying for both, afraid they?d fall deeper into the digital >> divide, but unaware that the vast majority of consumers could never use >> gigabit speeds outside of recreating in the home Star Trek-like virtual >> reality holodecks. What makes much more sense to me is for Albuquerque >> to build 20-lane highways and 10-lane boulevards throughout the city to >> eliminate any congestion during rush hours, along with robotic car removal >> systems to dispense with cars damaged in an accident. >> >> >> >> John >> >> >> >> *From:* 1st-mile-nm [mailto:1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org] *On >> Behalf Of *Masha Zager >> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 28, 2018 5:30 PM >> *To:* 'Doug Orr' ; rl at 1st-mile.org >> *Cc:* '1st-Mile-NM' <1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org> >> >> >> *Subject:* Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold >> >> >> >> It?s not. See this: http://www.bbcmag.com/2017mags >> /Mar_Apr/BBC_Mar17_5GNotAnswer.pdf >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *Masha Zager *Editor-in-Chief, Broadband Communities >> masha at bbcmag.com >> 518-943-0374 <(518)%20943-0374> >> www.bbcmag.com >> www.twitter.com/bbcmag >> >> >> >> *From:* 1st-mile-nm [mailto:1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org >> <1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org>] *On Behalf Of *Doug Orr >> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 28, 2018 7:16 PM >> *To:* rl at 1st-mile.org >> *Cc:* 1st-Mile-NM >> *Subject:* Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold >> >> >> >> I'm unclear as to why 5g fixed is going to be cheaper to deploy than >> fiber. If the state charges $250/antenna... that buys a lot of hardwired >> installer time. And the antennas need backhaul, presumably, so lighting up >> a neighborhood in anticipation of new customer uptake... that seems a lot >> like upgrading infrastructure that would be needed if the idea is to offer >> faster aggregate speeds. >> >> >> >> What's the model here? >> >> >> >> Does anyone know of real world benchmarks for 5G applications (e.g., >> netflix)? >> >> >> >> Doug >> >> >> >> On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 1:47 PM Richard Lowenberg >> wrote: >> >> Following on recent postings. RL >> >> ------- >> >> Commercial service is years away, but even then, 5G won?t fulfill all of >> its promises >> >> https://spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/internet/5g-is-in-danger- >> of-being-oversold >> >> By Stacey Higginbotham >> >> Just like graphene or Elon Musk?s startups, 5G has become a technology >> savior. Proponents tout the poorly defined wireless technology as the >> path to virtual reality, telemedicine, and self-?driving cars. >> >> But 5G is not a technology?it?s a buzzword unleashed by marketing >> departments. As early as 2012, Broadcom was using it to sell Wi-Fi. In >> reality, 5G is a term that telecommunications investors and executives >> sling around as the solution to high infrastructure costs, the need for >> more bandwidth, and a desire to boost margins. >> >> The unifying component behind 5G is faster wireless broadband service. A >> more stringent?and practical?definition is the use of high-frequency >> millimeter waves (in addition to the microwaves that 4G LTE relies on >> today) to deliver over-the-air broadband to phones or homes. >> >> If you?re talking about phones, 5G is still years away. And new services >> aren?t really on the menu. Just listen to the heads of several >> telecommunications companies, who have begun to tamp down investors? >> expectations around what 5G can deliver. >> >> (snip) >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------- >> Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director >> 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 <(505)%20603-5200> >> Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, >> rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org >> --------------------------------------------------------------- >> _______________________________________________ >> 1st-mile-nm mailing list >> 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org >> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 1st-mile-nm mailing list >> 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org >> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm >> >> >> > > > _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From editorsteve at gmail.com Thu Mar 1 14:41:59 2018 From: editorsteve at gmail.com (Steve Ross) Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2018 17:41:59 -0500 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold In-Reply-To: References: <1B3B161D-6D4D-4455-AA03-FE6FC2A2245F@breeckerassociates.com> <91f1aab07d08099b4651f3530b85710f@1st-mile.org> <011701d3b0f4$6f134900$4d39db00$@bbcmag.com> Message-ID: BTW, one person's cross-subsidy is another's avoiding stranded costs. Rural counties are losing on average more than 1/4% of their population a year. A coop or tier3 LEC sees survival as a better alternative. I have shown that a quarter to half of all rural job loss is due to lack of broadband access. It is by far the BIGGEST source of rural job loss. I really have a lot of respect and admiration for any broadband deployers, including the national carriers. But when they can't make a business case for serving an area they should $%^&% get out of the way of others who think they might be able to. Instead they buy politicians. Steve Ross Editor-at-Large, Broadband Communities Magazine (www.bbcmag.com) 201-456-5933 mobile 707-WOW-SSR3 (707-969-7773) Google Voice editorsteve (Facebook, LinkedIn) editorsteve1 (Twitter) steve at bbcmag.com editorsteve at gmail.com On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 5:34 PM, Steve Ross wrote: > Chris is absolutely right, but making it happen is not as easy. Few > electric coops have been willing to take the risk -- and Chris and I and > others do a lot of missionary work. More than half of all new MDUs are not > FTTH even though fiber is CHEAPER in that case. > > We can generally show that fiber can work at about 8 premises per mile > taking the service... even less if pole attachment rights are not held > hostage. But we don't know how revenue will flow from driverless vehicles > to network deployers yet, and Washington is not paying any attention. > > > > Steve Ross > Editor-at-Large, Broadband Communities Magazine (www.bbcmag.com) > 201-456-5933 <(201)%20456-5933> mobile > 707-WOW-SSR3 (707-969-7773 <(707)%20969-7773>) Google Voice > editorsteve (Facebook, LinkedIn) > editorsteve1 (Twitter) > steve at bbcmag.com > editorsteve at gmail.com > > > On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 4:50 PM, Christopher Mitchell > wrote: > >> Any place that has electricity, especially those served by co-ops could >> get fiber ultimately. It may take a well-designed grant program, but it can >> be done far more efficiently than any of the universal service programs in >> operation today. >> >> Google decided to focus on dominating AI and driverless cars and such >> rather than deployment. There is no evidence that they were losing money, >> rather anyone that understands how such businesses make decisions should be >> aware that while there are fiber models that are profitable, they may not >> offer the return that some in Google were expecting. That's fine. the small >> ISPs I see building fiber steadily year after year are profitable. They >> aren't going to buy NFL stadium sponsorships, but they are providing a >> service that is desperately desired and they are making a good return. >> Google will focus on dominating the future of AI and driverless cars and >> who knows what. They have a different calculus. >> >> The vast majority of North Dakota has FTTH. I believe it is the 4th most >> sparsely populated state in the union. But it is very easy to simply ignore >> the evidence and pretend that it just can't be done. We have documented >> where rural fiber is available, and it is far more than most realize. >> https://muninetworks.org/content/rural-cooperatives-page >> >> >> Christopher Mitchell >> Director, Community Broadband Networks >> Institute for Local Self-Reliance >> >> MuniNetworks.org >> @communitynets >> 612-545-5185 <(612)%20545-5185> >> >> On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 7:36 AM, John Badal >> wrote: >> >>> Business case? Even the well heeled Google has rethought its FTTH plans >>> in urban areas far more densely populated than NM?s rural areas. The >>> sizzle got ahead of the steak. >>> >>> >>> >>> John >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* Christopher Mitchell [mailto:christopher at ilsr.org] >>> *Sent:* Thursday, March 1, 2018 8:32 AM >>> *To:* John Badal >>> *Cc:* masha at bbcmag.com; Doug Orr ; rl at 1st-mile.org; >>> 1st-Mile-NM <1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org> >>> >>> *Subject:* Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold >>> >>> >>> >>> The point of a gig is not to use all of it anymore than the point of a >>> highway is to experiment with the maximum number of cars you can put on it. >>> >>> >>> >>> The point of a gig is abundance - sure 452 Mbps would probably do that >>> too, but a gig resonates and is a standard. >>> >>> >>> >>> It would be difficult for me to use all of the electricity that can flow >>> into my house - but we overprovision certain kinds of infrastructure when >>> that can unlock additional value. >>> >>> >>> >>> And finally, if we assume that communities will still need high quality >>> Internet access in 30 years, everyone I talk to that does both fiber and >>> wireless says that while fiber is more expensive on the front end, the much >>> lower operating and future upgrade costs ultimately make it MORE cost >>> effective than wireless over a period of decades. >>> >>> >>> >>> There are many legitimate reasons for people in rural areas to "cry" for >>> better connectivity even if they have the same number of gigabit >>> applications as we do cars that are 5 lanes wide. >>> >>> >>> Christopher Mitchell >>> Director, Community Broadband Networks >>> Institute for Local Self-Reliance >>> >>> >>> MuniNetworks.org >>> >>> @communitynets >>> >>> 612-545-5185 <(612)%20545-5185> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 4:48 PM, John Badal >>> wrote: >>> >>> 5G has the same sexy appeal to the uniformed as fiber to the home. >>> Rural communities are crying for both, afraid they?d fall deeper into the >>> digital divide, but unaware that the vast majority of consumers could never >>> use gigabit speeds outside of recreating in the home Star Trek-like virtual >>> reality holodecks. What makes much more sense to me is for Albuquerque >>> to build 20-lane highways and 10-lane boulevards throughout the city to >>> eliminate any congestion during rush hours, along with robotic car removal >>> systems to dispense with cars damaged in an accident. >>> >>> >>> >>> John >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* 1st-mile-nm [mailto:1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org] *On >>> Behalf Of *Masha Zager >>> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 28, 2018 5:30 PM >>> *To:* 'Doug Orr' ; rl at 1st-mile.org >>> *Cc:* '1st-Mile-NM' <1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org> >>> >>> >>> *Subject:* Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold >>> >>> >>> >>> It?s not. See this: http://www.bbcmag.com/2017mags >>> /Mar_Apr/BBC_Mar17_5GNotAnswer.pdf >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *Masha Zager *Editor-in-Chief, Broadband Communities >>> masha at bbcmag.com >>> 518-943-0374 <(518)%20943-0374> >>> www.bbcmag.com >>> www.twitter.com/bbcmag >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* 1st-mile-nm [mailto:1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org >>> <1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org>] *On Behalf Of *Doug Orr >>> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 28, 2018 7:16 PM >>> *To:* rl at 1st-mile.org >>> *Cc:* 1st-Mile-NM >>> *Subject:* Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold >>> >>> >>> >>> I'm unclear as to why 5g fixed is going to be cheaper to deploy than >>> fiber. If the state charges $250/antenna... that buys a lot of hardwired >>> installer time. And the antennas need backhaul, presumably, so lighting up >>> a neighborhood in anticipation of new customer uptake... that seems a lot >>> like upgrading infrastructure that would be needed if the idea is to offer >>> faster aggregate speeds. >>> >>> >>> >>> What's the model here? >>> >>> >>> >>> Does anyone know of real world benchmarks for 5G applications (e.g., >>> netflix)? >>> >>> >>> >>> Doug >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 1:47 PM Richard Lowenberg >>> wrote: >>> >>> Following on recent postings. RL >>> >>> ------- >>> >>> Commercial service is years away, but even then, 5G won?t fulfill all of >>> its promises >>> >>> https://spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/internet/5g-is-in-danger-o >>> f-being-oversold >>> >>> By Stacey Higginbotham >>> >>> Just like graphene or Elon Musk?s startups, 5G has become a technology >>> savior. Proponents tout the poorly defined wireless technology as the >>> path to virtual reality, telemedicine, and self-?driving cars. >>> >>> But 5G is not a technology?it?s a buzzword unleashed by marketing >>> departments. As early as 2012, Broadcom was using it to sell Wi-Fi. In >>> reality, 5G is a term that telecommunications investors and executives >>> sling around as the solution to high infrastructure costs, the need for >>> more bandwidth, and a desire to boost margins. >>> >>> The unifying component behind 5G is faster wireless broadband service. A >>> more stringent?and practical?definition is the use of high-frequency >>> millimeter waves (in addition to the microwaves that 4G LTE relies on >>> today) to deliver over-the-air broadband to phones or homes. >>> >>> If you?re talking about phones, 5G is still years away. And new services >>> aren?t really on the menu. Just listen to the heads of several >>> telecommunications companies, who have begun to tamp down investors? >>> expectations around what 5G can deliver. >>> >>> (snip) >>> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------- >>> Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director >>> 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 <(505)%20603-5200> >>> Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, >>> rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org >>> --------------------------------------------------------------- >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 1st-mile-nm mailing list >>> 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org >>> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 1st-mile-nm mailing list >>> 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org >>> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 1st-mile-nm mailing list >> 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org >> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From JBadal at sacred-wind.com Fri Mar 2 09:31:26 2018 From: JBadal at sacred-wind.com (John Badal) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2018 17:31:26 +0000 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold In-Reply-To: References: <1B3B161D-6D4D-4455-AA03-FE6FC2A2245F@breeckerassociates.com> <91f1aab07d08099b4651f3530b85710f@1st-mile.org> <011701d3b0f4$6f134900$4d39db00$@bbcmag.com> Message-ID: Steve & Christopher, This has been a good discussion. I agree that anyone daring or committed enough to provide broadband in rural areas deserves praise. My primary concern about FTTH in high cost areas is actually twofold: 1) the added investment of new FTTH networks, especially using public grant money, is a wasteful use of public funds in light of the fact that the vast majority of bandwidth is being used for entertainment, not for academic or job enhancing information. A business case for unsubsidized FTTH systems in rural areas is hard to find. And 2) where the owner of the only utility poles in town decides to provide broadband services in competition with those that are attached to its poles, abuse of monopoly power is not only possible, but is actually in practice. I would love to see more partnerships ? private and public/private ? for the purpose of expanding rural broadband. What we?ve experienced instead is an arrogant abuse of power. John From: Steve Ross [mailto:editorsteve at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2018 3:42 PM To: Christopher Mitchell Cc: John Badal ; 1st-Mile-NM <1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org>; rl at 1st-mile.org; masha at bbcmag.com Subject: Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold BTW, one person's cross-subsidy is another's avoiding stranded costs. Rural counties are losing on average more than 1/4% of their population a year. A coop or tier3 LEC sees survival as a better alternative. I have shown that a quarter to half of all rural job loss is due to lack of broadband access. It is by far the BIGGEST source of rural job loss. I really have a lot of respect and admiration for any broadband deployers, including the national carriers. But when they can't make a business case for serving an area they should $%^&% get out of the way of others who think they might be able to. Instead they buy politicians. Steve Ross Editor-at-Large, Broadband Communities Magazine (www.bbcmag.com) 201-456-5933 mobile 707-WOW-SSR3 (707-969-7773) Google Voice editorsteve (Facebook, LinkedIn) editorsteve1 (Twitter) steve at bbcmag.com editorsteve at gmail.com On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 5:34 PM, Steve Ross > wrote: Chris is absolutely right, but making it happen is not as easy. Few electric coops have been willing to take the risk -- and Chris and I and others do a lot of missionary work. More than half of all new MDUs are not FTTH even though fiber is CHEAPER in that case. We can generally show that fiber can work at about 8 premises per mile taking the service... even less if pole attachment rights are not held hostage. But we don't know how revenue will flow from driverless vehicles to network deployers yet, and Washington is not paying any attention. Steve Ross Editor-at-Large, Broadband Communities Magazine (www.bbcmag.com) 201-456-5933 mobile 707-WOW-SSR3 (707-969-7773) Google Voice editorsteve (Facebook, LinkedIn) editorsteve1 (Twitter) steve at bbcmag.com editorsteve at gmail.com On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 4:50 PM, Christopher Mitchell > wrote: Any place that has electricity, especially those served by co-ops could get fiber ultimately. It may take a well-designed grant program, but it can be done far more efficiently than any of the universal service programs in operation today. Google decided to focus on dominating AI and driverless cars and such rather than deployment. There is no evidence that they were losing money, rather anyone that understands how such businesses make decisions should be aware that while there are fiber models that are profitable, they may not offer the return that some in Google were expecting. That's fine. the small ISPs I see building fiber steadily year after year are profitable. They aren't going to buy NFL stadium sponsorships, but they are providing a service that is desperately desired and they are making a good return. Google will focus on dominating the future of AI and driverless cars and who knows what. They have a different calculus. The vast majority of North Dakota has FTTH. I believe it is the 4th most sparsely populated state in the union. But it is very easy to simply ignore the evidence and pretend that it just can't be done. We have documented where rural fiber is available, and it is far more than most realize. https://muninetworks.org/content/rural-cooperatives-page Christopher Mitchell Director, Community Broadband Networks Institute for Local Self-Reliance MuniNetworks.org @communitynets 612-545-5185 On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 7:36 AM, John Badal > wrote: Business case? Even the well heeled Google has rethought its FTTH plans in urban areas far more densely populated than NM?s rural areas. The sizzle got ahead of the steak. John From: Christopher Mitchell [mailto:christopher at ilsr.org] Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2018 8:32 AM To: John Badal > Cc: masha at bbcmag.com; Doug Orr >; rl at 1st-mile.org; 1st-Mile-NM <1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org> Subject: Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold The point of a gig is not to use all of it anymore than the point of a highway is to experiment with the maximum number of cars you can put on it. The point of a gig is abundance - sure 452 Mbps would probably do that too, but a gig resonates and is a standard. It would be difficult for me to use all of the electricity that can flow into my house - but we overprovision certain kinds of infrastructure when that can unlock additional value. And finally, if we assume that communities will still need high quality Internet access in 30 years, everyone I talk to that does both fiber and wireless says that while fiber is more expensive on the front end, the much lower operating and future upgrade costs ultimately make it MORE cost effective than wireless over a period of decades. There are many legitimate reasons for people in rural areas to "cry" for better connectivity even if they have the same number of gigabit applications as we do cars that are 5 lanes wide. Christopher Mitchell Director, Community Broadband Networks Institute for Local Self-Reliance MuniNetworks.org @communitynets 612-545-5185 On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 4:48 PM, John Badal > wrote: 5G has the same sexy appeal to the uniformed as fiber to the home. Rural communities are crying for both, afraid they?d fall deeper into the digital divide, but unaware that the vast majority of consumers could never use gigabit speeds outside of recreating in the home Star Trek-like virtual reality holodecks. What makes much more sense to me is for Albuquerque to build 20-lane highways and 10-lane boulevards throughout the city to eliminate any congestion during rush hours, along with robotic car removal systems to dispense with cars damaged in an accident. John From: 1st-mile-nm [mailto:1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org] On Behalf Of Masha Zager Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 5:30 PM To: 'Doug Orr' >; rl at 1st-mile.org Cc: '1st-Mile-NM' <1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org> Subject: Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold It?s not. See this: http://www.bbcmag.com/2017mags/Mar_Apr/BBC_Mar17_5GNotAnswer.pdf Masha Zager Editor-in-Chief, Broadband Communities masha at bbcmag.com 518-943-0374 www.bbcmag.com www.twitter.com/bbcmag From: 1st-mile-nm [mailto:1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org] On Behalf Of Doug Orr Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 7:16 PM To: rl at 1st-mile.org Cc: 1st-Mile-NM Subject: Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold I'm unclear as to why 5g fixed is going to be cheaper to deploy than fiber. If the state charges $250/antenna... that buys a lot of hardwired installer time. And the antennas need backhaul, presumably, so lighting up a neighborhood in anticipation of new customer uptake... that seems a lot like upgrading infrastructure that would be needed if the idea is to offer faster aggregate speeds. What's the model here? Does anyone know of real world benchmarks for 5G applications (e.g., netflix)? Doug On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 1:47 PM Richard Lowenberg > wrote: Following on recent postings. RL ------- Commercial service is years away, but even then, 5G won?t fulfill all of its promises https://spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/internet/5g-is-in-danger-of-being-oversold By Stacey Higginbotham Just like graphene or Elon Musk?s startups, 5G has become a technology savior. Proponents tout the poorly defined wireless technology as the path to virtual reality, telemedicine, and self-?driving cars. But 5G is not a technology?it?s a buzzword unleashed by marketing departments. As early as 2012, Broadcom was using it to sell Wi-Fi. In reality, 5G is a term that telecommunications investors and executives sling around as the solution to high infrastructure costs, the need for more bandwidth, and a desire to boost margins. The unifying component behind 5G is faster wireless broadband service. A more stringent?and practical?definition is the use of high-frequency millimeter waves (in addition to the microwaves that 4G LTE relies on today) to deliver over-the-air broadband to phones or homes. If you?re talking about phones, 5G is still years away. And new services aren?t really on the menu. Just listen to the heads of several telecommunications companies, who have begun to tamp down investors? expectations around what 5G can deliver. (snip) --------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org --------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ 1st-mile-nm mailing list 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm _______________________________________________ 1st-mile-nm mailing list 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm _______________________________________________ 1st-mile-nm mailing list 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From haroldskow at navajo-nsn.gov Fri Mar 2 09:41:59 2018 From: haroldskow at navajo-nsn.gov (Harold Skow) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2018 17:41:59 +0000 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold In-Reply-To: References: <1B3B161D-6D4D-4455-AA03-FE6FC2A2245F@breeckerassociates.com> <91f1aab07d08099b4651f3530b85710f@1st-mile.org> <011701d3b0f4$6f134900$4d39db00$@bbcmag.com> Message-ID: <907d649f49324500a4386e6c79f64bbc@WDRX13MB02V.navajo.org> Hi all, From NN governmental IT stand point I had recommended to the NM PRC that NN needs to construct underground ?honey combed? [Image result for underground fiber honeycomb conduit] infrastructure ?owned by government or people?. The carries would not control the infrastructure. This would be better for us in the long haul. Harold From: 1st-mile-nm [mailto:1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org] On Behalf Of John Badal Sent: Friday, March 02, 2018 10:31 AM To: Steve Ross ; Christopher Mitchell Cc: rl at 1st-mile.org; 1st-Mile-NM <1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org>; masha at bbcmag.com Subject: Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold Steve & Christopher, This has been a good discussion. I agree that anyone daring or committed enough to provide broadband in rural areas deserves praise. My primary concern about FTTH in high cost areas is actually twofold: 1) the added investment of new FTTH networks, especially using public grant money, is a wasteful use of public funds in light of the fact that the vast majority of bandwidth is being used for entertainment, not for academic or job enhancing information. A business case for unsubsidized FTTH systems in rural areas is hard to find. And 2) where the owner of the only utility poles in town decides to provide broadband services in competition with those that are attached to its poles, abuse of monopoly power is not only possible, but is actually in practice. I would love to see more partnerships ? private and public/private ? for the purpose of expanding rural broadband. What we?ve experienced instead is an arrogant abuse of power. John From: Steve Ross [mailto:editorsteve at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2018 3:42 PM To: Christopher Mitchell > Cc: John Badal >; 1st-Mile-NM <1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org>; rl at 1st-mile.org; masha at bbcmag.com Subject: Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold BTW, one person's cross-subsidy is another's avoiding stranded costs. Rural counties are losing on average more than 1/4% of their population a year. A coop or tier3 LEC sees survival as a better alternative. I have shown that a quarter to half of all rural job loss is due to lack of broadband access. It is by far the BIGGEST source of rural job loss. I really have a lot of respect and admiration for any broadband deployers, including the national carriers. But when they can't make a business case for serving an area they should $%^&% get out of the way of others who think they might be able to. Instead they buy politicians. Steve Ross Editor-at-Large, Broadband Communities Magazine (www.bbcmag.com) 201-456-5933 mobile 707-WOW-SSR3 (707-969-7773) Google Voice editorsteve (Facebook, LinkedIn) editorsteve1 (Twitter) steve at bbcmag.com editorsteve at gmail.com On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 5:34 PM, Steve Ross > wrote: Chris is absolutely right, but making it happen is not as easy. Few electric coops have been willing to take the risk -- and Chris and I and others do a lot of missionary work. More than half of all new MDUs are not FTTH even though fiber is CHEAPER in that case. We can generally show that fiber can work at about 8 premises per mile taking the service... even less if pole attachment rights are not held hostage. But we don't know how revenue will flow from driverless vehicles to network deployers yet, and Washington is not paying any attention. Steve Ross Editor-at-Large, Broadband Communities Magazine (www.bbcmag.com) 201-456-5933 mobile 707-WOW-SSR3 (707-969-7773) Google Voice editorsteve (Facebook, LinkedIn) editorsteve1 (Twitter) steve at bbcmag.com editorsteve at gmail.com On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 4:50 PM, Christopher Mitchell > wrote: Any place that has electricity, especially those served by co-ops could get fiber ultimately. It may take a well-designed grant program, but it can be done far more efficiently than any of the universal service programs in operation today. Google decided to focus on dominating AI and driverless cars and such rather than deployment. There is no evidence that they were losing money, rather anyone that understands how such businesses make decisions should be aware that while there are fiber models that are profitable, they may not offer the return that some in Google were expecting. That's fine. the small ISPs I see building fiber steadily year after year are profitable. They aren't going to buy NFL stadium sponsorships, but they are providing a service that is desperately desired and they are making a good return. Google will focus on dominating the future of AI and driverless cars and who knows what. They have a different calculus. The vast majority of North Dakota has FTTH. I believe it is the 4th most sparsely populated state in the union. But it is very easy to simply ignore the evidence and pretend that it just can't be done. We have documented where rural fiber is available, and it is far more than most realize. https://muninetworks.org/content/rural-cooperatives-page Christopher Mitchell Director, Community Broadband Networks Institute for Local Self-Reliance MuniNetworks.org @communitynets 612-545-5185 On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 7:36 AM, John Badal > wrote: Business case? Even the well heeled Google has rethought its FTTH plans in urban areas far more densely populated than NM?s rural areas. The sizzle got ahead of the steak. John From: Christopher Mitchell [mailto:christopher at ilsr.org] Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2018 8:32 AM To: John Badal > Cc: masha at bbcmag.com; Doug Orr >; rl at 1st-mile.org; 1st-Mile-NM <1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org> Subject: Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold The point of a gig is not to use all of it anymore than the point of a highway is to experiment with the maximum number of cars you can put on it. The point of a gig is abundance - sure 452 Mbps would probably do that too, but a gig resonates and is a standard. It would be difficult for me to use all of the electricity that can flow into my house - but we overprovision certain kinds of infrastructure when that can unlock additional value. And finally, if we assume that communities will still need high quality Internet access in 30 years, everyone I talk to that does both fiber and wireless says that while fiber is more expensive on the front end, the much lower operating and future upgrade costs ultimately make it MORE cost effective than wireless over a period of decades. There are many legitimate reasons for people in rural areas to "cry" for better connectivity even if they have the same number of gigabit applications as we do cars that are 5 lanes wide. Christopher Mitchell Director, Community Broadband Networks Institute for Local Self-Reliance MuniNetworks.org @communitynets 612-545-5185 On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 4:48 PM, John Badal > wrote: 5G has the same sexy appeal to the uniformed as fiber to the home. Rural communities are crying for both, afraid they?d fall deeper into the digital divide, but unaware that the vast majority of consumers could never use gigabit speeds outside of recreating in the home Star Trek-like virtual reality holodecks. What makes much more sense to me is for Albuquerque to build 20-lane highways and 10-lane boulevards throughout the city to eliminate any congestion during rush hours, along with robotic car removal systems to dispense with cars damaged in an accident. John From: 1st-mile-nm [mailto:1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org] On Behalf Of Masha Zager Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 5:30 PM To: 'Doug Orr' >; rl at 1st-mile.org Cc: '1st-Mile-NM' <1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org> Subject: Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold It?s not. See this: http://www.bbcmag.com/2017mags/Mar_Apr/BBC_Mar17_5GNotAnswer.pdf Masha Zager Editor-in-Chief, Broadband Communities masha at bbcmag.com 518-943-0374 www.bbcmag.com www.twitter.com/bbcmag From: 1st-mile-nm [mailto:1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org] On Behalf Of Doug Orr Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 7:16 PM To: rl at 1st-mile.org Cc: 1st-Mile-NM Subject: Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold I'm unclear as to why 5g fixed is going to be cheaper to deploy than fiber. If the state charges $250/antenna... that buys a lot of hardwired installer time. And the antennas need backhaul, presumably, so lighting up a neighborhood in anticipation of new customer uptake... that seems a lot like upgrading infrastructure that would be needed if the idea is to offer faster aggregate speeds. What's the model here? Does anyone know of real world benchmarks for 5G applications (e.g., netflix)? Doug On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 1:47 PM Richard Lowenberg > wrote: Following on recent postings. RL ------- Commercial service is years away, but even then, 5G won?t fulfill all of its promises https://spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/internet/5g-is-in-danger-of-being-oversold By Stacey Higginbotham Just like graphene or Elon Musk?s startups, 5G has become a technology savior. Proponents tout the poorly defined wireless technology as the path to virtual reality, telemedicine, and self-?driving cars. But 5G is not a technology?it?s a buzzword unleashed by marketing departments. As early as 2012, Broadcom was using it to sell Wi-Fi. In reality, 5G is a term that telecommunications investors and executives sling around as the solution to high infrastructure costs, the need for more bandwidth, and a desire to boost margins. The unifying component behind 5G is faster wireless broadband service. A more stringent?and practical?definition is the use of high-frequency millimeter waves (in addition to the microwaves that 4G LTE relies on today) to deliver over-the-air broadband to phones or homes. If you?re talking about phones, 5G is still years away. And new services aren?t really on the menu. Just listen to the heads of several telecommunications companies, who have begun to tamp down investors? expectations around what 5G can deliver. (snip) --------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org --------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ 1st-mile-nm mailing list 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm _______________________________________________ 1st-mile-nm mailing list 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm _______________________________________________ 1st-mile-nm mailing list 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 1828 bytes Desc: image002.jpg URL: From christopher at ilsr.org Fri Mar 2 09:43:06 2018 From: christopher at ilsr.org (Christopher Mitchell) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2018 11:43:06 -0600 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold In-Reply-To: References: <1B3B161D-6D4D-4455-AA03-FE6FC2A2245F@breeckerassociates.com> <91f1aab07d08099b4651f3530b85710f@1st-mile.org> <011701d3b0f4$6f134900$4d39db00$@bbcmag.com> Message-ID: John, I agree that this has been a good conversation and appreciate your points. I am researching abuse by pole owners (and attachers) that limit investment in fiber networks. I know that John Brown has faced this as well. Perhaps we can jump on a call we can arrange offline to share your experiences. Regarding the point that the vast majority of the bandwidth being used is for entertainment, I think you would find that much of the electricity, use of our roads, etc is not for academic or job enhancing information. That is not the appropriate test in my mind. This is example that I think illustrates my point. I pay Comcast to be on higher than the standard tier of service because I need faster upload speeds somewhere around 5-10 times per month for something I am working on. That is why I use Comcast - they are the fastest in my area. The vast majority of bits that Comcast transmits for me are not that important. Probably most are entertainment. But that is not why I have the connection. We should not justify the need for a connection based on what uses the most capacity but rather what is the highest value. And as you are well aware, most Netflix streams use only 5ish Mbps pr less. So that is not a justification for fiber. But being able to work from home (even if that is not the biggest mover of bits through a month) requires reliability and much more capacity than Netflix does. I think the amount of bits used for entertainment is a distraction. But even if we take it more seriously, whether or not a home can enjoy a good Netflix connection moves the housing market significantly. And that is important and must be paid attention to. Christopher Mitchell Director, Community Broadband Networks Institute for Local Self-Reliance MuniNetworks.org @communitynets 612-545-5185 <(612)%20545-5185> On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 11:31 AM, John Badal wrote: > Steve & Christopher, > > > > This has been a good discussion. I agree that anyone daring or committed > enough to provide broadband in rural areas deserves praise. My primary > concern about FTTH in high cost areas is actually twofold: 1) the added > investment of new FTTH networks, especially using public grant money, is a > wasteful use of public funds in light of the fact that the vast majority of > bandwidth is being used for entertainment, not for academic or job > enhancing information. A business case for unsubsidized FTTH systems in > rural areas is hard to find. And 2) where the owner of the only utility > poles in town decides to provide broadband services in competition with > those that are attached to its poles, abuse of monopoly power is not only > possible, but is actually in practice. I would love to see more > partnerships ? private and public/private ? for the purpose of expanding > rural broadband. What we?ve experienced instead is an arrogant abuse of > power. > > > > John > > > > *From:* Steve Ross [mailto:editorsteve at gmail.com] > *Sent:* Thursday, March 1, 2018 3:42 PM > *To:* Christopher Mitchell > *Cc:* John Badal ; 1st-Mile-NM < > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org>; rl at 1st-mile.org; masha at bbcmag.com > > *Subject:* Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold > > > > BTW, one person's cross-subsidy is another's avoiding stranded costs. > Rural counties are losing on average more than 1/4% of their population a > year. A coop or tier3 LEC sees survival as a better alternative. I have > shown that a quarter to half of all rural job loss is due to lack of > broadband access. It is by far the BIGGEST source of rural job loss. > > > > I really have a lot of respect and admiration for any broadband deployers, > including the national carriers. But when they can't make a business case > for serving an area they should $%^&% get out of the way of others who > think they might be able to. Instead they buy politicians. > > > > > Steve Ross > Editor-at-Large, Broadband Communities Magazine (www.bbcmag.com) > 201-456-5933 <(201)%20456-5933> mobile > 707-WOW-SSR3 (707-969-7773 <(707)%20969-7773>) Google Voice > editorsteve (Facebook, LinkedIn) > editorsteve1 (Twitter) > steve at bbcmag.com > editorsteve at gmail.com > > > > On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 5:34 PM, Steve Ross wrote: > > Chris is absolutely right, but making it happen is not as easy. Few > electric coops have been willing to take the risk -- and Chris and I and > others do a lot of missionary work. More than half of all new MDUs are not > FTTH even though fiber is CHEAPER in that case. > > > > We can generally show that fiber can work at about 8 premises per mile > taking the service... even less if pole attachment rights are not held > hostage. But we don't know how revenue will flow from driverless vehicles > to network deployers yet, and Washington is not paying any attention. > > > > > Steve Ross > Editor-at-Large, Broadband Communities Magazine (www.bbcmag.com) > 201-456-5933 <(201)%20456-5933> mobile > 707-WOW-SSR3 (707-969-7773 <(707)%20969-7773>) Google Voice > editorsteve (Facebook, LinkedIn) > editorsteve1 (Twitter) > steve at bbcmag.com > editorsteve at gmail.com > > > > On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 4:50 PM, Christopher Mitchell > wrote: > > Any place that has electricity, especially those served by co-ops could > get fiber ultimately. It may take a well-designed grant program, but it can > be done far more efficiently than any of the universal service programs in > operation today. > > > > Google decided to focus on dominating AI and driverless cars and such > rather than deployment. There is no evidence that they were losing money, > rather anyone that understands how such businesses make decisions should be > aware that while there are fiber models that are profitable, they may not > offer the return that some in Google were expecting. That's fine. the small > ISPs I see building fiber steadily year after year are profitable. They > aren't going to buy NFL stadium sponsorships, but they are providing a > service that is desperately desired and they are making a good return. > Google will focus on dominating the future of AI and driverless cars and > who knows what. They have a different calculus. > > > > The vast majority of North Dakota has FTTH. I believe it is the 4th most > sparsely populated state in the union. But it is very easy to simply ignore > the evidence and pretend that it just can't be done. We have documented > where rural fiber is available, and it is far more than most realize. > > https://muninetworks.org/content/rural-cooperatives-page > > > > > Christopher Mitchell > Director, Community Broadband Networks > Institute for Local Self-Reliance > > > MuniNetworks.org > > @communitynets > > 612-545-5185 <(612)%20545-5185> > > > > On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 7:36 AM, John Badal wrote: > > Business case? Even the well heeled Google has rethought its FTTH plans > in urban areas far more densely populated than NM?s rural areas. The > sizzle got ahead of the steak. > > > > John > > > > *From:* Christopher Mitchell [mailto:christopher at ilsr.org] > *Sent:* Thursday, March 1, 2018 8:32 AM > *To:* John Badal > *Cc:* masha at bbcmag.com; Doug Orr ; rl at 1st-mile.org; > 1st-Mile-NM <1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org> > > > *Subject:* Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold > > > > The point of a gig is not to use all of it anymore than the point of a > highway is to experiment with the maximum number of cars you can put on it. > > > > The point of a gig is abundance - sure 452 Mbps would probably do that > too, but a gig resonates and is a standard. > > > > It would be difficult for me to use all of the electricity that can flow > into my house - but we overprovision certain kinds of infrastructure when > that can unlock additional value. > > > > And finally, if we assume that communities will still need high quality > Internet access in 30 years, everyone I talk to that does both fiber and > wireless says that while fiber is more expensive on the front end, the much > lower operating and future upgrade costs ultimately make it MORE cost > effective than wireless over a period of decades. > > > > There are many legitimate reasons for people in rural areas to "cry" for > better connectivity even if they have the same number of gigabit > applications as we do cars that are 5 lanes wide. > > > Christopher Mitchell > Director, Community Broadband Networks > Institute for Local Self-Reliance > > > MuniNetworks.org > > @communitynets > > 612-545-5185 <(612)%20545-5185> > > > > On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 4:48 PM, John Badal > wrote: > > 5G has the same sexy appeal to the uniformed as fiber to the home. Rural > communities are crying for both, afraid they?d fall deeper into the digital > divide, but unaware that the vast majority of consumers could never use > gigabit speeds outside of recreating in the home Star Trek-like virtual > reality holodecks. What makes much more sense to me is for Albuquerque > to build 20-lane highways and 10-lane boulevards throughout the city to > eliminate any congestion during rush hours, along with robotic car removal > systems to dispense with cars damaged in an accident. > > > > John > > > > *From:* 1st-mile-nm [mailto:1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org] *On > Behalf Of *Masha Zager > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 28, 2018 5:30 PM > *To:* 'Doug Orr' ; rl at 1st-mile.org > *Cc:* '1st-Mile-NM' <1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org> > > > *Subject:* Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold > > > > It?s not. See this: http://www.bbcmag.com/2017mags > /Mar_Apr/BBC_Mar17_5GNotAnswer.pdf > > > > > > > *Masha Zager *Editor-in-Chief, Broadband Communities > masha at bbcmag.com > 518-943-0374 <(518)%20943-0374> > www.bbcmag.com > www.twitter.com/bbcmag > > > > *From:* 1st-mile-nm [mailto:1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org > <1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org>] *On Behalf Of *Doug Orr > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 28, 2018 7:16 PM > *To:* rl at 1st-mile.org > *Cc:* 1st-Mile-NM > *Subject:* Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold > > > > I'm unclear as to why 5g fixed is going to be cheaper to deploy than > fiber. If the state charges $250/antenna... that buys a lot of hardwired > installer time. And the antennas need backhaul, presumably, so lighting up > a neighborhood in anticipation of new customer uptake... that seems a lot > like upgrading infrastructure that would be needed if the idea is to offer > faster aggregate speeds. > > > > What's the model here? > > > > Does anyone know of real world benchmarks for 5G applications (e.g., > netflix)? > > > > Doug > > > > On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 1:47 PM Richard Lowenberg wrote: > > Following on recent postings. RL > > ------- > > Commercial service is years away, but even then, 5G won?t fulfill all of > its promises > > https://spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/internet/5g-is-in-danger- > of-being-oversold > > By Stacey Higginbotham > > Just like graphene or Elon Musk?s startups, 5G has become a technology > savior. Proponents tout the poorly defined wireless technology as the > path to virtual reality, telemedicine, and self-?driving cars. > > But 5G is not a technology?it?s a buzzword unleashed by marketing > departments. As early as 2012, Broadcom was using it to sell Wi-Fi. In > reality, 5G is a term that telecommunications investors and executives > sling around as the solution to high infrastructure costs, the need for > more bandwidth, and a desire to boost margins. > > The unifying component behind 5G is faster wireless broadband service. A > more stringent?and practical?definition is the use of high-frequency > millimeter waves (in addition to the microwaves that 4G LTE relies on > today) to deliver over-the-air broadband to phones or homes. > > If you?re talking about phones, 5G is still years away. And new services > aren?t really on the menu. Just listen to the heads of several > telecommunications companies, who have begun to tamp down investors? > expectations around what 5G can deliver. > > (snip) > > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director > 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 <(505)%20603-5200> > Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, > rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org > --------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm > > > _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From coffin at isoc.org Fri Mar 2 09:46:23 2018 From: coffin at isoc.org (Jane Coffin) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2018 17:46:23 +0000 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold In-Reply-To: References: <1B3B161D-6D4D-4455-AA03-FE6FC2A2245F@breeckerassociates.com> <91f1aab07d08099b4651f3530b85710f@1st-mile.org> <011701d3b0f4$6f134900$4d39db00$@bbcmag.com> Message-ID: Hi All ? May I play devil?s advocate.? I am not from NM (but love it there).? I come from a rural coastal town in Maine.? Local uptake can often start out with entertainment, and shift once the network is better and/or the community realizes the value-add.? Note that we see this all over the world, and that entertainment content has been driving network infrastructure development in many parts of Sub-Saharan Africa, South East Asia, LAC, etc.? I take your point on subsidization, but think there is a good reason for public network infrastructure dev.? Why not subsidize the preliminary FTTH deployments with a long-range plan for community pay-back or just see it as worthwhile socio-economic dev?? We build and maintain roads at the State and local level? 2/ With you.? We helped a project in rural South Africa purchase a mast (cost was $2,600.00).? They were quoted a monthly rental of $2,600.00 on an existing mast.? With the mast purchase, they expanded coverage and were able to shift to a hybrid not-for-profit/profit WISP. Best, Jane Internet Society | www.internetsociety.org Skype: janercoffin Mobile/WhatsApp: +1.202.247.8429 From: 1st-mile-nm <1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org> on behalf of John Badal Date: Friday, March 2, 2018 at 12:33 PM To: Steve Ross , Christopher Mitchell Cc: Richard Lowenberg , 1st-Mile-NM <1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org>, "masha at bbcmag.com" Subject: Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold Steve & Christopher, This has been a good discussion. I agree that anyone daring or committed enough to provide broadband in rural areas deserves praise. My primary concern about FTTH in high cost areas is actually twofold: 1) the added investment of new FTTH networks, especially using public grant money, is a wasteful use of public funds in light of the fact that the vast majority of bandwidth is being used for entertainment, not for academic or job enhancing information. A business case for unsubsidized FTTH systems in rural areas is hard to find. And 2) where the owner of the only utility poles in town decides to provide broadband services in competition with those that are attached to its poles, abuse of monopoly power is not only possible, but is actually in practice. I would love to see more partnerships ? private and public/private ? for the purpose of expanding rural broadband. What we?ve experienced instead is an arrogant abuse of power. John From: Steve Ross [mailto:editorsteve at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2018 3:42 PM To: Christopher Mitchell Cc: John Badal ; 1st-Mile-NM <1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org>; rl at 1st-mile.org; masha at bbcmag.com Subject: Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold BTW, one person's cross-subsidy is another's avoiding stranded costs. Rural counties are losing on average more than 1/4% of their population a year. A coop or tier3 LEC sees survival as a better alternative. I have shown that a quarter to half of all rural job loss is due to lack of broadband access. It is by far the BIGGEST source of rural job loss. I really have a lot of respect and admiration for any broadband deployers, including the national carriers. But when they can't make a business case for serving an area they should $%^&% get out of the way of others who think they might be able to. Instead they buy politicians. Steve Ross Editor-at-Large, Broadband Communities Magazine (www.bbcmag.com) 201-456-5933 mobile 707-WOW-SSR3 (707-969-7773) Google Voice editorsteve (Facebook, LinkedIn) editorsteve1 (Twitter) steve at bbcmag.com editorsteve at gmail.com On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 5:34 PM, Steve Ross wrote: Chris is absolutely right, but making it happen is not as easy. Few electric coops have been willing to take the risk -- and Chris and I and others do a lot of missionary work. More than half of all new MDUs are not FTTH even though fiber is CHEAPER in that case. We can generally show that fiber can work at about 8 premises per mile taking the service... even less if pole attachment rights are not held hostage. But we don't know how revenue will flow from driverless vehicles to network deployers yet, and Washington is not paying any attention. Steve Ross Editor-at-Large, Broadband Communities Magazine (www.bbcmag.com) 201-456-5933 mobile 707-WOW-SSR3 (707-969-7773) Google Voice editorsteve (Facebook, LinkedIn) editorsteve1 (Twitter) steve at bbcmag.com editorsteve at gmail.com On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 4:50 PM, Christopher Mitchell wrote: Any place that has electricity, especially those served by co-ops could get fiber ultimately. It may take a well-designed grant program, but it can be done far more efficiently than any of the universal service programs in operation today. Google decided to focus on dominating AI and driverless cars and such rather than deployment. There is no evidence that they were losing money, rather anyone that understands how such businesses make decisions should be aware that while there are fiber models that are profitable, they may not offer the return that some in Google were expecting. That's fine. the small ISPs I see building fiber steadily year after year are profitable. They aren't going to buy NFL stadium sponsorships, but they are providing a service that is desperately desired and they are making a good return. Google will focus on dominating the future of AI and driverless cars and who knows what. They have a different calculus. The vast majority of North Dakota has FTTH. I believe it is the 4th most sparsely populated state in the union. But it is very easy to simply ignore the evidence and pretend that it just can't be done. We have documented where rural fiber is available, and it is far more than most realize. https://muninetworks.org/content/rural-cooperatives-page Christopher Mitchell Director, Community Broadband Networks Institute for Local Self-Reliance MuniNetworks.org @communitynets 612-545-5185 On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 7:36 AM, John Badal wrote: Business case? Even the well heeled Google has rethought its FTTH plans in urban areas far more densely populated than NM?s rural areas. The sizzle got ahead of the steak. John From: Christopher Mitchell [mailto:christopher at ilsr.org] Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2018 8:32 AM To: John Badal Cc: masha at bbcmag.com; Doug Orr ; rl at 1st-mile.org; 1st-Mile-NM <1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org> Subject: Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold The point of a gig is not to use all of it anymore than the point of a highway is to experiment with the maximum number of cars you can put on it. The point of a gig is abundance - sure 452 Mbps would probably do that too, but a gig resonates and is a standard. It would be difficult for me to use all of the electricity that can flow into my house - but we overprovision certain kinds of infrastructure when that can unlock additional value. And finally, if we assume that communities will still need high quality Internet access in 30 years, everyone I talk to that does both fiber and wireless says that while fiber is more expensive on the front end, the much lower operating and future upgrade costs ultimately make it MORE cost effective than wireless over a period of decades. There are many legitimate reasons for people in rural areas to "cry" for better connectivity even if they have the same number of gigabit applications as we do cars that are 5 lanes wide. Christopher Mitchell Director, Community Broadband Networks Institute for Local Self-Reliance MuniNetworks.org @communitynets 612-545-5185 On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 4:48 PM, John Badal wrote: 5G has the same sexy appeal to the uniformed as fiber to the home. Rural communities are crying for both, afraid they?d fall deeper into the digital divide, but unaware that the vast majority of consumers could never use gigabit speeds outside of recreating in the home Star Trek-like virtual reality holodecks. What makes much more sense to me is for Albuquerque to build 20-lane highways and 10-lane boulevards throughout the city to eliminate any congestion during rush hours, along with robotic car removal systems to dispense with cars damaged in an accident. John From: 1st-mile-nm [mailto:1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org] On Behalf Of Masha Zager Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 5:30 PM To: 'Doug Orr' ; rl at 1st-mile.org Cc: '1st-Mile-NM' <1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org> Subject: Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold It?s not. See this: http://www.bbcmag.com/2017mags/Mar_Apr/BBC_Mar17_5GNotAnswer.pdf Masha Zager Editor-in-Chief, Broadband Communities masha at bbcmag.com 518-943-0374 www.bbcmag.com www.twitter.com/bbcmag From: 1st-mile-nm [mailto:1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org] On Behalf Of Doug Orr Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 7:16 PM To: rl at 1st-mile.org Cc: 1st-Mile-NM Subject: Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold I'm unclear as to why 5g fixed is going to be cheaper to deploy than fiber. If the state charges $250/antenna... that buys a lot of hardwired installer time. And the antennas need backhaul, presumably, so lighting up a neighborhood in anticipation of new customer uptake... that seems a lot like upgrading infrastructure that would be needed if the idea is to offer faster aggregate speeds. What's the model here? Does anyone know of real world benchmarks for 5G applications (e.g., netflix)? Doug On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 1:47 PM Richard Lowenberg wrote: Following on recent postings. RL ------- Commercial service is years away, but even then, 5G won?t fulfill all of its promises https://spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/internet/5g-is-in-danger-of-being-oversold By Stacey Higginbotham Just like graphene or Elon Musk?s startups, 5G has become a technology savior. Proponents tout the poorly defined wireless technology as the path to virtual reality, telemedicine, and self-?driving cars. But 5G is not a technology?it?s a buzzword unleashed by marketing departments. As early as 2012, Broadcom was using it to sell Wi-Fi. In reality, 5G is a term that telecommunications investors and executives sling around as the solution to high infrastructure costs, the need for more bandwidth, and a desire to boost margins. The unifying component behind 5G is faster wireless broadband service. A more stringent?and practical?definition is the use of high-frequency millimeter waves (in addition to the microwaves that 4G LTE relies on today) to deliver over-the-air broadband to phones or homes. If you?re talking about phones, 5G is still years away. And new services aren?t really on the menu. Just listen to the heads of several telecommunications companies, who have begun to tamp down investors? expectations around what 5G can deliver. (snip) --------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org --------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ 1st-mile-nm mailing list 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm _______________________________________________ 1st-mile-nm mailing list 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm _______________________________________________ 1st-mile-nm mailing list 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/pkcs7-signature Size: 4497 bytes Desc: not available URL: From SDuran at taospueblo.com Fri Mar 2 09:45:13 2018 From: SDuran at taospueblo.com (Shawn Duran) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2018 17:45:13 +0000 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] remove from list Message-ID: <315840BBBC8D624EA96C2797DB0151F50105D2A53E@MAIL.taospueblo.gov> Shawn Duran, MPA Taos Pueblo Tribal Programs Administrator P.O. Box 1846 Taos, N.M. 87571 Office: 575.758.8626 ext. 115 Fax: 575.758.8831 Mobile: 575.741.0208 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From david at breeckerassociates.com Fri Mar 2 09:50:34 2018 From: david at breeckerassociates.com (David Breecker [dba]) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2018 10:50:34 -0700 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold In-Reply-To: References: <1B3B161D-6D4D-4455-AA03-FE6FC2A2245F@breeckerassociates.com> <91f1aab07d08099b4651f3530b85710f@1st-mile.org> <011701d3b0f4$6f134900$4d39db00$@bbcmag.com> Message-ID: I think Jane makes a good point. In our work analyzing ?energy poverty? in Africa and Asia, we see that one of the first things people use electricity for is television. But that?s a stepping stone to developing energy infrastructure capable of supporting ?productive use? in industry, agriculture, etc. db > On Mar 2, 2018, at 10:46 AM, Jane Coffin wrote: > > Hi All ? > > May I play devil?s advocate. I am not from NM (but love it there). I come from a rural coastal town in Maine. Local uptake can often start out with entertainment, and shift once the network is better and/or the community realizes the value-add. Note that we see this all over the world, and that entertainment content has been driving network infrastructure development in many parts of Sub-Saharan Africa, South East Asia, LAC, etc. I take your point on subsidization, but think there is a good reason for public network infrastructure dev. Why not subsidize the preliminary FTTH deployments with a long-range plan for community pay-back or just see it as worthwhile socio-economic dev? We build and maintain roads at the State and local level? > 2/ With you. We helped a project in rural South Africa purchase a mast (cost was $2,600.00). They were quoted a monthly rental of $2,600.00 on an existing mast. With the mast purchase, they expanded coverage and were able to shift to a hybrid not-for-profit/profit WISP. > > Best, > Jane > > Internet Society | www.internetsociety.org > Skype: janercoffin > Mobile/WhatsApp: +1.202.247.8429 > From: 1st-mile-nm <1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org> on behalf of John Badal > Date: Friday, March 2, 2018 at 12:33 PM > To: Steve Ross , Christopher Mitchell > Cc: Richard Lowenberg , 1st-Mile-NM <1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org>, "masha at bbcmag.com" > Subject: Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold > > Steve & Christopher, <> > > This has been a good discussion. I agree that anyone daring or committed enough to provide broadband in rural areas deserves praise. My primary concern about FTTH in high cost areas is actually twofold: 1) the added investment of new FTTH networks, especially using public grant money, is a wasteful use of public funds in light of the fact that the vast majority of bandwidth is being used for entertainment, not for academic or job enhancing information. A business case for unsubsidized FTTH systems in rural areas is hard to find. And 2) where the owner of the only utility poles in town decides to provide broadband services in competition with those that are attached to its poles, abuse of monopoly power is not only possible, but is actually in practice. I would love to see more partnerships ? private and public/private ? for the purpose of expanding rural broadband. What we?ve experienced instead is an arrogant abuse of power. > > John > > From: Steve Ross [mailto:editorsteve at gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2018 3:42 PM > To: Christopher Mitchell > Cc: John Badal ; 1st-Mile-NM <1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org>; rl at 1st-mile.org; masha at bbcmag.com > Subject: Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold > > BTW, one person's cross-subsidy is another's avoiding stranded costs. Rural counties are losing on average more than 1/4% of their population a year. A coop or tier3 LEC sees survival as a better alternative. I have shown that a quarter to half of all rural job loss is due to lack of broadband access. It is by far the BIGGEST source of rural job loss. > > I really have a lot of respect and admiration for any broadband deployers, including the national carriers. But when they can't make a business case for serving an area they should $%^&% get out of the way of others who think they might be able to. Instead they buy politicians. > > > > Steve Ross > Editor-at-Large, Broadband Communities Magazine (www.bbcmag.com ) > 201-456-5933 mobile > 707-WOW-SSR3 (707-969-7773) Google Voice > editorsteve (Facebook, LinkedIn) > editorsteve1 (Twitter) > steve at bbcmag.com > editorsteve at gmail.com > > On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 5:34 PM, Steve Ross > wrote: >> Chris is absolutely right, but making it happen is not as easy. Few electric coops have been willing to take the risk -- and Chris and I and others do a lot of missionary work. More than half of all new MDUs are not FTTH even though fiber is CHEAPER in that case. >> >> We can generally show that fiber can work at about 8 premises per mile taking the service... even less if pole attachment rights are not held hostage. But we don't know how revenue will flow from driverless vehicles to network deployers yet, and Washington is not paying any attention. >> >> >> >> Steve Ross >> Editor-at-Large, Broadband Communities Magazine (www.bbcmag.com ) >> 201-456-5933 mobile >> 707-WOW-SSR3 (707-969-7773 ) Google Voice >> editorsteve (Facebook, LinkedIn) >> editorsteve1 (Twitter) >> steve at bbcmag.com >> editorsteve at gmail.com >> >> On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 4:50 PM, Christopher Mitchell > wrote: >>> Any place that has electricity, especially those served by co-ops could get fiber ultimately. It may take a well-designed grant program, but it can be done far more efficiently than any of the universal service programs in operation today. >>> >>> Google decided to focus on dominating AI and driverless cars and such rather than deployment. There is no evidence that they were losing money, rather anyone that understands how such businesses make decisions should be aware that while there are fiber models that are profitable, they may not offer the return that some in Google were expecting. That's fine. the small ISPs I see building fiber steadily year after year are profitable. They aren't going to buy NFL stadium sponsorships, but they are providing a service that is desperately desired and they are making a good return. Google will focus on dominating the future of AI and driverless cars and who knows what. They have a different calculus. >>> >>> The vast majority of North Dakota has FTTH. I believe it is the 4th most sparsely populated state in the union. But it is very easy to simply ignore the evidence and pretend that it just can't be done. We have documented where rural fiber is available, and it is far more than most realize. >>> https://muninetworks.org/content/rural-cooperatives-page >>> >>> >>> Christopher Mitchell >>> Director, Community Broadband Networks >>> Institute for Local Self-Reliance >>> >>> MuniNetworks.org >>> @communitynets >>> 612-545-5185 >>> >>> On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 7:36 AM, John Badal > wrote: >>>> Business case? Even the well heeled Google has rethought its FTTH plans in urban areas far more densely populated than NM?s rural areas. The sizzle got ahead of the steak. >>>> >>>> John >>>> >>>> From: Christopher Mitchell [mailto:christopher at ilsr.org ] >>>> Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2018 8:32 AM >>>> To: John Badal > >>>> Cc: masha at bbcmag.com ; Doug Orr >; rl at 1st-mile.org ; 1st-Mile-NM <1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > >>>> >>>> Subject: Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold >>>> >>>> The point of a gig is not to use all of it anymore than the point of a highway is to experiment with the maximum number of cars you can put on it. >>>> >>>> The point of a gig is abundance - sure 452 Mbps would probably do that too, but a gig resonates and is a standard. >>>> >>>> It would be difficult for me to use all of the electricity that can flow into my house - but we overprovision certain kinds of infrastructure when that can unlock additional value. >>>> >>>> And finally, if we assume that communities will still need high quality Internet access in 30 years, everyone I talk to that does both fiber and wireless says that while fiber is more expensive on the front end, the much lower operating and future upgrade costs ultimately make it MORE cost effective than wireless over a period of decades. >>>> >>>> There are many legitimate reasons for people in rural areas to "cry" for better connectivity even if they have the same number of gigabit applications as we do cars that are 5 lanes wide. >>>> >>>> Christopher Mitchell >>>> Director, Community Broadband Networks >>>> Institute for Local Self-Reliance >>>> >>>> MuniNetworks.org >>>> @communitynets >>>> 612-545-5185 >>>> >>>> On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 4:48 PM, John Badal > wrote: >>>>> 5G has the same sexy appeal to the uniformed as fiber to the home. Rural communities are crying for both, afraid they?d fall deeper into the digital divide, but unaware that the vast majority of consumers could never use gigabit speeds outside of recreating in the home Star Trek-like virtual reality holodecks. What makes much more sense to me is for Albuquerque to build 20-lane highways and 10-lane boulevards throughout the city to eliminate any congestion during rush hours, along with robotic car removal systems to dispense with cars damaged in an accident. >>>>> >>>>> John >>>>> >>>>> From: 1st-mile-nm [mailto:1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org ] On Behalf Of Masha Zager >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 5:30 PM >>>>> To: 'Doug Orr' >; rl at 1st-mile.org >>>>> Cc: '1st-Mile-NM' <1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > >>>>> >>>>> Subject: Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold >>>>> >>>>> It?s not. See this: http://www.bbcmag.com/2017mags/Mar_Apr/BBC_Mar17_5GNotAnswer.pdf >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Masha Zager >>>>> Editor-in-Chief, Broadband Communities >>>>> masha at bbcmag.com >>>>> 518-943-0374 >>>>> www.bbcmag.com >>>>> www.twitter.com/bbcmag >>>>> >>>>> From: 1st-mile-nm [mailto:1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org ] On Behalf Of Doug Orr >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 7:16 PM >>>>> To: rl at 1st-mile.org >>>>> Cc: 1st-Mile-NM >>>>> Subject: Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold >>>>> >>>>> I'm unclear as to why 5g fixed is going to be cheaper to deploy than fiber. If the state charges $250/antenna... that buys a lot of hardwired installer time. And the antennas need backhaul, presumably, so lighting up a neighborhood in anticipation of new customer uptake... that seems a lot like upgrading infrastructure that would be needed if the idea is to offer faster aggregate speeds. >>>>> >>>>> What's the model here? >>>>> >>>>> Does anyone know of real world benchmarks for 5G applications (e.g., netflix)? >>>>> >>>>> Doug >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 1:47 PM Richard Lowenberg > wrote: >>>>>> Following on recent postings. RL >>>>>> >>>>>> ------- >>>>>> >>>>>> Commercial service is years away, but even then, 5G won?t fulfill all of >>>>>> its promises >>>>>> >>>>>> https://spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/internet/5g-is-in-danger-of-being-oversold >>>>>> >>>>>> By Stacey Higginbotham >>>>>> >>>>>> Just like graphene or Elon Musk?s startups, 5G has become a technology >>>>>> savior. Proponents tout the poorly defined wireless technology as the >>>>>> path to virtual reality, telemedicine, and self-?driving cars. >>>>>> >>>>>> But 5G is not a technology?it?s a buzzword unleashed by marketing >>>>>> departments. As early as 2012, Broadcom was using it to sell Wi-Fi. In >>>>>> reality, 5G is a term that telecommunications investors and executives >>>>>> sling around as the solution to high infrastructure costs, the need for >>>>>> more bandwidth, and a desire to boost margins. >>>>>> >>>>>> The unifying component behind 5G is faster wireless broadband service. A >>>>>> more stringent?and practical?definition is the use of high-frequency >>>>>> millimeter waves (in addition to the microwaves that 4G LTE relies on >>>>>> today) to deliver over-the-air broadband to phones or homes. >>>>>> >>>>>> If you?re talking about phones, 5G is still years away. And new services >>>>>> aren?t really on the menu. Just listen to the heads of several >>>>>> telecommunications companies, who have begun to tamp down investors? >>>>>> expectations around what 5G can deliver. >>>>>> >>>>>> (snip) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director >>>>>> 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 >>>>>> Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, >>>>>> rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org >>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> 1st-mile-nm mailing list >>>>>> 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org >>>>>> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 1st-mile-nm mailing list >>>>> 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org >>>>> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 1st-mile-nm mailing list >>> 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org >>> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm >> > > > _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm David Breecker, President David Breecker Associates www.breeckerassociates.com Santa Fe Office: 505-690-2335 Abiquiu Office: 505-685-4891 Skype: dbreecker -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PastedGraphic-7.png Type: image/png Size: 7371 bytes Desc: not available URL: From JBadal at sacred-wind.com Fri Mar 2 09:54:15 2018 From: JBadal at sacred-wind.com (John Badal) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2018 17:54:15 +0000 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold In-Reply-To: References: <1B3B161D-6D4D-4455-AA03-FE6FC2A2245F@breeckerassociates.com> <91f1aab07d08099b4651f3530b85710f@1st-mile.org> <011701d3b0f4$6f134900$4d39db00$@bbcmag.com> Message-ID: Excellent ? good point. John From: David Breecker [dba] [mailto:david at breeckerassociates.com] Sent: Friday, March 2, 2018 10:51 AM To: Jane Coffin Cc: John Badal ; Steve Ross ; Christopher Mitchell ; rl at 1st-mile.org; 1st-Mile-NM <1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org>; masha at bbcmag.com Subject: Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold I think Jane makes a good point. In our work analyzing ?energy poverty? in Africa and Asia, we see that one of the first things people use electricity for is television. But that?s a stepping stone to developing energy infrastructure capable of supporting ?productive use? in industry, agriculture, etc. db On Mar 2, 2018, at 10:46 AM, Jane Coffin > wrote: Hi All ? May I play devil?s advocate. I am not from NM (but love it there). I come from a rural coastal town in Maine. Local uptake can often start out with entertainment, and shift once the network is better and/or the community realizes the value-add. Note that we see this all over the world, and that entertainment content has been driving network infrastructure development in many parts of Sub-Saharan Africa, South East Asia, LAC, etc. I take your point on subsidization, but think there is a good reason for public network infrastructure dev. Why not subsidize the preliminary FTTH deployments with a long-range plan for community pay-back or just see it as worthwhile socio-economic dev? We build and maintain roads at the State and local level? 2/ With you. We helped a project in rural South Africa purchase a mast (cost was $2,600.00). They were quoted a monthly rental of $2,600.00 on an existing mast. With the mast purchase, they expanded coverage and were able to shift to a hybrid not-for-profit/profit WISP. Best, Jane Internet Society | www.internetsociety.org Skype: janercoffin Mobile/WhatsApp: +1.202.247.8429 From: 1st-mile-nm <1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org> on behalf of John Badal > Date: Friday, March 2, 2018 at 12:33 PM To: Steve Ross >, Christopher Mitchell > Cc: Richard Lowenberg >, 1st-Mile-NM <1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org>, "masha at bbcmag.com" > Subject: Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold Steve & Christopher, This has been a good discussion. I agree that anyone daring or committed enough to provide broadband in rural areas deserves praise. My primary concern about FTTH in high cost areas is actually twofold: 1) the added investment of new FTTH networks, especially using public grant money, is a wasteful use of public funds in light of the fact that the vast majority of bandwidth is being used for entertainment, not for academic or job enhancing information. A business case for unsubsidized FTTH systems in rural areas is hard to find. And 2) where the owner of the only utility poles in town decides to provide broadband services in competition with those that are attached to its poles, abuse of monopoly power is not only possible, but is actually in practice. I would love to see more partnerships ? private and public/private ? for the purpose of expanding rural broadband. What we?ve experienced instead is an arrogant abuse of power. John From: Steve Ross [mailto:editorsteve at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2018 3:42 PM To: Christopher Mitchell > Cc: John Badal >; 1st-Mile-NM <1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org>; rl at 1st-mile.org; masha at bbcmag.com Subject: Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold BTW, one person's cross-subsidy is another's avoiding stranded costs. Rural counties are losing on average more than 1/4% of their population a year. A coop or tier3 LEC sees survival as a better alternative. I have shown that a quarter to half of all rural job loss is due to lack of broadband access. It is by far the BIGGEST source of rural job loss. I really have a lot of respect and admiration for any broadband deployers, including the national carriers. But when they can't make a business case for serving an area they should $%^&% get out of the way of others who think they might be able to. Instead they buy politicians. Steve Ross Editor-at-Large, Broadband Communities Magazine (www.bbcmag.com) 201-456-5933 mobile 707-WOW-SSR3 (707-969-7773) Google Voice editorsteve (Facebook, LinkedIn) editorsteve1 (Twitter) steve at bbcmag.com editorsteve at gmail.com On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 5:34 PM, Steve Ross > wrote: Chris is absolutely right, but making it happen is not as easy. Few electric coops have been willing to take the risk -- and Chris and I and others do a lot of missionary work. More than half of all new MDUs are not FTTH even though fiber is CHEAPER in that case. We can generally show that fiber can work at about 8 premises per mile taking the service... even less if pole attachment rights are not held hostage. But we don't know how revenue will flow from driverless vehicles to network deployers yet, and Washington is not paying any attention. Steve Ross Editor-at-Large, Broadband Communities Magazine (www.bbcmag.com) 201-456-5933 mobile 707-WOW-SSR3 (707-969-7773) Google Voice editorsteve (Facebook, LinkedIn) editorsteve1 (Twitter) steve at bbcmag.com editorsteve at gmail.com On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 4:50 PM, Christopher Mitchell > wrote: Any place that has electricity, especially those served by co-ops could get fiber ultimately. It may take a well-designed grant program, but it can be done far more efficiently than any of the universal service programs in operation today. Google decided to focus on dominating AI and driverless cars and such rather than deployment. There is no evidence that they were losing money, rather anyone that understands how such businesses make decisions should be aware that while there are fiber models that are profitable, they may not offer the return that some in Google were expecting. That's fine. the small ISPs I see building fiber steadily year after year are profitable. They aren't going to buy NFL stadium sponsorships, but they are providing a service that is desperately desired and they are making a good return. Google will focus on dominating the future of AI and driverless cars and who knows what. They have a different calculus. The vast majority of North Dakota has FTTH. I believe it is the 4th most sparsely populated state in the union. But it is very easy to simply ignore the evidence and pretend that it just can't be done. We have documented where rural fiber is available, and it is far more than most realize. https://muninetworks.org/content/rural-cooperatives-page Christopher Mitchell Director, Community Broadband Networks Institute for Local Self-Reliance MuniNetworks.org @communitynets 612-545-5185 On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 7:36 AM, John Badal > wrote: Business case? Even the well heeled Google has rethought its FTTH plans in urban areas far more densely populated than NM?s rural areas. The sizzle got ahead of the steak. John From: Christopher Mitchell [mailto:christopher at ilsr.org] Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2018 8:32 AM To: John Badal > Cc: masha at bbcmag.com; Doug Orr >; rl at 1st-mile.org; 1st-Mile-NM <1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org> Subject: Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold The point of a gig is not to use all of it anymore than the point of a highway is to experiment with the maximum number of cars you can put on it. The point of a gig is abundance - sure 452 Mbps would probably do that too, but a gig resonates and is a standard. It would be difficult for me to use all of the electricity that can flow into my house - but we overprovision certain kinds of infrastructure when that can unlock additional value. And finally, if we assume that communities will still need high quality Internet access in 30 years, everyone I talk to that does both fiber and wireless says that while fiber is more expensive on the front end, the much lower operating and future upgrade costs ultimately make it MORE cost effective than wireless over a period of decades. There are many legitimate reasons for people in rural areas to "cry" for better connectivity even if they have the same number of gigabit applications as we do cars that are 5 lanes wide. Christopher Mitchell Director, Community Broadband Networks Institute for Local Self-Reliance MuniNetworks.org @communitynets 612-545-5185 On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 4:48 PM, John Badal > wrote: 5G has the same sexy appeal to the uniformed as fiber to the home. Rural communities are crying for both, afraid they?d fall deeper into the digital divide, but unaware that the vast majority of consumers could never use gigabit speeds outside of recreating in the home Star Trek-like virtual reality holodecks. What makes much more sense to me is for Albuquerque to build 20-lane highways and 10-lane boulevards throughout the city to eliminate any congestion during rush hours, along with robotic car removal systems to dispense with cars damaged in an accident. John From: 1st-mile-nm [mailto:1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org] On Behalf Of Masha Zager Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 5:30 PM To: 'Doug Orr' >; rl at 1st-mile.org Cc: '1st-Mile-NM' <1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org> Subject: Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold It?s not. See this: http://www.bbcmag.com/2017mags/Mar_Apr/BBC_Mar17_5GNotAnswer.pdf Masha Zager Editor-in-Chief, Broadband Communities masha at bbcmag.com 518-943-0374 www.bbcmag.com www.twitter.com/bbcmag From: 1st-mile-nm [mailto:1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org] On Behalf Of Doug Orr Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 7:16 PM To: rl at 1st-mile.org Cc: 1st-Mile-NM Subject: Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold I'm unclear as to why 5g fixed is going to be cheaper to deploy than fiber. If the state charges $250/antenna... that buys a lot of hardwired installer time. And the antennas need backhaul, presumably, so lighting up a neighborhood in anticipation of new customer uptake... that seems a lot like upgrading infrastructure that would be needed if the idea is to offer faster aggregate speeds. What's the model here? Does anyone know of real world benchmarks for 5G applications (e.g., netflix)? Doug On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 1:47 PM Richard Lowenberg > wrote: Following on recent postings. RL ------- Commercial service is years away, but even then, 5G won?t fulfill all of its promises https://spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/internet/5g-is-in-danger-of-being-oversold By Stacey Higginbotham Just like graphene or Elon Musk?s startups, 5G has become a technology savior. Proponents tout the poorly defined wireless technology as the path to virtual reality, telemedicine, and self-?driving cars. But 5G is not a technology?it?s a buzzword unleashed by marketing departments. As early as 2012, Broadcom was using it to sell Wi-Fi. In reality, 5G is a term that telecommunications investors and executives sling around as the solution to high infrastructure costs, the need for more bandwidth, and a desire to boost margins. The unifying component behind 5G is faster wireless broadband service. A more stringent?and practical?definition is the use of high-frequency millimeter waves (in addition to the microwaves that 4G LTE relies on today) to deliver over-the-air broadband to phones or homes. If you?re talking about phones, 5G is still years away. And new services aren?t really on the menu. Just listen to the heads of several telecommunications companies, who have begun to tamp down investors? expectations around what 5G can deliver. (snip) --------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org --------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ 1st-mile-nm mailing list 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm _______________________________________________ 1st-mile-nm mailing list 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm _______________________________________________ 1st-mile-nm mailing list 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm _______________________________________________ 1st-mile-nm mailing list 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm David Breecker, President [cid:image001.png at 01D3B214.CD3C0870] David Breecker Associates www.breeckerassociates.com Santa Fe Office: 505-690-2335 Abiquiu Office: 505-685-4891 Skype: dbreecker -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 7371 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: From editorsteve at gmail.com Fri Mar 2 10:26:42 2018 From: editorsteve at gmail.com (Steve Ross) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2018 13:26:42 -0500 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold In-Reply-To: References: <1B3B161D-6D4D-4455-AA03-FE6FC2A2245F@breeckerassociates.com> <91f1aab07d08099b4651f3530b85710f@1st-mile.org> <011701d3b0f4$6f134900$4d39db00$@bbcmag.com> Message-ID: There is a bit of a misconception on public broadband as well. Of the 1100 systems in our Fiberville database, only about 200 (serving about 230 communities) are publicly owned. The history of almost all of them is that national carriers refused to make even minimal improvements in service, and/or there were no LECs willing or able to partner. Most of those communities would have simply continued to die off. That also comes with a cost. Public-private partnerships and service by tier3 LECs (often operating as CLECs in the fiber footprint) are the norm in rural areas. We see a lot of nasty consequences of this patchwork. One first-rate rural operator in New England will not be allowed to bid in CAF2 because on paper it looks over-extended to the FCC. Yet it is the logical low-cost operator for the CBGs at issue, and without this company, those CBGs probably will not be served at all. I suspect many other situations like this will soon come to light. We've seen many rural LECs that, given small loans, could bring their services up to speed... and lose out to more heavily subsidized (politically favored) new entrants. We see 20 states that don't even allow municipalities to threaten to build their own systems ... and rural population loss in those states is four times higher than in the "non-restriction" states even though the restriction states overall have faster population growth even as their rural populations dwindle. This requires more investment in urban infrastructure! It is not cost-free or economically efficient! Also, car-to-car data communication in the looming driverless era MUST be thru 5G microcells in all but the most rural areas. Where there are few cars and trucks on the road, the communication can indeed be car-to-car. The data traffic for driverless vehicles will be double the peak video traffic. The networks we build now must take those things into account as they evolve. Government even made a hash of the net neutrality thing. A few sentences to patch the telecom act would have protected small carriers against peering-point extortion, without subjecting them all to Title II. Same goes for pole attachments (and the issue was made more complex as Title II at least regulated them to some extent). And BTW, this is not a liberal-conservative thing. Bernie made a mess of VT broadband expansion by pushing a wireless provider in the ARRA period over a fiber provider run by a good guy he didn't like. It is a patchwork thing. Steve Ross Editor-at-Large, Broadband Communities Magazine (www.bbcmag.com) 201-456-5933 mobile 707-WOW-SSR3 (707-969-7773) Google Voice editorsteve (Facebook, LinkedIn) editorsteve1 (Twitter) steve at bbcmag.com editorsteve at gmail.com On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 12:54 PM, John Badal wrote: > Excellent ? good point. > > > > John > > > > *From:* David Breecker [dba] [mailto:david at breeckerassociates.com] > *Sent:* Friday, March 2, 2018 10:51 AM > *To:* Jane Coffin > *Cc:* John Badal ; Steve Ross < > editorsteve at gmail.com>; Christopher Mitchell ; > rl at 1st-mile.org; 1st-Mile-NM <1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org>; > masha at bbcmag.com > > *Subject:* Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold > > > > I think Jane makes a good point. In our work analyzing ?energy poverty? > in Africa and Asia, we see that one of the first things people use > electricity for is television. But that?s a stepping stone to developing > energy infrastructure capable of supporting ?productive use? in industry, > agriculture, etc. > > db > > > > > > On Mar 2, 2018, at 10:46 AM, Jane Coffin wrote: > > > > Hi All ? > > > > May I play devil?s advocate. I am not from NM (but love it there). I > come from a rural coastal town in Maine. Local uptake can often start out > with entertainment, and shift once the network is better and/or the > community realizes the value-add. Note that we see this all over the > world, and that entertainment content has been driving network > infrastructure development in many parts of Sub-Saharan Africa, South East > Asia, LAC, etc. I take your point on subsidization, but think there is a > good reason for public network infrastructure dev. Why not subsidize the > preliminary FTTH deployments with a long-range plan for community pay-back > or just see it as worthwhile socio-economic dev? We build and maintain > roads at the State and local level? > > 2/ With you. We helped a project in rural South Africa purchase a mast > (cost was $2,600.00). They were quoted a monthly rental of $2,600.00 on an > existing mast. With the mast purchase, they expanded coverage and were > able to shift to a hybrid not-for-profit/profit WISP. > > > > Best, > > Jane > > > > Internet Society | www.internetsociety.org > > Skype: janercoffin > > Mobile/WhatsApp: +1.202.247.8429 <(202)%20247-8429> > > *From: *1st-mile-nm <1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org> on behalf of > John Badal > *Date: *Friday, March 2, 2018 at 12:33 PM > *To: *Steve Ross , Christopher Mitchell < > christopher at ilsr.org> > *Cc: *Richard Lowenberg , 1st-Mile-NM < > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org>, "masha at bbcmag.com" > *Subject: *Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold > > > > Steve & Christopher, > > > > This has been a good discussion. I agree that anyone daring or committed > enough to provide broadband in rural areas deserves praise. My primary > concern about FTTH in high cost areas is actually twofold: 1) the added > investment of new FTTH networks, especially using public grant money, is a > wasteful use of public funds in light of the fact that the vast majority of > bandwidth is being used for entertainment, not for academic or job > enhancing information. A business case for unsubsidized FTTH systems in > rural areas is hard to find. And 2) where the owner of the only utility > poles in town decides to provide broadband services in competition with > those that are attached to its poles, abuse of monopoly power is not only > possible, but is actually in practice. I would love to see more > partnerships ? private and public/private ? for the purpose of expanding > rural broadband. What we?ve experienced instead is an arrogant abuse of > power. > > > > John > > > > *From:* Steve Ross [mailto:editorsteve at gmail.com ] > *Sent:* Thursday, March 1, 2018 3:42 PM > *To:* Christopher Mitchell > *Cc:* John Badal ; 1st-Mile-NM < > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org>; rl at 1st-mile.org; masha at bbcmag.com > *Subject:* Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold > > > > BTW, one person's cross-subsidy is another's avoiding stranded costs. > Rural counties are losing on average more than 1/4% of their population a > year. A coop or tier3 LEC sees survival as a better alternative. I have > shown that a quarter to half of all rural job loss is due to lack of > broadband access. It is by far the BIGGEST source of rural job loss. > > > > I really have a lot of respect and admiration for any broadband deployers, > including the national carriers. But when they can't make a business case > for serving an area they should $%^&% get out of the way of others who > think they might be able to. Instead they buy politicians. > > > > > Steve Ross > Editor-at-Large, Broadband Communities Magazine (www.bbcmag.com) > 201-456-5933 <(201)%20456-5933> mobile > 707-WOW-SSR3 (707-969-7773 <(707)%20969-7773>) Google Voice > editorsteve (Facebook, LinkedIn) > editorsteve1 (Twitter) > steve at bbcmag.com > editorsteve at gmail.com > > > > On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 5:34 PM, Steve Ross wrote: > > Chris is absolutely right, but making it happen is not as easy. Few > electric coops have been willing to take the risk -- and Chris and I and > others do a lot of missionary work. More than half of all new MDUs are not > FTTH even though fiber is CHEAPER in that case. > > > > We can generally show that fiber can work at about 8 premises per mile > taking the service... even less if pole attachment rights are not held > hostage. But we don't know how revenue will flow from driverless vehicles > to network deployers yet, and Washington is not paying any attention. > > > > > Steve Ross > Editor-at-Large, Broadband Communities Magazine (www.bbcmag.com) > 201-456-5933 <(201)%20456-5933> mobile > 707-WOW-SSR3 (707-969-7773 <(707)%20969-7773>) Google Voice > editorsteve (Facebook, LinkedIn) > editorsteve1 (Twitter) > steve at bbcmag.com > editorsteve at gmail.com > > > > On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 4:50 PM, Christopher Mitchell > wrote: > > Any place that has electricity, especially those served by co-ops could > get fiber ultimately. It may take a well-designed grant program, but it can > be done far more efficiently than any of the universal service programs in > operation today. > > > > Google decided to focus on dominating AI and driverless cars and such > rather than deployment. There is no evidence that they were losing money, > rather anyone that understands how such businesses make decisions should be > aware that while there are fiber models that are profitable, they may not > offer the return that some in Google were expecting. That's fine. the small > ISPs I see building fiber steadily year after year are profitable. They > aren't going to buy NFL stadium sponsorships, but they are providing a > service that is desperately desired and they are making a good return. > Google will focus on dominating the future of AI and driverless cars and > who knows what. They have a different calculus. > > > > The vast majority of North Dakota has FTTH. I believe it is the 4th most > sparsely populated state in the union. But it is very easy to simply ignore > the evidence and pretend that it just can't be done. We have documented > where rural fiber is available, and it is far more than most realize. > > https://muninetworks.org/content/rural-cooperatives-page > > > > > Christopher Mitchell > Director, Community Broadband Networks > Institute for Local Self-Reliance > > > MuniNetworks.org > > @communitynets > > 612-545-5185 <(612)%20545-5185> > > > > On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 7:36 AM, John Badal wrote: > > Business case? Even the well heeled Google has rethought its FTTH plans > in urban areas far more densely populated than NM?s rural areas. The > sizzle got ahead of the steak. > > > > John > > > > *From:* Christopher Mitchell [mailto:christopher at ilsr.org] > *Sent:* Thursday, March 1, 2018 8:32 AM > *To:* John Badal > *Cc:* masha at bbcmag.com; Doug Orr ; rl at 1st-mile.org; > 1st-Mile-NM <1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org> > > > *Subject:* Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold > > > > The point of a gig is not to use all of it anymore than the point of a > highway is to experiment with the maximum number of cars you can put on it. > > > > The point of a gig is abundance - sure 452 Mbps would probably do that > too, but a gig resonates and is a standard. > > > > It would be difficult for me to use all of the electricity that can flow > into my house - but we overprovision certain kinds of infrastructure when > that can unlock additional value. > > > > And finally, if we assume that communities will still need high quality > Internet access in 30 years, everyone I talk to that does both fiber and > wireless says that while fiber is more expensive on the front end, the much > lower operating and future upgrade costs ultimately make it MORE cost > effective than wireless over a period of decades. > > > > There are many legitimate reasons for people in rural areas to "cry" for > better connectivity even if they have the same number of gigabit > applications as we do cars that are 5 lanes wide. > > > Christopher Mitchell > Director, Community Broadband Networks > Institute for Local Self-Reliance > > > MuniNetworks.org > > @communitynets > > 612-545-5185 <(612)%20545-5185> > > > > On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 4:48 PM, John Badal > wrote: > > 5G has the same sexy appeal to the uniformed as fiber to the home. Rural > communities are crying for both, afraid they?d fall deeper into the digital > divide, but unaware that the vast majority of consumers could never use > gigabit speeds outside of recreating in the home Star Trek-like virtual > reality holodecks. What makes much more sense to me is for Albuquerque > to build 20-lane highways and 10-lane boulevards throughout the city to > eliminate any congestion during rush hours, along with robotic car removal > systems to dispense with cars damaged in an accident. > > > > John > > > > *From:* 1st-mile-nm [mailto:1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org] *On > Behalf Of *Masha Zager > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 28, 2018 5:30 PM > *To:* 'Doug Orr' ; rl at 1st-mile.org > *Cc:* '1st-Mile-NM' <1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org> > > > *Subject:* Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold > > > > It?s not. See this: http://www.bbcmag.com/2017mags/Mar_Apr/BBC_Mar17_ > 5GNotAnswer.pdf > > > > > > > *Masha Zager *Editor-in-Chief, Broadband Communities > masha at bbcmag.com > 518-943-0374 <(518)%20943-0374> > www.bbcmag.com > www.twitter.com/bbcmag > > > > *From:* 1st-mile-nm [mailto:1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org > <1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org>] *On Behalf Of *Doug Orr > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 28, 2018 7:16 PM > *To:* rl at 1st-mile.org > *Cc:* 1st-Mile-NM > *Subject:* Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold > > > > I'm unclear as to why 5g fixed is going to be cheaper to deploy than > fiber. If the state charges $250/antenna... that buys a lot of hardwired > installer time. And the antennas need backhaul, presumably, so lighting up > a neighborhood in anticipation of new customer uptake... that seems a lot > like upgrading infrastructure that would be needed if the idea is to offer > faster aggregate speeds. > > > > What's the model here? > > > > Does anyone know of real world benchmarks for 5G applications (e.g., > netflix)? > > > > Doug > > > > On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 1:47 PM Richard Lowenberg wrote: > > Following on recent postings. RL > > ------- > > Commercial service is years away, but even then, 5G won?t fulfill all of > its promises > > https://spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/internet/5g-is-in- > danger-of-being-oversold > > By Stacey Higginbotham > > Just like graphene or Elon Musk?s startups, 5G has become a technology > savior. Proponents tout the poorly defined wireless technology as the > path to virtual reality, telemedicine, and self-?driving cars. > > But 5G is not a technology?it?s a buzzword unleashed by marketing > departments. As early as 2012, Broadcom was using it to sell Wi-Fi. In > reality, 5G is a term that telecommunications investors and executives > sling around as the solution to high infrastructure costs, the need for > more bandwidth, and a desire to boost margins. > > The unifying component behind 5G is faster wireless broadband service. A > more stringent?and practical?definition is the use of high-frequency > millimeter waves (in addition to the microwaves that 4G LTE relies on > today) to deliver over-the-air broadband to phones or homes. > > If you?re talking about phones, 5G is still years away. And new services > aren?t really on the menu. Just listen to the heads of several > telecommunications companies, who have begun to tamp down investors? > expectations around what 5G can deliver. > > (snip) > > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director > 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 <(505)%20603-5200> > Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, > rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org > --------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm > > > _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm > > > > David Breecker, > > President > > > > * David Breecker Associates* > > *www.breeckerassociates.com * > > > > Santa Fe Office: 505-690-2335 <(505)%20690-2335> > > Abiquiu Office: 505-685-4891 <(505)%20685-4891> > > Skype: dbreecker > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 7371 bytes Desc: not available URL: From doug.orr at gmail.com Fri Mar 2 13:31:08 2018 From: doug.orr at gmail.com (Doug Orr) Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2018 21:31:08 +0000 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold In-Reply-To: References: <1B3B161D-6D4D-4455-AA03-FE6FC2A2245F@breeckerassociates.com> <91f1aab07d08099b4651f3530b85710f@1st-mile.org> <011701d3b0f4$6f134900$4d39db00$@bbcmag.com> Message-ID: A couple of notes in response to comments long scrolled by: Watching from a relatively close distance (but not having intimate knowledge): Google Fiber probably wasn't hobbled by lack of big buck returns, exactly. I think they were naive about the target market -- everyone wants triple play and not having content is a big liability for an internet provider (witness ATT going after Time Warner and Verizon spinning off FIOS in a bunch of markets). Old people don't want to cut cords. So, I believe that sales were harder than expected. One of their expected wins was using new trenching technology that could quickly lay fiber in shallow trenches. I haven't ever validated this but I think there may have been a little California bias there and later, once they started going places that froze, being able to get up on poles became a priority. And that's a mess. As noted, just getting gig speeds is of limited use for most people. GF was started before Cloud computing had really taken off in a big way. Since it's taken off, running a little datacenter in your home doesn't make much sense. Owning a PC barely makes sense for most people at this point, really. Which reinforces the whole "entertainment drives everything" model. Industrial parks, hospitals, and tech neighborhoods will probably be the only active consumers of high speed networking in a few years. (My version of "the world will only ever need 5 computers" statement :) GF was intended to change the world. Most of this world is focused on watching TV (or using services on it phone). So, I'm guessing that there's a combination of the world being harder to change than was expected and the world changing out from under the original expectations... IOT might change network demand...so far seems like a solution in search of a problem. Or crazy mobile bandwidth needs coming from self driving cars or what not. But those also still seem like wealthy world problems that aren't going to induce changes places that are already not a valuable enough business prospect to warrant getting good cell phone coverage. Having shared fiber backbones seems like the only way to get better competition in denser areas (I like that honeycomb stuff!), and public mandate and subsidy seems like the only way to get better service in sparse areas. I'm sure the postal service knows a thing or two about this sort of thing... Doug On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 11:27 AM Steve Ross wrote: > There is a bit of a misconception on public broadband as well. Of the 1100 > systems in our Fiberville database, only about 200 (serving about 230 > communities) are publicly owned. The history of almost all of them is that > national carriers refused to make even minimal improvements in service, > and/or there were no LECs willing or able to partner. Most of those > communities would have simply continued to die off. That also comes with a > cost. > > Public-private partnerships and service by tier3 LECs (often operating as > CLECs in the fiber footprint) are the norm in rural areas. > > We see a lot of nasty consequences of this patchwork. One first-rate rural > operator in New England will not be allowed to bid in CAF2 because on paper > it looks over-extended to the FCC. Yet it is the logical low-cost operator > for the CBGs at issue, and without this company, those CBGs probably will > not be served at all. I suspect many other situations like this will soon > come to light. > > We've seen many rural LECs that, given small loans, could bring their > services up to speed... and lose out to more heavily subsidized > (politically favored) new entrants. > > We see 20 states that don't even allow municipalities to threaten to build > their own systems ... and rural population loss in those states is four > times higher than in the "non-restriction" states even though the > restriction states overall have faster population growth even as their > rural populations dwindle. This requires more investment in urban > infrastructure! It is not cost-free or economically efficient! > > Also, car-to-car data communication in the looming driverless era MUST be > thru 5G microcells in all but the most rural areas. Where there are few > cars and trucks on the road, the communication can indeed be car-to-car. > The data traffic for driverless vehicles will be double the peak video > traffic. The networks we build now must take those things into account as > they evolve. > > Government even made a hash of the net neutrality thing. A few sentences > to patch the telecom act would have protected small carriers against > peering-point extortion, without subjecting them all to Title II. Same goes > for pole attachments (and the issue was made more complex as Title II at > least regulated them to some extent). > > And BTW, this is not a liberal-conservative thing. Bernie made a mess of > VT broadband expansion by pushing a wireless provider in the ARRA period > over a fiber provider run by a good guy he didn't like. It is a patchwork > thing. > > > > Steve Ross > Editor-at-Large, Broadband Communities Magazine (www.bbcmag.com) > 201-456-5933 <(201)%20456-5933> mobile > 707-WOW-SSR3 (707-969-7773 <(707)%20969-7773>) Google Voice > editorsteve (Facebook, LinkedIn) > editorsteve1 (Twitter) > steve at bbcmag.com > editorsteve at gmail.com > > > On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 12:54 PM, John Badal > wrote: > >> Excellent ? good point. >> >> >> >> John >> >> >> >> *From:* David Breecker [dba] [mailto:david at breeckerassociates.com] >> *Sent:* Friday, March 2, 2018 10:51 AM >> *To:* Jane Coffin >> *Cc:* John Badal ; Steve Ross < >> editorsteve at gmail.com>; Christopher Mitchell ; >> rl at 1st-mile.org; 1st-Mile-NM <1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org>; >> masha at bbcmag.com >> >> *Subject:* Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold >> >> >> >> I think Jane makes a good point. In our work analyzing ?energy poverty? >> in Africa and Asia, we see that one of the first things people use >> electricity for is television. But that?s a stepping stone to developing >> energy infrastructure capable of supporting ?productive use? in industry, >> agriculture, etc. >> >> db >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mar 2, 2018, at 10:46 AM, Jane Coffin wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi All ? >> >> >> >> May I play devil?s advocate. I am not from NM (but love it there). I >> come from a rural coastal town in Maine. Local uptake can often start out >> with entertainment, and shift once the network is better and/or the >> community realizes the value-add. Note that we see this all over the >> world, and that entertainment content has been driving network >> infrastructure development in many parts of Sub-Saharan Africa, South East >> Asia, LAC, etc. I take your point on subsidization, but think there is a >> good reason for public network infrastructure dev. Why not subsidize the >> preliminary FTTH deployments with a long-range plan for community pay-back >> or just see it as worthwhile socio-economic dev? We build and maintain >> roads at the State and local level? >> >> 2/ With you. We helped a project in rural South Africa purchase a mast >> (cost was $2,600.00). They were quoted a monthly rental of $2,600.00 on an >> existing mast. With the mast purchase, they expanded coverage and were >> able to shift to a hybrid not-for-profit/profit WISP. >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> Jane >> >> >> >> Internet Society | www.internetsociety.org >> >> Skype: janercoffin >> >> Mobile/WhatsApp: +1.202.247.8429 <(202)%20247-8429> >> >> *From: *1st-mile-nm <1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org> on behalf of >> John Badal >> *Date: *Friday, March 2, 2018 at 12:33 PM >> *To: *Steve Ross , Christopher Mitchell < >> christopher at ilsr.org> >> *Cc: *Richard Lowenberg , 1st-Mile-NM < >> 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org>, "masha at bbcmag.com" >> *Subject: *Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold >> >> >> >> Steve & Christopher, >> >> >> >> This has been a good discussion. I agree that anyone daring or committed >> enough to provide broadband in rural areas deserves praise. My primary >> concern about FTTH in high cost areas is actually twofold: 1) the added >> investment of new FTTH networks, especially using public grant money, is a >> wasteful use of public funds in light of the fact that the vast majority of >> bandwidth is being used for entertainment, not for academic or job >> enhancing information. A business case for unsubsidized FTTH systems in >> rural areas is hard to find. And 2) where the owner of the only utility >> poles in town decides to provide broadband services in competition with >> those that are attached to its poles, abuse of monopoly power is not only >> possible, but is actually in practice. I would love to see more >> partnerships ? private and public/private ? for the purpose of expanding >> rural broadband. What we?ve experienced instead is an arrogant abuse of >> power. >> >> >> >> John >> >> >> >> *From:* Steve Ross [mailto:editorsteve at gmail.com ] >> >> *Sent:* Thursday, March 1, 2018 3:42 PM >> *To:* Christopher Mitchell >> *Cc:* John Badal ; 1st-Mile-NM < >> 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org>; rl at 1st-mile.org; masha at bbcmag.com >> *Subject:* Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold >> >> >> >> BTW, one person's cross-subsidy is another's avoiding stranded costs. >> Rural counties are losing on average more than 1/4% of their population a >> year. A coop or tier3 LEC sees survival as a better alternative. I have >> shown that a quarter to half of all rural job loss is due to lack of >> broadband access. It is by far the BIGGEST source of rural job loss. >> >> >> >> I really have a lot of respect and admiration for any broadband >> deployers, including the national carriers. But when they can't make a >> business case for serving an area they should $%^&% get out of the way of >> others who think they might be able to. Instead they buy politicians. >> >> >> >> >> Steve Ross >> Editor-at-Large, Broadband Communities Magazine (www.bbcmag.com) >> 201-456-5933 <(201)%20456-5933> mobile >> 707-WOW-SSR3 (707-969-7773 <(707)%20969-7773>) Google Voice >> editorsteve (Facebook, LinkedIn) >> editorsteve1 (Twitter) >> steve at bbcmag.com >> editorsteve at gmail.com >> >> >> >> On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 5:34 PM, Steve Ross wrote: >> >> Chris is absolutely right, but making it happen is not as easy. Few >> electric coops have been willing to take the risk -- and Chris and I and >> others do a lot of missionary work. More than half of all new MDUs are not >> FTTH even though fiber is CHEAPER in that case. >> >> >> >> We can generally show that fiber can work at about 8 premises per mile >> taking the service... even less if pole attachment rights are not held >> hostage. But we don't know how revenue will flow from driverless vehicles >> to network deployers yet, and Washington is not paying any attention. >> >> >> >> >> Steve Ross >> Editor-at-Large, Broadband Communities Magazine (www.bbcmag.com) >> 201-456-5933 <(201)%20456-5933> mobile >> 707-WOW-SSR3 (707-969-7773 <(707)%20969-7773>) Google Voice >> editorsteve (Facebook, LinkedIn) >> editorsteve1 (Twitter) >> steve at bbcmag.com >> editorsteve at gmail.com >> >> >> >> On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 4:50 PM, Christopher Mitchell < >> christopher at ilsr.org> wrote: >> >> Any place that has electricity, especially those served by co-ops could >> get fiber ultimately. It may take a well-designed grant program, but it can >> be done far more efficiently than any of the universal service programs in >> operation today. >> >> >> >> Google decided to focus on dominating AI and driverless cars and such >> rather than deployment. There is no evidence that they were losing money, >> rather anyone that understands how such businesses make decisions should be >> aware that while there are fiber models that are profitable, they may not >> offer the return that some in Google were expecting. That's fine. the small >> ISPs I see building fiber steadily year after year are profitable. They >> aren't going to buy NFL stadium sponsorships, but they are providing a >> service that is desperately desired and they are making a good return. >> Google will focus on dominating the future of AI and driverless cars and >> who knows what. They have a different calculus. >> >> >> >> The vast majority of North Dakota has FTTH. I believe it is the 4th most >> sparsely populated state in the union. But it is very easy to simply ignore >> the evidence and pretend that it just can't be done. We have documented >> where rural fiber is available, and it is far more than most realize. >> >> https://muninetworks.org/content/rural-cooperatives-page >> >> >> >> >> Christopher Mitchell >> Director, Community Broadband Networks >> Institute for Local Self-Reliance >> >> >> MuniNetworks.org >> >> @communitynets >> >> 612-545-5185 <(612)%20545-5185> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 7:36 AM, John Badal >> wrote: >> >> Business case? Even the well heeled Google has rethought its FTTH plans >> in urban areas far more densely populated than NM?s rural areas. The >> sizzle got ahead of the steak. >> >> >> >> John >> >> >> >> *From:* Christopher Mitchell [mailto:christopher at ilsr.org] >> *Sent:* Thursday, March 1, 2018 8:32 AM >> *To:* John Badal >> *Cc:* masha at bbcmag.com; Doug Orr ; rl at 1st-mile.org; >> 1st-Mile-NM <1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org> >> >> >> *Subject:* Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold >> >> >> >> The point of a gig is not to use all of it anymore than the point of a >> highway is to experiment with the maximum number of cars you can put on it. >> >> >> >> The point of a gig is abundance - sure 452 Mbps would probably do that >> too, but a gig resonates and is a standard. >> >> >> >> It would be difficult for me to use all of the electricity that can flow >> into my house - but we overprovision certain kinds of infrastructure when >> that can unlock additional value. >> >> >> >> And finally, if we assume that communities will still need high quality >> Internet access in 30 years, everyone I talk to that does both fiber and >> wireless says that while fiber is more expensive on the front end, the much >> lower operating and future upgrade costs ultimately make it MORE cost >> effective than wireless over a period of decades. >> >> >> >> There are many legitimate reasons for people in rural areas to "cry" for >> better connectivity even if they have the same number of gigabit >> applications as we do cars that are 5 lanes wide. >> >> >> Christopher Mitchell >> Director, Community Broadband Networks >> Institute for Local Self-Reliance >> >> >> MuniNetworks.org >> >> @communitynets >> >> 612-545-5185 <(612)%20545-5185> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 4:48 PM, John Badal >> wrote: >> >> 5G has the same sexy appeal to the uniformed as fiber to the home. Rural >> communities are crying for both, afraid they?d fall deeper into the digital >> divide, but unaware that the vast majority of consumers could never use >> gigabit speeds outside of recreating in the home Star Trek-like virtual >> reality holodecks. What makes much more sense to me is for Albuquerque >> to build 20-lane highways and 10-lane boulevards throughout the city to >> eliminate any congestion during rush hours, along with robotic car removal >> systems to dispense with cars damaged in an accident. >> >> >> >> John >> >> >> >> *From:* 1st-mile-nm [mailto:1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org] *On >> Behalf Of *Masha Zager >> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 28, 2018 5:30 PM >> *To:* 'Doug Orr' ; rl at 1st-mile.org >> *Cc:* '1st-Mile-NM' <1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org> >> >> >> *Subject:* Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold >> >> >> >> It?s not. See this: >> http://www.bbcmag.com/2017mags/Mar_Apr/BBC_Mar17_5GNotAnswer.pdf >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *Masha Zager *Editor-in-Chief, Broadband Communities >> masha at bbcmag.com >> 518-943-0374 <(518)%20943-0374> >> www.bbcmag.com >> www.twitter.com/bbcmag >> >> >> >> *From:* 1st-mile-nm [mailto:1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org >> <1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org>] *On Behalf Of *Doug Orr >> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 28, 2018 7:16 PM >> *To:* rl at 1st-mile.org >> *Cc:* 1st-Mile-NM >> *Subject:* Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold >> >> >> >> I'm unclear as to why 5g fixed is going to be cheaper to deploy than >> fiber. If the state charges $250/antenna... that buys a lot of hardwired >> installer time. And the antennas need backhaul, presumably, so lighting up >> a neighborhood in anticipation of new customer uptake... that seems a lot >> like upgrading infrastructure that would be needed if the idea is to offer >> faster aggregate speeds. >> >> >> >> What's the model here? >> >> >> >> Does anyone know of real world benchmarks for 5G applications (e.g., >> netflix)? >> >> >> >> Doug >> >> >> >> On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 1:47 PM Richard Lowenberg >> wrote: >> >> Following on recent postings. RL >> >> ------- >> >> Commercial service is years away, but even then, 5G won?t fulfill all of >> its promises >> >> >> https://spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/internet/5g-is-in-danger-of-being-oversold >> >> By Stacey Higginbotham >> >> Just like graphene or Elon Musk?s startups, 5G has become a technology >> savior. Proponents tout the poorly defined wireless technology as the >> path to virtual reality, telemedicine, and self-?driving cars. >> >> But 5G is not a technology?it?s a buzzword unleashed by marketing >> departments. As early as 2012, Broadcom was using it to sell Wi-Fi. In >> reality, 5G is a term that telecommunications investors and executives >> sling around as the solution to high infrastructure costs, the need for >> more bandwidth, and a desire to boost margins. >> >> The unifying component behind 5G is faster wireless broadband service. A >> more stringent?and practical?definition is the use of high-frequency >> millimeter waves (in addition to the microwaves that 4G LTE relies on >> today) to deliver over-the-air broadband to phones or homes. >> >> If you?re talking about phones, 5G is still years away. And new services >> aren?t really on the menu. Just listen to the heads of several >> telecommunications companies, who have begun to tamp down investors? >> expectations around what 5G can deliver. >> >> (snip) >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------- >> Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director >> 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 <(505)%20603-5200> >> Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, >> rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org >> --------------------------------------------------------------- >> _______________________________________________ >> 1st-mile-nm mailing list >> 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org >> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 1st-mile-nm mailing list >> 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org >> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 1st-mile-nm mailing list >> 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org >> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 1st-mile-nm mailing list >> 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org >> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm >> >> >> >> David Breecker, >> >> President >> >> >> >> * David Breecker Associates* >> >> *www.breeckerassociates.com * >> >> >> >> Santa Fe Office: 505-690-2335 <(505)%20690-2335> >> >> Abiquiu Office: 505-685-4891 <(505)%20685-4891> >> >> Skype: dbreecker >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 7371 bytes Desc: not available URL: From editorsteve at gmail.com Fri Mar 2 13:46:25 2018 From: editorsteve at gmail.com (Steve Ross) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2018 16:46:25 -0500 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold In-Reply-To: References: <1B3B161D-6D4D-4455-AA03-FE6FC2A2245F@breeckerassociates.com> <91f1aab07d08099b4651f3530b85710f@1st-mile.org> <011701d3b0f4$6f134900$4d39db00$@bbcmag.com> Message-ID: Also, for Google, it is mission accomplished. Everyone else picked up the gigabit thing. They are still deploying though, but being clever. In Huntsville, they run a city-owned fiber network, for instance. They are also pushing things that enable driverless vehicles. Wall Street says it happens in 2040 or 2050. People close to it say 2025-2030 in many places. Steve Ross Editor-at-Large, Broadband Communities Magazine (www.bbcmag.com) 201-456-5933 mobile 707-WOW-SSR3 (707-969-7773) Google Voice editorsteve (Facebook, LinkedIn) editorsteve1 (Twitter) steve at bbcmag.com editorsteve at gmail.com On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 4:31 PM, Doug Orr wrote: > A couple of notes in response to comments long scrolled by: > > Watching from a relatively close distance (but not having intimate > knowledge): > > Google Fiber probably wasn't hobbled by lack of big buck returns, exactly. > I think they were naive about the target market -- everyone wants triple > play and not having content is a big liability for an internet provider > (witness ATT going after Time Warner and Verizon spinning off FIOS in a > bunch of markets). Old people don't want to cut cords. So, I believe that > sales were harder than expected. > > One of their expected wins was using new trenching technology that could > quickly lay fiber in shallow trenches. I haven't ever validated this but I > think there may have been a little California bias there and later, once > they started going places that froze, being able to get up on poles became > a priority. And that's a mess. > > As noted, just getting gig speeds is of limited use for most people. GF > was started before Cloud computing had really taken off in a big way. Since > it's taken off, running a little datacenter in your home doesn't make much > sense. Owning a PC barely makes sense for most people at this point, > really. Which reinforces the whole "entertainment drives everything" model. > Industrial parks, hospitals, and tech neighborhoods will probably be the > only active consumers of high speed networking in a few years. (My version > of "the world will only ever need 5 computers" statement :) > > GF was intended to change the world. Most of this world is focused on > watching TV (or using services on it phone). So, I'm guessing that there's > a combination of the world being harder to change than was expected and the > world changing out from under the original expectations... > > IOT might change network demand...so far seems like a solution in search > of a problem. Or crazy mobile bandwidth needs coming from self driving cars > or what not. But those also still seem like wealthy world problems that > aren't going to induce changes places that are already not a valuable > enough business prospect to warrant getting good cell phone coverage. > > Having shared fiber backbones seems like the only way to get better > competition in denser areas (I like that honeycomb stuff!), and public > mandate and subsidy seems like the only way to get better service in sparse > areas. I'm sure the postal service knows a thing or two about this sort of > thing... > > Doug > > > > On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 11:27 AM Steve Ross wrote: > >> There is a bit of a misconception on public broadband as well. Of the >> 1100 systems in our Fiberville database, only about 200 (serving about 230 >> communities) are publicly owned. The history of almost all of them is that >> national carriers refused to make even minimal improvements in service, >> and/or there were no LECs willing or able to partner. Most of those >> communities would have simply continued to die off. That also comes with a >> cost. >> >> Public-private partnerships and service by tier3 LECs (often operating as >> CLECs in the fiber footprint) are the norm in rural areas. >> >> We see a lot of nasty consequences of this patchwork. One first-rate >> rural operator in New England will not be allowed to bid in CAF2 because on >> paper it looks over-extended to the FCC. Yet it is the logical low-cost >> operator for the CBGs at issue, and without this company, those CBGs >> probably will not be served at all. I suspect many other situations like >> this will soon come to light. >> >> We've seen many rural LECs that, given small loans, could bring their >> services up to speed... and lose out to more heavily subsidized >> (politically favored) new entrants. >> >> We see 20 states that don't even allow municipalities to threaten to >> build their own systems ... and rural population loss in those states is >> four times higher than in the "non-restriction" states even though the >> restriction states overall have faster population growth even as their >> rural populations dwindle. This requires more investment in urban >> infrastructure! It is not cost-free or economically efficient! >> >> Also, car-to-car data communication in the looming driverless era MUST be >> thru 5G microcells in all but the most rural areas. Where there are few >> cars and trucks on the road, the communication can indeed be car-to-car. >> The data traffic for driverless vehicles will be double the peak video >> traffic. The networks we build now must take those things into account as >> they evolve. >> >> Government even made a hash of the net neutrality thing. A few sentences >> to patch the telecom act would have protected small carriers against >> peering-point extortion, without subjecting them all to Title II. Same goes >> for pole attachments (and the issue was made more complex as Title II at >> least regulated them to some extent). >> >> And BTW, this is not a liberal-conservative thing. Bernie made a mess of >> VT broadband expansion by pushing a wireless provider in the ARRA period >> over a fiber provider run by a good guy he didn't like. It is a patchwork >> thing. >> >> >> >> Steve Ross >> Editor-at-Large, Broadband Communities Magazine (www.bbcmag.com) >> 201-456-5933 <(201)%20456-5933> mobile >> 707-WOW-SSR3 (707-969-7773 <(707)%20969-7773>) Google Voice >> editorsteve (Facebook, LinkedIn) >> editorsteve1 (Twitter) >> steve at bbcmag.com >> editorsteve at gmail.com >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 12:54 PM, John Badal >> wrote: >> >>> Excellent ? good point. >>> >>> >>> >>> John >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* David Breecker [dba] [mailto:david at breeckerassociates.com] >>> *Sent:* Friday, March 2, 2018 10:51 AM >>> *To:* Jane Coffin >>> *Cc:* John Badal ; Steve Ross < >>> editorsteve at gmail.com>; Christopher Mitchell ; >>> rl at 1st-mile.org; 1st-Mile-NM <1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org>; >>> masha at bbcmag.com >>> >>> *Subject:* Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold >>> >>> >>> >>> I think Jane makes a good point. In our work analyzing ?energy poverty? >>> in Africa and Asia, we see that one of the first things people use >>> electricity for is television. But that?s a stepping stone to developing >>> energy infrastructure capable of supporting ?productive use? in industry, >>> agriculture, etc. >>> >>> db >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mar 2, 2018, at 10:46 AM, Jane Coffin wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi All ? >>> >>> >>> >>> May I play devil?s advocate. I am not from NM (but love it there). I >>> come from a rural coastal town in Maine. Local uptake can often start out >>> with entertainment, and shift once the network is better and/or the >>> community realizes the value-add. Note that we see this all over the >>> world, and that entertainment content has been driving network >>> infrastructure development in many parts of Sub-Saharan Africa, South East >>> Asia, LAC, etc. I take your point on subsidization, but think there is a >>> good reason for public network infrastructure dev. Why not subsidize the >>> preliminary FTTH deployments with a long-range plan for community pay-back >>> or just see it as worthwhile socio-economic dev? We build and maintain >>> roads at the State and local level? >>> >>> 2/ With you. We helped a project in rural South Africa purchase a mast >>> (cost was $2,600.00). They were quoted a monthly rental of $2,600.00 on an >>> existing mast. With the mast purchase, they expanded coverage and were >>> able to shift to a hybrid not-for-profit/profit WISP. >>> >>> >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> Jane >>> >>> >>> >>> Internet Society | www.internetsociety.org >>> >>> Skype: janercoffin >>> >>> Mobile/WhatsApp: +1.202.247.8429 <(202)%20247-8429> >>> >>> *From: *1st-mile-nm <1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org> on behalf of >>> John Badal >>> *Date: *Friday, March 2, 2018 at 12:33 PM >>> *To: *Steve Ross , Christopher Mitchell < >>> christopher at ilsr.org> >>> *Cc: *Richard Lowenberg , 1st-Mile-NM < >>> 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org>, "masha at bbcmag.com" >>> *Subject: *Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold >>> >>> >>> >>> Steve & Christopher, >>> >>> >>> >>> This has been a good discussion. I agree that anyone daring or >>> committed enough to provide broadband in rural areas deserves praise. My >>> primary concern about FTTH in high cost areas is actually twofold: 1) the >>> added investment of new FTTH networks, especially using public grant money, >>> is a wasteful use of public funds in light of the fact that the vast >>> majority of bandwidth is being used for entertainment, not for academic or >>> job enhancing information. A business case for unsubsidized FTTH systems >>> in rural areas is hard to find. And 2) where the owner of the only utility >>> poles in town decides to provide broadband services in competition with >>> those that are attached to its poles, abuse of monopoly power is not only >>> possible, but is actually in practice. I would love to see more >>> partnerships ? private and public/private ? for the purpose of expanding >>> rural broadband. What we?ve experienced instead is an arrogant abuse of >>> power. >>> >>> >>> >>> John >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* Steve Ross [mailto:editorsteve at gmail.com >>> ] >>> *Sent:* Thursday, March 1, 2018 3:42 PM >>> *To:* Christopher Mitchell >>> *Cc:* John Badal ; 1st-Mile-NM < >>> 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org>; rl at 1st-mile.org; masha at bbcmag.com >>> *Subject:* Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold >>> >>> >>> >>> BTW, one person's cross-subsidy is another's avoiding stranded costs. >>> Rural counties are losing on average more than 1/4% of their population a >>> year. A coop or tier3 LEC sees survival as a better alternative. I have >>> shown that a quarter to half of all rural job loss is due to lack of >>> broadband access. It is by far the BIGGEST source of rural job loss. >>> >>> >>> >>> I really have a lot of respect and admiration for any broadband >>> deployers, including the national carriers. But when they can't make a >>> business case for serving an area they should $%^&% get out of the way of >>> others who think they might be able to. Instead they buy politicians. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Steve Ross >>> Editor-at-Large, Broadband Communities Magazine (www.bbcmag.com) >>> 201-456-5933 <(201)%20456-5933> mobile >>> 707-WOW-SSR3 (707-969-7773 <(707)%20969-7773>) Google Voice >>> editorsteve (Facebook, LinkedIn) >>> editorsteve1 (Twitter) >>> steve at bbcmag.com >>> editorsteve at gmail.com >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 5:34 PM, Steve Ross >>> wrote: >>> >>> Chris is absolutely right, but making it happen is not as easy. Few >>> electric coops have been willing to take the risk -- and Chris and I and >>> others do a lot of missionary work. More than half of all new MDUs are not >>> FTTH even though fiber is CHEAPER in that case. >>> >>> >>> >>> We can generally show that fiber can work at about 8 premises per mile >>> taking the service... even less if pole attachment rights are not held >>> hostage. But we don't know how revenue will flow from driverless vehicles >>> to network deployers yet, and Washington is not paying any attention. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Steve Ross >>> Editor-at-Large, Broadband Communities Magazine (www.bbcmag.com) >>> 201-456-5933 <(201)%20456-5933> mobile >>> 707-WOW-SSR3 (707-969-7773 <(707)%20969-7773>) Google Voice >>> editorsteve (Facebook, LinkedIn) >>> editorsteve1 (Twitter) >>> steve at bbcmag.com >>> editorsteve at gmail.com >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 4:50 PM, Christopher Mitchell < >>> christopher at ilsr.org> wrote: >>> >>> Any place that has electricity, especially those served by co-ops could >>> get fiber ultimately. It may take a well-designed grant program, but it can >>> be done far more efficiently than any of the universal service programs in >>> operation today. >>> >>> >>> >>> Google decided to focus on dominating AI and driverless cars and such >>> rather than deployment. There is no evidence that they were losing money, >>> rather anyone that understands how such businesses make decisions should be >>> aware that while there are fiber models that are profitable, they may not >>> offer the return that some in Google were expecting. That's fine. the small >>> ISPs I see building fiber steadily year after year are profitable. They >>> aren't going to buy NFL stadium sponsorships, but they are providing a >>> service that is desperately desired and they are making a good return. >>> Google will focus on dominating the future of AI and driverless cars and >>> who knows what. They have a different calculus. >>> >>> >>> >>> The vast majority of North Dakota has FTTH. I believe it is the 4th most >>> sparsely populated state in the union. But it is very easy to simply ignore >>> the evidence and pretend that it just can't be done. We have documented >>> where rural fiber is available, and it is far more than most realize. >>> >>> https://muninetworks.org/content/rural-cooperatives-page >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Christopher Mitchell >>> Director, Community Broadband Networks >>> Institute for Local Self-Reliance >>> >>> >>> MuniNetworks.org >>> >>> @communitynets >>> >>> 612-545-5185 <(612)%20545-5185> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 7:36 AM, John Badal >>> wrote: >>> >>> Business case? Even the well heeled Google has rethought its FTTH plans >>> in urban areas far more densely populated than NM?s rural areas. The >>> sizzle got ahead of the steak. >>> >>> >>> >>> John >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* Christopher Mitchell [mailto:christopher at ilsr.org] >>> *Sent:* Thursday, March 1, 2018 8:32 AM >>> *To:* John Badal >>> *Cc:* masha at bbcmag.com; Doug Orr ; rl at 1st-mile.org; >>> 1st-Mile-NM <1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org> >>> >>> >>> *Subject:* Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold >>> >>> >>> >>> The point of a gig is not to use all of it anymore than the point of a >>> highway is to experiment with the maximum number of cars you can put on it. >>> >>> >>> >>> The point of a gig is abundance - sure 452 Mbps would probably do that >>> too, but a gig resonates and is a standard. >>> >>> >>> >>> It would be difficult for me to use all of the electricity that can flow >>> into my house - but we overprovision certain kinds of infrastructure when >>> that can unlock additional value. >>> >>> >>> >>> And finally, if we assume that communities will still need high quality >>> Internet access in 30 years, everyone I talk to that does both fiber and >>> wireless says that while fiber is more expensive on the front end, the much >>> lower operating and future upgrade costs ultimately make it MORE cost >>> effective than wireless over a period of decades. >>> >>> >>> >>> There are many legitimate reasons for people in rural areas to "cry" for >>> better connectivity even if they have the same number of gigabit >>> applications as we do cars that are 5 lanes wide. >>> >>> >>> Christopher Mitchell >>> Director, Community Broadband Networks >>> Institute for Local Self-Reliance >>> >>> >>> MuniNetworks.org >>> >>> @communitynets >>> >>> 612-545-5185 <(612)%20545-5185> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 4:48 PM, John Badal >>> wrote: >>> >>> 5G has the same sexy appeal to the uniformed as fiber to the home. >>> Rural communities are crying for both, afraid they?d fall deeper into the >>> digital divide, but unaware that the vast majority of consumers could never >>> use gigabit speeds outside of recreating in the home Star Trek-like virtual >>> reality holodecks. What makes much more sense to me is for Albuquerque >>> to build 20-lane highways and 10-lane boulevards throughout the city to >>> eliminate any congestion during rush hours, along with robotic car removal >>> systems to dispense with cars damaged in an accident. >>> >>> >>> >>> John >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* 1st-mile-nm [mailto:1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org] *On >>> Behalf Of *Masha Zager >>> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 28, 2018 5:30 PM >>> *To:* 'Doug Orr' ; rl at 1st-mile.org >>> *Cc:* '1st-Mile-NM' <1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org> >>> >>> >>> *Subject:* Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold >>> >>> >>> >>> It?s not. See this: http://www.bbcmag.com/2017mags/Mar_Apr/BBC_Mar17_ >>> 5GNotAnswer.pdf >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> *Masha Zager *Editor-in-Chief, Broadband Communities >>> masha at bbcmag.com >>> 518-943-0374 <(518)%20943-0374> >>> www.bbcmag.com >>> www.twitter.com/bbcmag >>> >>> >>> >>> *From:* 1st-mile-nm [mailto:1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org >>> <1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org>] *On Behalf Of *Doug Orr >>> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 28, 2018 7:16 PM >>> *To:* rl at 1st-mile.org >>> *Cc:* 1st-Mile-NM >>> *Subject:* Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold >>> >>> >>> >>> I'm unclear as to why 5g fixed is going to be cheaper to deploy than >>> fiber. If the state charges $250/antenna... that buys a lot of hardwired >>> installer time. And the antennas need backhaul, presumably, so lighting up >>> a neighborhood in anticipation of new customer uptake... that seems a lot >>> like upgrading infrastructure that would be needed if the idea is to offer >>> faster aggregate speeds. >>> >>> >>> >>> What's the model here? >>> >>> >>> >>> Does anyone know of real world benchmarks for 5G applications (e.g., >>> netflix)? >>> >>> >>> >>> Doug >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 1:47 PM Richard Lowenberg >>> wrote: >>> >>> Following on recent postings. RL >>> >>> ------- >>> >>> Commercial service is years away, but even then, 5G won?t fulfill all of >>> its promises >>> >>> https://spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/internet/5g-is-in- >>> danger-of-being-oversold >>> >>> By Stacey Higginbotham >>> >>> Just like graphene or Elon Musk?s startups, 5G has become a technology >>> savior. Proponents tout the poorly defined wireless technology as the >>> path to virtual reality, telemedicine, and self-?driving cars. >>> >>> But 5G is not a technology?it?s a buzzword unleashed by marketing >>> departments. As early as 2012, Broadcom was using it to sell Wi-Fi. In >>> reality, 5G is a term that telecommunications investors and executives >>> sling around as the solution to high infrastructure costs, the need for >>> more bandwidth, and a desire to boost margins. >>> >>> The unifying component behind 5G is faster wireless broadband service. A >>> more stringent?and practical?definition is the use of high-frequency >>> millimeter waves (in addition to the microwaves that 4G LTE relies on >>> today) to deliver over-the-air broadband to phones or homes. >>> >>> If you?re talking about phones, 5G is still years away. And new services >>> aren?t really on the menu. Just listen to the heads of several >>> telecommunications companies, who have begun to tamp down investors? >>> expectations around what 5G can deliver. >>> >>> (snip) >>> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------- >>> Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director >>> 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 <(505)%20603-5200> >>> Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, >>> rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org >>> --------------------------------------------------------------- >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 1st-mile-nm mailing list >>> 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org >>> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 1st-mile-nm mailing list >>> 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org >>> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 1st-mile-nm mailing list >>> 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org >>> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 1st-mile-nm mailing list >>> 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org >>> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm >>> >>> >>> >>> David Breecker, >>> >>> President >>> >>> >>> >>> * David Breecker Associates* >>> >>> *www.breeckerassociates.com * >>> >>> >>> >>> Santa Fe Office: 505-690-2335 <(505)%20690-2335> >>> >>> Abiquiu Office: 505-685-4891 <(505)%20685-4891> >>> >>> Skype: dbreecker >>> >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 1st-mile-nm mailing list >> 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org >> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeff at mountainconnect.org Fri Mar 2 14:54:31 2018 From: jeff at mountainconnect.org (Jeff) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2018 22:54:31 +0000 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold In-Reply-To: <91f1aab07d08099b4651f3530b85710f@1st-mile.org> References: <1B3B161D-6D4D-4455-AA03-FE6FC2A2245F@breeckerassociates.com> <91f1aab07d08099b4651f3530b85710f@1st-mile.org> Message-ID: <5AC7985D-AC4E-44A7-8170-9C116DA6EC44@mountainconnect.org> One could argue Samsung, with new LTE technology (4x4 MIMO antenna, frequency aggregation, 256 QAM) introduced in their S8 phone, may have muddied the 5G waters. Jeff ?On 2/28/18, 1:43 PM, "1st-mile-nm on behalf of Richard Lowenberg" <1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org on behalf of rl at 1st-mile.org> wrote: Following on recent postings. RL ------- Commercial service is years away, but even then, 5G won?t fulfill all of its promises https://spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/internet/5g-is-in-danger-of-being-oversold By Stacey Higginbotham Just like graphene or Elon Musk?s startups, 5G has become a technology savior. Proponents tout the poorly defined wireless technology as the path to virtual reality, telemedicine, and self-?driving cars. But 5G is not a technology?it?s a buzzword unleashed by marketing departments. As early as 2012, Broadcom was using it to sell Wi-Fi. In reality, 5G is a term that telecommunications investors and executives sling around as the solution to high infrastructure costs, the need for more bandwidth, and a desire to boost margins. The unifying component behind 5G is faster wireless broadband service. A more stringent?and practical?definition is the use of high-frequency millimeter waves (in addition to the microwaves that 4G LTE relies on today) to deliver over-the-air broadband to phones or homes. If you?re talking about phones, 5G is still years away. And new services aren?t really on the menu. Just listen to the heads of several telecommunications companies, who have begun to tamp down investors? expectations around what 5G can deliver. (snip) --------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org --------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ 1st-mile-nm mailing list 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm From doug.orr at gmail.com Fri Mar 2 15:14:53 2018 From: doug.orr at gmail.com (Doug Orr) Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2018 23:14:53 +0000 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold In-Reply-To: <5AC7985D-AC4E-44A7-8170-9C116DA6EC44@mountainconnect.org> References: <1B3B161D-6D4D-4455-AA03-FE6FC2A2245F@breeckerassociates.com> <91f1aab07d08099b4651f3530b85710f@1st-mile.org> <5AC7985D-AC4E-44A7-8170-9C116DA6EC44@mountainconnect.org> Message-ID: I'm pretty sure mimo is going to be like multiprocessor compensating for the demise of Moore's law in processors around transistor density: applications have to change for it to be of profound use, it won't speed up things to their advertised potential, except maybe a few new things come out as the result of new end to end stacks... Most of the speed hacks don't look like they will work well for anything other than big parallel transfers, and latency is still speed of light constrained. Anything involving the edge starts to eat power and comes with troublesome consistency issues. People picturing super fast web and 8k movies are likely in for some surprises. Self driving cars will need to be largely autonomous, so I find all of the talk about how they are the 5g killer app confusing. That may just be my ignorance. Wrt super chatty self driving cars, aggregate bandwidth is the issue and there will be a lot of work carriers have to do to support cell density at scale. Having your car stop working in a cell dead zone seems like a bad consumer experience... 5g looks like the primary muddier of 5g waters to me. On Fri, Mar 2, 2018, 3:54 PM Jeff wrote: > One could argue Samsung, with new LTE technology (4x4 MIMO antenna, > frequency aggregation, 256 QAM) introduced in their S8 phone, may have > muddied the 5G waters. > > Jeff > > ?On 2/28/18, 1:43 PM, "1st-mile-nm on behalf of Richard Lowenberg" < > 1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org on behalf of rl at 1st-mile.org> wrote: > > Following on recent postings. RL > > ------- > > Commercial service is years away, but even then, 5G won?t fulfill all > of > its promises > > > https://spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/internet/5g-is-in-danger-of-being-oversold > > By Stacey Higginbotham > > Just like graphene or Elon Musk?s startups, 5G has become a technology > savior. Proponents tout the poorly defined wireless technology as the > path to virtual reality, telemedicine, and self-?driving cars. > > But 5G is not a technology?it?s a buzzword unleashed by marketing > departments. As early as 2012, Broadcom was using it to sell Wi-Fi. In > reality, 5G is a term that telecommunications investors and executives > sling around as the solution to high infrastructure costs, the need for > more bandwidth, and a desire to boost margins. > > The unifying component behind 5G is faster wireless broadband service. > A > more stringent?and practical?definition is the use of high-frequency > millimeter waves (in addition to the microwaves that 4G LTE relies on > today) to deliver over-the-air broadband to phones or homes. > > If you?re talking about phones, 5G is still years away. And new > services > aren?t really on the menu. Just listen to the heads of several > telecommunications companies, who have begun to tamp down investors? > expectations around what 5G can deliver. > > (snip) > > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director > 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 > Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, > rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org > --------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm > > > _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From editorsteve at gmail.com Fri Mar 2 15:22:03 2018 From: editorsteve at gmail.com (Steve Ross) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2018 18:22:03 -0500 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold In-Reply-To: References: <1B3B161D-6D4D-4455-AA03-FE6FC2A2245F@breeckerassociates.com> <91f1aab07d08099b4651f3530b85710f@1st-mile.org> <5AC7985D-AC4E-44A7-8170-9C116DA6EC44@mountainconnect.org> Message-ID: Self driving cats need to know what all the other cars are doing. Very opposite of autonomous. On Mar 2, 2018 6:15 PM, "Doug Orr" wrote: > I'm pretty sure mimo is going to be like multiprocessor compensating for > the demise of Moore's law in processors around transistor density: > applications have to change for it to be of profound use, it won't speed up > things to their advertised potential, except maybe a few new things come > out as the result of new end to end stacks... > > Most of the speed hacks don't look like they will work well for anything > other than big parallel transfers, and latency is still speed of light > constrained. Anything involving the edge starts to eat power and comes with > troublesome consistency issues. > > People picturing super fast web and 8k movies are likely in for some > surprises. > > Self driving cars will need to be largely autonomous, so I find all of the > talk about how they are the 5g killer app confusing. That may just be my > ignorance. Wrt super chatty self driving cars, aggregate bandwidth is the > issue and there will be a lot of work carriers have to do to support cell > density at scale. Having your car stop working in a cell dead zone seems > like a bad consumer experience... > > 5g looks like the primary muddier of 5g waters to me. > > On Fri, Mar 2, 2018, 3:54 PM Jeff wrote: > >> One could argue Samsung, with new LTE technology (4x4 MIMO antenna, >> frequency aggregation, 256 QAM) introduced in their S8 phone, may have >> muddied the 5G waters. >> >> Jeff >> >> ?On 2/28/18, 1:43 PM, "1st-mile-nm on behalf of Richard Lowenberg" < >> 1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org on behalf of rl at 1st-mile.org> wrote: >> >> Following on recent postings. RL >> >> ------- >> >> Commercial service is years away, but even then, 5G won?t fulfill all >> of >> its promises >> >> https://spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/internet/5g-is-in- >> danger-of-being-oversold >> >> By Stacey Higginbotham >> >> Just like graphene or Elon Musk?s startups, 5G has become a technology >> savior. Proponents tout the poorly defined wireless technology as the >> path to virtual reality, telemedicine, and self-?driving cars. >> >> But 5G is not a technology?it?s a buzzword unleashed by marketing >> departments. As early as 2012, Broadcom was using it to sell Wi-Fi. In >> reality, 5G is a term that telecommunications investors and executives >> sling around as the solution to high infrastructure costs, the need >> for >> more bandwidth, and a desire to boost margins. >> >> The unifying component behind 5G is faster wireless broadband >> service. A >> more stringent?and practical?definition is the use of high-frequency >> millimeter waves (in addition to the microwaves that 4G LTE relies on >> today) to deliver over-the-air broadband to phones or homes. >> >> If you?re talking about phones, 5G is still years away. And new >> services >> aren?t really on the menu. Just listen to the heads of several >> telecommunications companies, who have begun to tamp down investors? >> expectations around what 5G can deliver. >> >> (snip) >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------- >> Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director >> 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 <(505)%20603-5200> >> Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, >> rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org >> --------------------------------------------------------------- >> _______________________________________________ >> 1st-mile-nm mailing list >> 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org >> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 1st-mile-nm mailing list >> 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org >> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm >> > > _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From editorsteve at gmail.com Fri Mar 2 15:22:53 2018 From: editorsteve at gmail.com (Steve Ross) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2018 18:22:53 -0500 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold In-Reply-To: References: <1B3B161D-6D4D-4455-AA03-FE6FC2A2245F@breeckerassociates.com> <91f1aab07d08099b4651f3530b85710f@1st-mile.org> <5AC7985D-AC4E-44A7-8170-9C116DA6EC44@mountainconnect.org> Message-ID: Cars, too. Meow. On Mar 2, 2018 6:22 PM, editorsteve at gmail.com wrote: > Self driving cats need to know what all the other cars are doing. Very > opposite of autonomous. > > On Mar 2, 2018 6:15 PM, "Doug Orr" wrote: > >> I'm pretty sure mimo is going to be like multiprocessor compensating for >> the demise of Moore's law in processors around transistor density: >> applications have to change for it to be of profound use, it won't speed up >> things to their advertised potential, except maybe a few new things come >> out as the result of new end to end stacks... >> >> Most of the speed hacks don't look like they will work well for anything >> other than big parallel transfers, and latency is still speed of light >> constrained. Anything involving the edge starts to eat power and comes with >> troublesome consistency issues. >> >> People picturing super fast web and 8k movies are likely in for some >> surprises. >> >> Self driving cars will need to be largely autonomous, so I find all of >> the talk about how they are the 5g killer app confusing. That may just be >> my ignorance. Wrt super chatty self driving cars, aggregate bandwidth is >> the issue and there will be a lot of work carriers have to do to support >> cell density at scale. Having your car stop working in a cell dead zone >> seems like a bad consumer experience... >> >> 5g looks like the primary muddier of 5g waters to me. >> >> On Fri, Mar 2, 2018, 3:54 PM Jeff wrote: >> >>> One could argue Samsung, with new LTE technology (4x4 MIMO antenna, >>> frequency aggregation, 256 QAM) introduced in their S8 phone, may have >>> muddied the 5G waters. >>> >>> Jeff >>> >>> ?On 2/28/18, 1:43 PM, "1st-mile-nm on behalf of Richard Lowenberg" < >>> 1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org on behalf of rl at 1st-mile.org> wrote: >>> >>> Following on recent postings. RL >>> >>> ------- >>> >>> Commercial service is years away, but even then, 5G won?t fulfill >>> all of >>> its promises >>> >>> https://spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/internet/5g-is-in-danger- >>> of-being-oversold >>> >>> By Stacey Higginbotham >>> >>> Just like graphene or Elon Musk?s startups, 5G has become a >>> technology >>> savior. Proponents tout the poorly defined wireless technology as the >>> path to virtual reality, telemedicine, and self-?driving cars. >>> >>> But 5G is not a technology?it?s a buzzword unleashed by marketing >>> departments. As early as 2012, Broadcom was using it to sell Wi-Fi. >>> In >>> reality, 5G is a term that telecommunications investors and >>> executives >>> sling around as the solution to high infrastructure costs, the need >>> for >>> more bandwidth, and a desire to boost margins. >>> >>> The unifying component behind 5G is faster wireless broadband >>> service. A >>> more stringent?and practical?definition is the use of high-frequency >>> millimeter waves (in addition to the microwaves that 4G LTE relies on >>> today) to deliver over-the-air broadband to phones or homes. >>> >>> If you?re talking about phones, 5G is still years away. And new >>> services >>> aren?t really on the menu. Just listen to the heads of several >>> telecommunications companies, who have begun to tamp down investors? >>> expectations around what 5G can deliver. >>> >>> (snip) >>> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------- >>> Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director >>> 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 <(505)%20603-5200> >>> Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, >>> rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org >>> --------------------------------------------------------------- >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 1st-mile-nm mailing list >>> 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org >>> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 1st-mile-nm mailing list >>> 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org >>> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 1st-mile-nm mailing list >> 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org >> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm >> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From david at breeckerassociates.com Fri Mar 2 15:41:32 2018 From: david at breeckerassociates.com (David Breecker [dba]) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2018 16:41:32 -0700 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold In-Reply-To: References: <1B3B161D-6D4D-4455-AA03-FE6FC2A2245F@breeckerassociates.com> <91f1aab07d08099b4651f3530b85710f@1st-mile.org> <5AC7985D-AC4E-44A7-8170-9C116DA6EC44@mountainconnect.org> Message-ID: <4097D88E-C167-4446-BC87-03AA34C866B9@breeckerassociates.com> Let?s stay with self-driving cats, could be the next hot YouTube meme ;-) Good weekend to all, db > On Mar 2, 2018, at 4:22 PM, Steve Ross wrote: > > Cars, too. Meow. > > On Mar 2, 2018 6:22 PM, editorsteve at gmail.com wrote: > Self driving cats need to know what all the other cars are doing. Very opposite of autonomous. > > On Mar 2, 2018 6:15 PM, "Doug Orr" > wrote: > I'm pretty sure mimo is going to be like multiprocessor compensating for the demise of Moore's law in processors around transistor density: applications have to change for it to be of profound use, it won't speed up things to their advertised potential, except maybe a few new things come out as the result of new end to end stacks... > > Most of the speed hacks don't look like they will work well for anything other than big parallel transfers, and latency is still speed of light constrained. Anything involving the edge starts to eat power and comes with troublesome consistency issues. > > People picturing super fast web and 8k movies are likely in for some surprises. > > Self driving cars will need to be largely autonomous, so I find all of the talk about how they are the 5g killer app confusing. That may just be my ignorance. Wrt super chatty self driving cars, aggregate bandwidth is the issue and there will be a lot of work carriers have to do to support cell density at scale. Having your car stop working in a cell dead zone seems like a bad consumer experience... > > 5g looks like the primary muddier of 5g waters to me. > > On Fri, Mar 2, 2018, 3:54 PM Jeff > wrote: > One could argue Samsung, with new LTE technology (4x4 MIMO antenna, frequency aggregation, 256 QAM) introduced in their S8 phone, may have muddied the 5G waters. > > Jeff > > ?On 2/28/18, 1:43 PM, "1st-mile-nm on behalf of Richard Lowenberg" <1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org on behalf of rl at 1st-mile.org > wrote: > > Following on recent postings. RL > > ------- > > Commercial service is years away, but even then, 5G won?t fulfill all of > its promises > > https://spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/internet/5g-is-in-danger-of-being-oversold > > By Stacey Higginbotham > > Just like graphene or Elon Musk?s startups, 5G has become a technology > savior. Proponents tout the poorly defined wireless technology as the > path to virtual reality, telemedicine, and self-?driving cars. > > But 5G is not a technology?it?s a buzzword unleashed by marketing > departments. As early as 2012, Broadcom was using it to sell Wi-Fi. In > reality, 5G is a term that telecommunications investors and executives > sling around as the solution to high infrastructure costs, the need for > more bandwidth, and a desire to boost margins. > > The unifying component behind 5G is faster wireless broadband service. A > more stringent?and practical?definition is the use of high-frequency > millimeter waves (in addition to the microwaves that 4G LTE relies on > today) to deliver over-the-air broadband to phones or homes. > > If you?re talking about phones, 5G is still years away. And new services > aren?t really on the menu. Just listen to the heads of several > telecommunications companies, who have begun to tamp down investors? > expectations around what 5G can deliver. > > (snip) > > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director > 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 > Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, > rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org > --------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm > > > _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm > > _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm > > _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm David Breecker, President David Breecker Associates www.breeckerassociates.com Santa Fe Office: 505-690-2335 Abiquiu Office: 505-685-4891 Skype: dbreecker -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PastedGraphic-7.png Type: image/png Size: 7371 bytes Desc: not available URL: From editorsteve at gmail.com Fri Mar 2 15:50:05 2018 From: editorsteve at gmail.com (Steve Ross) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2018 18:50:05 -0500 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold In-Reply-To: <4097D88E-C167-4446-BC87-03AA34C866B9@breeckerassociates.com> References: <1B3B161D-6D4D-4455-AA03-FE6FC2A2245F@breeckerassociates.com> <91f1aab07d08099b4651f3530b85710f@1st-mile.org> <5AC7985D-AC4E-44A7-8170-9C116DA6EC44@mountainconnect.org> <4097D88E-C167-4446-BC87-03AA34C866B9@breeckerassociates.com> Message-ID: Dog have masters, cats have staff. My wife and I are staff to two cats. I think the world has a surplus of cat memes, but there's always room for a few more....and they would accessorize their self-driving catmobiles with catnip dispensers, string, and laser pointers. Steve Ross Editor-at-Large, Broadband Communities Magazine (www.bbcmag.com) 201-456-5933 mobile 707-WOW-SSR3 (707-969-7773) Google Voice editorsteve (Facebook, LinkedIn) editorsteve1 (Twitter) steve at bbcmag.com editorsteve at gmail.com On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 6:41 PM, David Breecker [dba] < david at breeckerassociates.com> wrote: > Let?s stay with self-driving cats, could be the next hot YouTube meme ;-) > > Good weekend to all, > db > > > On Mar 2, 2018, at 4:22 PM, Steve Ross wrote: > > Cars, too. Meow. > > On Mar 2, 2018 6:22 PM, editorsteve at gmail.com wrote: > >> Self driving cats need to know what all the other cars are doing. Very >> opposite of autonomous. >> >> On Mar 2, 2018 6:15 PM, "Doug Orr" wrote: >> >>> I'm pretty sure mimo is going to be like multiprocessor compensating for >>> the demise of Moore's law in processors around transistor density: >>> applications have to change for it to be of profound use, it won't speed up >>> things to their advertised potential, except maybe a few new things come >>> out as the result of new end to end stacks... >>> >>> Most of the speed hacks don't look like they will work well for anything >>> other than big parallel transfers, and latency is still speed of light >>> constrained. Anything involving the edge starts to eat power and comes with >>> troublesome consistency issues. >>> >>> People picturing super fast web and 8k movies are likely in for some >>> surprises. >>> >>> Self driving cars will need to be largely autonomous, so I find all of >>> the talk about how they are the 5g killer app confusing. That may just be >>> my ignorance. Wrt super chatty self driving cars, aggregate bandwidth is >>> the issue and there will be a lot of work carriers have to do to support >>> cell density at scale. Having your car stop working in a cell dead zone >>> seems like a bad consumer experience... >>> >>> 5g looks like the primary muddier of 5g waters to me. >>> >>> On Fri, Mar 2, 2018, 3:54 PM Jeff wrote: >>> >>>> One could argue Samsung, with new LTE technology (4x4 MIMO antenna, >>>> frequency aggregation, 256 QAM) introduced in their S8 phone, may have >>>> muddied the 5G waters. >>>> >>>> Jeff >>>> >>>> ?On 2/28/18, 1:43 PM, "1st-mile-nm on behalf of Richard Lowenberg" < >>>> 1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org on behalf of rl at 1st-mile.org> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Following on recent postings. RL >>>> >>>> ------- >>>> >>>> Commercial service is years away, but even then, 5G won?t fulfill >>>> all of >>>> its promises >>>> >>>> https://spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/internet/5g-is-in-danger-o >>>> f-being-oversold >>>> >>>> By Stacey Higginbotham >>>> >>>> Just like graphene or Elon Musk?s startups, 5G has become a >>>> technology >>>> savior. Proponents tout the poorly defined wireless technology as >>>> the >>>> path to virtual reality, telemedicine, and self-?driving cars. >>>> >>>> But 5G is not a technology?it?s a buzzword unleashed by marketing >>>> departments. As early as 2012, Broadcom was using it to sell Wi-Fi. >>>> In >>>> reality, 5G is a term that telecommunications investors and >>>> executives >>>> sling around as the solution to high infrastructure costs, the need >>>> for >>>> more bandwidth, and a desire to boost margins. >>>> >>>> The unifying component behind 5G is faster wireless broadband >>>> service. A >>>> more stringent?and practical?definition is the use of high-frequency >>>> millimeter waves (in addition to the microwaves that 4G LTE relies >>>> on >>>> today) to deliver over-the-air broadband to phones or homes. >>>> >>>> If you?re talking about phones, 5G is still years away. And new >>>> services >>>> aren?t really on the menu. Just listen to the heads of several >>>> telecommunications companies, who have begun to tamp down investors? >>>> expectations around what 5G can deliver. >>>> >>>> (snip) >>>> >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director >>>> 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 <(505)%20603-5200> >>>> Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, >>>> rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 1st-mile-nm mailing list >>>> 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org >>>> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 1st-mile-nm mailing list >>>> 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org >>>> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 1st-mile-nm mailing list >>> 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org >>> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm >>> >>> _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm > > > David Breecker, > President > > > *David Breecker Associates* > *www.breeckerassociates.com * > > Santa Fe Office: 505-690-2335 <(505)%20690-2335> > Abiquiu Office: 505-685-4891 <(505)%20685-4891> > Skype: dbreecker > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PastedGraphic-7.png Type: image/png Size: 7371 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mimcom at sw-ei.com Fri Mar 2 15:53:23 2018 From: mimcom at sw-ei.com (Mimbres Communications) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2018 16:53:23 -0700 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold In-Reply-To: References: <1B3B161D-6D4D-4455-AA03-FE6FC2A2245F@breeckerassociates.com> <91f1aab07d08099b4651f3530b85710f@1st-mile.org> <5AC7985D-AC4E-44A7-8170-9C116DA6EC44@mountainconnect.org> <4097D88E-C167-4446-BC87-03AA34C866B9@breeckerassociates.com> Message-ID: A dog looks at you and thinks, "You love me, you feed me, you care for me -- you must be a god!" A cat looks at you and thinks, "You love me, you feed me, you care for me -- I must be a god!" On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 4:50 PM, Steve Ross wrote: > Dog have masters, cats have staff. My wife and I are staff to two cats. I > think the world has a surplus of cat memes, but there's always room for a > few more....and they would accessorize their self-driving catmobiles with > catnip dispensers, string, and laser pointers. > > > > > > Steve Ross > Editor-at-Large, Broadband Communities Magazine (www.bbcmag.com) > 201-456-5933 <(201)%20456-5933> mobile > 707-WOW-SSR3 (707-969-7773 <(707)%20969-7773>) Google Voice > editorsteve (Facebook, LinkedIn) > editorsteve1 (Twitter) > steve at bbcmag.com > editorsteve at gmail.com > > > On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 6:41 PM, David Breecker [dba] < > david at breeckerassociates.com> wrote: > >> Let?s stay with self-driving cats, could be the next hot YouTube meme ;-) >> >> Good weekend to all, >> db >> >> >> On Mar 2, 2018, at 4:22 PM, Steve Ross wrote: >> >> Cars, too. Meow. >> >> On Mar 2, 2018 6:22 PM, editorsteve at gmail.com wrote: >> >>> Self driving cats need to know what all the other cars are doing. Very >>> opposite of autonomous. >>> >>> On Mar 2, 2018 6:15 PM, "Doug Orr" wrote: >>> >>>> I'm pretty sure mimo is going to be like multiprocessor compensating >>>> for the demise of Moore's law in processors around transistor density: >>>> applications have to change for it to be of profound use, it won't speed up >>>> things to their advertised potential, except maybe a few new things come >>>> out as the result of new end to end stacks... >>>> >>>> Most of the speed hacks don't look like they will work well for >>>> anything other than big parallel transfers, and latency is still speed of >>>> light constrained. Anything involving the edge starts to eat power and >>>> comes with troublesome consistency issues. >>>> >>>> People picturing super fast web and 8k movies are likely in for some >>>> surprises. >>>> >>>> Self driving cars will need to be largely autonomous, so I find all of >>>> the talk about how they are the 5g killer app confusing. That may just be >>>> my ignorance. Wrt super chatty self driving cars, aggregate bandwidth is >>>> the issue and there will be a lot of work carriers have to do to support >>>> cell density at scale. Having your car stop working in a cell dead zone >>>> seems like a bad consumer experience... >>>> >>>> 5g looks like the primary muddier of 5g waters to me. >>>> >>>> On Fri, Mar 2, 2018, 3:54 PM Jeff wrote: >>>> >>>>> One could argue Samsung, with new LTE technology (4x4 MIMO antenna, >>>>> frequency aggregation, 256 QAM) introduced in their S8 phone, may have >>>>> muddied the 5G waters. >>>>> >>>>> Jeff >>>>> >>>>> ?On 2/28/18, 1:43 PM, "1st-mile-nm on behalf of Richard Lowenberg" < >>>>> 1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org on behalf of rl at 1st-mile.org> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Following on recent postings. RL >>>>> >>>>> ------- >>>>> >>>>> Commercial service is years away, but even then, 5G won?t fulfill >>>>> all of >>>>> its promises >>>>> >>>>> https://spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/internet/5g-is-in-danger-o >>>>> f-being-oversold >>>>> >>>>> By Stacey Higginbotham >>>>> >>>>> Just like graphene or Elon Musk?s startups, 5G has become a >>>>> technology >>>>> savior. Proponents tout the poorly defined wireless technology as >>>>> the >>>>> path to virtual reality, telemedicine, and self-?driving cars. >>>>> >>>>> But 5G is not a technology?it?s a buzzword unleashed by marketing >>>>> departments. As early as 2012, Broadcom was using it to sell >>>>> Wi-Fi. In >>>>> reality, 5G is a term that telecommunications investors and >>>>> executives >>>>> sling around as the solution to high infrastructure costs, the >>>>> need for >>>>> more bandwidth, and a desire to boost margins. >>>>> >>>>> The unifying component behind 5G is faster wireless broadband >>>>> service. A >>>>> more stringent?and practical?definition is the use of >>>>> high-frequency >>>>> millimeter waves (in addition to the microwaves that 4G LTE relies >>>>> on >>>>> today) to deliver over-the-air broadband to phones or homes. >>>>> >>>>> If you?re talking about phones, 5G is still years away. And new >>>>> services >>>>> aren?t really on the menu. Just listen to the heads of several >>>>> telecommunications companies, who have begun to tamp down >>>>> investors? >>>>> expectations around what 5G can deliver. >>>>> >>>>> (snip) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director >>>>> 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 <(505)%20603-5200> >>>>> Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, >>>>> rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org >>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 1st-mile-nm mailing list >>>>> 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org >>>>> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 1st-mile-nm mailing list >>>>> 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org >>>>> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 1st-mile-nm mailing list >>>> 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org >>>> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >> 1st-mile-nm mailing list >> 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org >> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm >> >> >> David Breecker, >> President >> >> >> *David Breecker Associates* >> *www.breeckerassociates.com * >> >> Santa Fe Office: 505-690-2335 <(505)%20690-2335> >> Abiquiu Office: 505-685-4891 <(505)%20685-4891> >> Skype: dbreecker >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm > > -- Kurt Albershardt | Mimbres Communications, LLC | 575-342-0042 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PastedGraphic-7.png Type: image/png Size: 7371 bytes Desc: not available URL: From john at citylinkfiber.com Fri Mar 2 16:23:01 2018 From: john at citylinkfiber.com (John Brown) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2018 17:23:01 -0700 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold In-Reply-To: References: <1B3B161D-6D4D-4455-AA03-FE6FC2A2245F@breeckerassociates.com> <91f1aab07d08099b4651f3530b85710f@1st-mile.org> <5AC7985D-AC4E-44A7-8170-9C116DA6EC44@mountainconnect.org> <4097D88E-C167-4446-BC87-03AA34C866B9@breeckerassociates.com> Message-ID: no the laser pointers would be connected to quad-copters so that the self-driving cats can just follow the laser dots on the road. Dot moves, self-driving cat moves. All very simple. You could even MIMO the laser off of the quad-copter so that you could control multiple cats. And in the laser pulses we would encode additional data to allow the catnip dispensers to operate. Since those are the fuel systems. All in all, drugged out kitties running around controlled by SkyNet On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 4:50 PM, Steve Ross wrote: > Dog have masters, cats have staff. My wife and I are staff to two cats. I > think the world has a surplus of cat memes, but there's always room for a > few more....and they would accessorize their self-driving catmobiles with > catnip dispensers, string, and laser pointers. > > > > > > Steve Ross > Editor-at-Large, Broadband Communities Magazine (www.bbcmag.com) > 201-456-5933 mobile > 707-WOW-SSR3 (707-969-7773) Google Voice > editorsteve (Facebook, LinkedIn) > editorsteve1 (Twitter) > steve at bbcmag.com > editorsteve at gmail.com > > > On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 6:41 PM, David Breecker [dba] < > david at breeckerassociates.com> wrote: > >> Let?s stay with self-driving cats, could be the next hot YouTube meme ;-) >> >> Good weekend to all, >> db >> >> >> On Mar 2, 2018, at 4:22 PM, Steve Ross wrote: >> >> Cars, too. Meow. >> >> On Mar 2, 2018 6:22 PM, editorsteve at gmail.com wrote: >> >>> Self driving cats need to know what all the other cars are doing. Very >>> opposite of autonomous. >>> >>> On Mar 2, 2018 6:15 PM, "Doug Orr" wrote: >>> >>>> I'm pretty sure mimo is going to be like multiprocessor compensating >>>> for the demise of Moore's law in processors around transistor density: >>>> applications have to change for it to be of profound use, it won't speed up >>>> things to their advertised potential, except maybe a few new things come >>>> out as the result of new end to end stacks... >>>> >>>> Most of the speed hacks don't look like they will work well for >>>> anything other than big parallel transfers, and latency is still speed of >>>> light constrained. Anything involving the edge starts to eat power and >>>> comes with troublesome consistency issues. >>>> >>>> People picturing super fast web and 8k movies are likely in for some >>>> surprises. >>>> >>>> Self driving cars will need to be largely autonomous, so I find all of >>>> the talk about how they are the 5g killer app confusing. That may just be >>>> my ignorance. Wrt super chatty self driving cars, aggregate bandwidth is >>>> the issue and there will be a lot of work carriers have to do to support >>>> cell density at scale. Having your car stop working in a cell dead zone >>>> seems like a bad consumer experience... >>>> >>>> 5g looks like the primary muddier of 5g waters to me. >>>> >>>> On Fri, Mar 2, 2018, 3:54 PM Jeff wrote: >>>> >>>>> One could argue Samsung, with new LTE technology (4x4 MIMO antenna, >>>>> frequency aggregation, 256 QAM) introduced in their S8 phone, may have >>>>> muddied the 5G waters. >>>>> >>>>> Jeff >>>>> >>>>> ?On 2/28/18, 1:43 PM, "1st-mile-nm on behalf of Richard Lowenberg" < >>>>> 1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org on behalf of rl at 1st-mile.org> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Following on recent postings. RL >>>>> >>>>> ------- >>>>> >>>>> Commercial service is years away, but even then, 5G won?t fulfill >>>>> all of >>>>> its promises >>>>> >>>>> https://spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/internet/5g-is-in-danger-o >>>>> f-being-oversold >>>>> >>>>> By Stacey Higginbotham >>>>> >>>>> Just like graphene or Elon Musk?s startups, 5G has become a >>>>> technology >>>>> savior. Proponents tout the poorly defined wireless technology as >>>>> the >>>>> path to virtual reality, telemedicine, and self-?driving cars. >>>>> >>>>> But 5G is not a technology?it?s a buzzword unleashed by marketing >>>>> departments. As early as 2012, Broadcom was using it to sell >>>>> Wi-Fi. In >>>>> reality, 5G is a term that telecommunications investors and >>>>> executives >>>>> sling around as the solution to high infrastructure costs, the >>>>> need for >>>>> more bandwidth, and a desire to boost margins. >>>>> >>>>> The unifying component behind 5G is faster wireless broadband >>>>> service. A >>>>> more stringent?and practical?definition is the use of >>>>> high-frequency >>>>> millimeter waves (in addition to the microwaves that 4G LTE relies >>>>> on >>>>> today) to deliver over-the-air broadband to phones or homes. >>>>> >>>>> If you?re talking about phones, 5G is still years away. And new >>>>> services >>>>> aren?t really on the menu. Just listen to the heads of several >>>>> telecommunications companies, who have begun to tamp down >>>>> investors? >>>>> expectations around what 5G can deliver. >>>>> >>>>> (snip) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director >>>>> 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 <(505)%20603-5200> >>>>> Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, >>>>> rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org >>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 1st-mile-nm mailing list >>>>> 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org >>>>> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 1st-mile-nm mailing list >>>>> 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org >>>>> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 1st-mile-nm mailing list >>>> 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org >>>> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >> 1st-mile-nm mailing list >> 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org >> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm >> >> >> David Breecker, >> President >> >> >> *David Breecker Associates* >> *www.breeckerassociates.com * >> >> Santa Fe Office: 505-690-2335 <(505)%20690-2335> >> Abiquiu Office: 505-685-4891 <(505)%20685-4891> >> Skype: dbreecker >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From editorsteve at gmail.com Fri Mar 2 16:27:32 2018 From: editorsteve at gmail.com (Steve Ross) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2018 19:27:32 -0500 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold In-Reply-To: References: <1B3B161D-6D4D-4455-AA03-FE6FC2A2245F@breeckerassociates.com> <91f1aab07d08099b4651f3530b85710f@1st-mile.org> <5AC7985D-AC4E-44A7-8170-9C116DA6EC44@mountainconnect.org> <4097D88E-C167-4446-BC87-03AA34C866B9@breeckerassociates.com> Message-ID: I think the cats started that way with the egyptians... As gods. There are mainly dog families in our NYC apartment building, mainly cat families in our Boston building, and we all adjust and care for each other's pets. The quadrapeds know they all have a good thing going. And so do we. Btw check out cat with ipad videos. Sigh. Btw, my wife has the S8 Note, which doubles as lightsaber and room heater. But it does not handle band 71. The S9 does. And The LG v30. Need it for my rural trips. Band 71 is the 600 mhz band tmobile is rolling out. Time to upgrade my S3 Note.... On Mar 2, 2018 6:53 PM, "Mimbres Communications" wrote: > A dog looks at you and thinks, "You love me, you feed me, you care for me > -- you must be a god!" > > A cat looks at you and thinks, "You love me, you feed me, you care for me > -- I must be a god!" > > On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 4:50 PM, Steve Ross wrote: > >> Dog have masters, cats have staff. My wife and I are staff to two cats. I >> think the world has a surplus of cat memes, but there's always room for a >> few more....and they would accessorize their self-driving catmobiles with >> catnip dispensers, string, and laser pointers. >> >> >> >> >> >> Steve Ross >> Editor-at-Large, Broadband Communities Magazine (www.bbcmag.com) >> 201-456-5933 <(201)%20456-5933> mobile >> 707-WOW-SSR3 (707-969-7773 <(707)%20969-7773>) Google Voice >> editorsteve (Facebook, LinkedIn) >> editorsteve1 (Twitter) >> steve at bbcmag.com >> editorsteve at gmail.com >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 6:41 PM, David Breecker [dba] < >> david at breeckerassociates.com> wrote: >> >>> Let?s stay with self-driving cats, could be the next hot YouTube meme ;-) >>> >>> Good weekend to all, >>> db >>> >>> >>> On Mar 2, 2018, at 4:22 PM, Steve Ross wrote: >>> >>> Cars, too. Meow. >>> >>> On Mar 2, 2018 6:22 PM, editorsteve at gmail.com wrote: >>> >>>> Self driving cats need to know what all the other cars are doing. Very >>>> opposite of autonomous. >>>> >>>> On Mar 2, 2018 6:15 PM, "Doug Orr" wrote: >>>> >>>>> I'm pretty sure mimo is going to be like multiprocessor compensating >>>>> for the demise of Moore's law in processors around transistor density: >>>>> applications have to change for it to be of profound use, it won't speed up >>>>> things to their advertised potential, except maybe a few new things come >>>>> out as the result of new end to end stacks... >>>>> >>>>> Most of the speed hacks don't look like they will work well for >>>>> anything other than big parallel transfers, and latency is still speed of >>>>> light constrained. Anything involving the edge starts to eat power and >>>>> comes with troublesome consistency issues. >>>>> >>>>> People picturing super fast web and 8k movies are likely in for some >>>>> surprises. >>>>> >>>>> Self driving cars will need to be largely autonomous, so I find all of >>>>> the talk about how they are the 5g killer app confusing. That may just be >>>>> my ignorance. Wrt super chatty self driving cars, aggregate bandwidth is >>>>> the issue and there will be a lot of work carriers have to do to support >>>>> cell density at scale. Having your car stop working in a cell dead zone >>>>> seems like a bad consumer experience... >>>>> >>>>> 5g looks like the primary muddier of 5g waters to me. >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Mar 2, 2018, 3:54 PM Jeff wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> One could argue Samsung, with new LTE technology (4x4 MIMO antenna, >>>>>> frequency aggregation, 256 QAM) introduced in their S8 phone, may have >>>>>> muddied the 5G waters. >>>>>> >>>>>> Jeff >>>>>> >>>>>> ?On 2/28/18, 1:43 PM, "1st-mile-nm on behalf of Richard Lowenberg" < >>>>>> 1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org on behalf of rl at 1st-mile.org> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Following on recent postings. RL >>>>>> >>>>>> ------- >>>>>> >>>>>> Commercial service is years away, but even then, 5G won?t fulfill >>>>>> all of >>>>>> its promises >>>>>> >>>>>> https://spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/internet/5g-is-in-danger-o >>>>>> f-being-oversold >>>>>> >>>>>> By Stacey Higginbotham >>>>>> >>>>>> Just like graphene or Elon Musk?s startups, 5G has become a >>>>>> technology >>>>>> savior. Proponents tout the poorly defined wireless technology as >>>>>> the >>>>>> path to virtual reality, telemedicine, and self-?driving cars. >>>>>> >>>>>> But 5G is not a technology?it?s a buzzword unleashed by marketing >>>>>> departments. As early as 2012, Broadcom was using it to sell >>>>>> Wi-Fi. In >>>>>> reality, 5G is a term that telecommunications investors and >>>>>> executives >>>>>> sling around as the solution to high infrastructure costs, the >>>>>> need for >>>>>> more bandwidth, and a desire to boost margins. >>>>>> >>>>>> The unifying component behind 5G is faster wireless broadband >>>>>> service. A >>>>>> more stringent?and practical?definition is the use of >>>>>> high-frequency >>>>>> millimeter waves (in addition to the microwaves that 4G LTE >>>>>> relies on >>>>>> today) to deliver over-the-air broadband to phones or homes. >>>>>> >>>>>> If you?re talking about phones, 5G is still years away. And new >>>>>> services >>>>>> aren?t really on the menu. Just listen to the heads of several >>>>>> telecommunications companies, who have begun to tamp down >>>>>> investors? >>>>>> expectations around what 5G can deliver. >>>>>> >>>>>> (snip) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director >>>>>> 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 <(505)%20603-5200> >>>>>> Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, >>>>>> rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org >>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> 1st-mile-nm mailing list >>>>>> 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org >>>>>> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> 1st-mile-nm mailing list >>>>>> 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org >>>>>> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 1st-mile-nm mailing list >>>>> 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org >>>>> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>> 1st-mile-nm mailing list >>> 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org >>> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm >>> >>> >>> David Breecker, >>> President >>> >>> >>> *David Breecker Associates* >>> *www.breeckerassociates.com * >>> >>> Santa Fe Office: 505-690-2335 <(505)%20690-2335> >>> Abiquiu Office: 505-685-4891 <(505)%20685-4891> >>> Skype: dbreecker >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 1st-mile-nm mailing list >> 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org >> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm >> >> > > > -- > > Kurt Albershardt | Mimbres Communications, LLC | 575-342-0042 <(575)%20342-0042> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PastedGraphic-7.png Type: image/png Size: 7371 bytes Desc: not available URL: From waynes at ad.nmsu.edu Fri Mar 2 16:27:52 2018 From: waynes at ad.nmsu.edu (Wayne Savage) Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2018 00:27:52 +0000 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] Remove from list Message-ID: Thx, Wayne L. Savage Executive Director, Arrowhead Park PO Box 30001 MSC 3ARP Las Cruces, NM 88003 Cell: 575.520.6373 Office: 575.646.2596 waynes at nmsu.edu [cid:image001.png at 01D1B5AE.B59F0690] From: 1st-mile-nm [mailto:1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org] On Behalf Of John Brown Sent: Friday, March 2, 2018 5:23 PM To: Steve Ross Cc: Richard Lowenberg ; 1st-Mile-NM <1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org> Subject: Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold no the laser pointers would be connected to quad-copters so that the self-driving cats can just follow the laser dots on the road. Dot moves, self-driving cat moves. All very simple. You could even MIMO the laser off of the quad-copter so that you could control multiple cats. And in the laser pulses we would encode additional data to allow the catnip dispensers to operate. Since those are the fuel systems. All in all, drugged out kitties running around controlled by SkyNet On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 4:50 PM, Steve Ross > wrote: Dog have masters, cats have staff. My wife and I are staff to two cats. I think the world has a surplus of cat memes, but there's always room for a few more....and they would accessorize their self-driving catmobiles with catnip dispensers, string, and laser pointers. Steve Ross Editor-at-Large, Broadband Communities Magazine (www.bbcmag.com) 201-456-5933 mobile 707-WOW-SSR3 (707-969-7773) Google Voice editorsteve (Facebook, LinkedIn) editorsteve1 (Twitter) steve at bbcmag.com editorsteve at gmail.com On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 6:41 PM, David Breecker [dba] > wrote: Let?s stay with self-driving cats, could be the next hot YouTube meme ;-) Good weekend to all, db On Mar 2, 2018, at 4:22 PM, Steve Ross > wrote: Cars, too. Meow. On Mar 2, 2018 6:22 PM, editorsteve at gmail.com wrote: Self driving cats need to know what all the other cars are doing. Very opposite of autonomous. On Mar 2, 2018 6:15 PM, "Doug Orr" > wrote: I'm pretty sure mimo is going to be like multiprocessor compensating for the demise of Moore's law in processors around transistor density: applications have to change for it to be of profound use, it won't speed up things to their advertised potential, except maybe a few new things come out as the result of new end to end stacks... Most of the speed hacks don't look like they will work well for anything other than big parallel transfers, and latency is still speed of light constrained. Anything involving the edge starts to eat power and comes with troublesome consistency issues. People picturing super fast web and 8k movies are likely in for some surprises. Self driving cars will need to be largely autonomous, so I find all of the talk about how they are the 5g killer app confusing. That may just be my ignorance. Wrt super chatty self driving cars, aggregate bandwidth is the issue and there will be a lot of work carriers have to do to support cell density at scale. Having your car stop working in a cell dead zone seems like a bad consumer experience... 5g looks like the primary muddier of 5g waters to me. On Fri, Mar 2, 2018, 3:54 PM Jeff > wrote: One could argue Samsung, with new LTE technology (4x4 MIMO antenna, frequency aggregation, 256 QAM) introduced in their S8 phone, may have muddied the 5G waters. Jeff ?On 2/28/18, 1:43 PM, "1st-mile-nm on behalf of Richard Lowenberg" <1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org on behalf of rl at 1st-mile.org> wrote: Following on recent postings. RL ------- Commercial service is years away, but even then, 5G won?t fulfill all of its promises https://spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/internet/5g-is-in-danger-of-being-oversold By Stacey Higginbotham Just like graphene or Elon Musk?s startups, 5G has become a technology savior. Proponents tout the poorly defined wireless technology as the path to virtual reality, telemedicine, and self-?driving cars. But 5G is not a technology?it?s a buzzword unleashed by marketing departments. As early as 2012, Broadcom was using it to sell Wi-Fi. In reality, 5G is a term that telecommunications investors and executives sling around as the solution to high infrastructure costs, the need for more bandwidth, and a desire to boost margins. The unifying component behind 5G is faster wireless broadband service. A more stringent?and practical?definition is the use of high-frequency millimeter waves (in addition to the microwaves that 4G LTE relies on today) to deliver over-the-air broadband to phones or homes. If you?re talking about phones, 5G is still years away. And new services aren?t really on the menu. Just listen to the heads of several telecommunications companies, who have begun to tamp down investors? expectations around what 5G can deliver. (snip) --------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org --------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ 1st-mile-nm mailing list 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm _______________________________________________ 1st-mile-nm mailing list 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm _______________________________________________ 1st-mile-nm mailing list 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm _______________________________________________ 1st-mile-nm mailing list 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm David Breecker, President David Breecker Associates www.breeckerassociates.com Santa Fe Office: 505-690-2335 Abiquiu Office: 505-685-4891 Skype: dbreecker _______________________________________________ 1st-mile-nm mailing list 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 7767 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: From adrianazbadal at gmail.com Fri Mar 2 16:29:51 2018 From: adrianazbadal at gmail.com (Adriana Badal) Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2018 00:29:51 +0000 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] Remove from list In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Remove from list please. Thank you On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 5:28 PM Wayne Savage wrote: > Thx, > > > > *Wayne L. Savage* > > *Executive Director, Arrowhead Park* > > PO Box 30001 MSC 3ARP > > Las Cruces, NM 88003 > > > > Cell: 575.520.6373 > > Office: 575.646.2596 > > waynes at nmsu.edu > > > > [image: cid:image001.png at 01D1B5AE.B59F0690] > > > > > *From:* 1st-mile-nm [mailto:1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org] *On > Behalf Of *John Brown > *Sent:* Friday, March 2, 2018 5:23 PM > *To:* Steve Ross > *Cc:* Richard Lowenberg ; 1st-Mile-NM < > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org> > *Subject:* Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold > > > > no the laser pointers would be connected to quad-copters so that the > self-driving cats can just follow the laser dots > > on the road. Dot moves, self-driving cat moves. All very simple. > > You could even MIMO the laser off of the quad-copter so that you could > control multiple cats. > > And in the laser pulses we would encode additional data to allow the > catnip dispensers to operate. > > Since those are the fuel systems. > > > > All in all, drugged out kitties running around controlled by SkyNet > > > > On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 4:50 PM, Steve Ross wrote: > > Dog have masters, cats have staff. My wife and I are staff to two cats. I > think the world has a surplus of cat memes, but there's always room for a > few more....and they would accessorize their self-driving catmobiles with > catnip dispensers, string, and laser pointers. > > > > > > > > > Steve Ross > Editor-at-Large, Broadband Communities Magazine (www.bbcmag.com) > 201-456-5933 mobile > 707-WOW-SSR3 (707-969-7773) Google Voice > editorsteve (Facebook, LinkedIn) > editorsteve1 (Twitter) > steve at bbcmag.com > editorsteve at gmail.com > > > > On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 6:41 PM, David Breecker [dba] < > david at breeckerassociates.com> wrote: > > Let?s stay with self-driving cats, could be the next hot YouTube meme ;-) > > > > Good weekend to all, > > db > > > > > > On Mar 2, 2018, at 4:22 PM, Steve Ross wrote: > > > > Cars, too. Meow. > > > > On Mar 2, 2018 6:22 PM, editorsteve at gmail.com wrote: > > Self driving cats need to know what all the other cars are doing. Very > opposite of autonomous. > > > > On Mar 2, 2018 6:15 PM, "Doug Orr" wrote: > > I'm pretty sure mimo is going to be like multiprocessor compensating for > the demise of Moore's law in processors around transistor density: > applications have to change for it to be of profound use, it won't speed up > things to their advertised potential, except maybe a few new things come > out as the result of new end to end stacks... > > > > Most of the speed hacks don't look like they will work well for anything > other than big parallel transfers, and latency is still speed of light > constrained. Anything involving the edge starts to eat power and comes with > troublesome consistency issues. > > > > People picturing super fast web and 8k movies are likely in for some > surprises. > > > > Self driving cars will need to be largely autonomous, so I find all of the > talk about how they are the 5g killer app confusing. That may just be my > ignorance. Wrt super chatty self driving cars, aggregate bandwidth is the > issue and there will be a lot of work carriers have to do to support cell > density at scale. Having your car stop working in a cell dead zone seems > like a bad consumer experience... > > > > 5g looks like the primary muddier of 5g waters to me. > > On Fri, Mar 2, 2018, 3:54 PM Jeff wrote: > > One could argue Samsung, with new LTE technology (4x4 MIMO antenna, > frequency aggregation, 256 QAM) introduced in their S8 phone, may have > muddied the 5G waters. > > Jeff > > ?On 2/28/18, 1:43 PM, "1st-mile-nm on behalf of Richard Lowenberg" < > 1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org on behalf of rl at 1st-mile.org> wrote: > > Following on recent postings. RL > > ------- > > Commercial service is years away, but even then, 5G won?t fulfill all > of > its promises > > > https://spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/internet/5g-is-in-danger-of-being-oversold > > By Stacey Higginbotham > > Just like graphene or Elon Musk?s startups, 5G has become a technology > savior. Proponents tout the poorly defined wireless technology as the > path to virtual reality, telemedicine, and self-?driving cars. > > But 5G is not a technology?it?s a buzzword unleashed by marketing > departments. As early as 2012, Broadcom was using it to sell Wi-Fi. In > reality, 5G is a term that telecommunications investors and executives > sling around as the solution to high infrastructure costs, the need for > more bandwidth, and a desire to boost margins. > > The unifying component behind 5G is faster wireless broadband service. > A > more stringent?and practical?definition is the use of high-frequency > millimeter waves (in addition to the microwaves that 4G LTE relies on > today) to deliver over-the-air broadband to phones or homes. > > If you?re talking about phones, 5G is still years away. And new > services > aren?t really on the menu. Just listen to the heads of several > telecommunications companies, who have begun to tamp down investors? > expectations around what 5G can deliver. > > (snip) > > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director > 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 <(505)%20603-5200> > Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, > rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org > --------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm > > > _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm > > > _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm > > _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm > > > > David Breecker, > > President > > > > * David Breecker Associates* > > *www.breeckerassociates.com * > > > > Santa Fe Office: 505-690-2335 <(505)%20690-2335> > > Abiquiu Office: 505-685-4891 <(505)%20685-4891> > > Skype: dbreecker > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm > > > _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 7767 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jeff at mountainconnect.org Fri Mar 2 16:30:25 2018 From: jeff at mountainconnect.org (Jeff) Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2018 00:30:25 +0000 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold In-Reply-To: References: <1B3B161D-6D4D-4455-AA03-FE6FC2A2245F@breeckerassociates.com> <91f1aab07d08099b4651f3530b85710f@1st-mile.org> <5AC7985D-AC4E-44A7-8170-9C116DA6EC44@mountainconnect.org> <4097D88E-C167-4446-BC87-03AA34C866B9@breeckerassociates.com> Message-ID: My cat knows she is a Goddess or certainly conducts herself in a manner befitting a Goddess. From: 1st-mile-nm <1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org> on behalf of Steve Ross Date: Friday, March 2, 2018 at 5:27 PM To: Mimbres Communications Cc: Richard Lowenberg , 1st-Mile-NM <1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org> Subject: Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold I think the cats started that way with the egyptians... As gods. There are mainly dog families in our NYC apartment building, mainly cat families in our Boston building, and we all adjust and care for each other's pets. The quadrapeds know they all have a good thing going. And so do we. Btw check out cat with ipad videos. Sigh. Btw, my wife has the S8 Note, which doubles as lightsaber and room heater. But it does not handle band 71. The S9 does. And The LG v30. Need it for my rural trips. Band 71 is the 600 mhz band tmobile is rolling out. Time to upgrade my S3 Note.... On Mar 2, 2018 6:53 PM, "Mimbres Communications" > wrote: A dog looks at you and thinks, "You love me, you feed me, you care for me -- you must be a god!" A cat looks at you and thinks, "You love me, you feed me, you care for me -- I must be a god!" On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 4:50 PM, Steve Ross > wrote: Dog have masters, cats have staff. My wife and I are staff to two cats. I think the world has a surplus of cat memes, but there's always room for a few more....and they would accessorize their self-driving catmobiles with catnip dispensers, string, and laser pointers. Steve Ross Editor-at-Large, Broadband Communities Magazine (www.bbcmag.com) 201-456-5933 mobile 707-WOW-SSR3 (707-969-7773) Google Voice editorsteve (Facebook, LinkedIn) editorsteve1 (Twitter) steve at bbcmag.com editorsteve at gmail.com On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 6:41 PM, David Breecker [dba] > wrote: Let?s stay with self-driving cats, could be the next hot YouTube meme ;-) Good weekend to all, db On Mar 2, 2018, at 4:22 PM, Steve Ross > wrote: Cars, too. Meow. On Mar 2, 2018 6:22 PM, editorsteve at gmail.com wrote: Self driving cats need to know what all the other cars are doing. Very opposite of autonomous. On Mar 2, 2018 6:15 PM, "Doug Orr" > wrote: I'm pretty sure mimo is going to be like multiprocessor compensating for the demise of Moore's law in processors around transistor density: applications have to change for it to be of profound use, it won't speed up things to their advertised potential, except maybe a few new things come out as the result of new end to end stacks... Most of the speed hacks don't look like they will work well for anything other than big parallel transfers, and latency is still speed of light constrained. Anything involving the edge starts to eat power and comes with troublesome consistency issues. People picturing super fast web and 8k movies are likely in for some surprises. Self driving cars will need to be largely autonomous, so I find all of the talk about how they are the 5g killer app confusing. That may just be my ignorance. Wrt super chatty self driving cars, aggregate bandwidth is the issue and there will be a lot of work carriers have to do to support cell density at scale. Having your car stop working in a cell dead zone seems like a bad consumer experience... 5g looks like the primary muddier of 5g waters to me. On Fri, Mar 2, 2018, 3:54 PM Jeff > wrote: One could argue Samsung, with new LTE technology (4x4 MIMO antenna, frequency aggregation, 256 QAM) introduced in their S8 phone, may have muddied the 5G waters. Jeff On 2/28/18, 1:43 PM, "1st-mile-nm on behalf of Richard Lowenberg" <1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org on behalf of rl at 1st-mile.org> wrote: Following on recent postings. RL ------- Commercial service is years away, but even then, 5G won?t fulfill all of its promises https://spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/internet/5g-is-in-danger-of-being-oversold By Stacey Higginbotham Just like graphene or Elon Musk?s startups, 5G has become a technology savior. Proponents tout the poorly defined wireless technology as the path to virtual reality, telemedicine, and self-?driving cars. But 5G is not a technology?it?s a buzzword unleashed by marketing departments. As early as 2012, Broadcom was using it to sell Wi-Fi. In reality, 5G is a term that telecommunications investors and executives sling around as the solution to high infrastructure costs, the need for more bandwidth, and a desire to boost margins. The unifying component behind 5G is faster wireless broadband service. A more stringent?and practical?definition is the use of high-frequency millimeter waves (in addition to the microwaves that 4G LTE relies on today) to deliver over-the-air broadband to phones or homes. If you?re talking about phones, 5G is still years away. And new services aren?t really on the menu. Just listen to the heads of several telecommunications companies, who have begun to tamp down investors? expectations around what 5G can deliver. (snip) --------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org --------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ 1st-mile-nm mailing list 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm _______________________________________________ 1st-mile-nm mailing list 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm _______________________________________________ 1st-mile-nm mailing list 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm _______________________________________________ 1st-mile-nm mailing list 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm David Breecker, President [cid:8A267772-F40A-46DC-B764-34AFA932ED45] David Breecker Associates www.breeckerassociates.com Santa Fe Office: 505-690-2335 Abiquiu Office: 505-685-4891 Skype: dbreecker _______________________________________________ 1st-mile-nm mailing list 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm -- Kurt Albershardt | Mimbres Communications, LLC | 575-342-0042 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 7372 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: From josmon at rigozsaurus.com Fri Mar 2 16:40:27 2018 From: josmon at rigozsaurus.com (John Osmon) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2018 17:40:27 -0700 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] List removal help Message-ID: <20180303004027.GA19828@jeeves.rigozsaurus.com> For folks wanting to leave the list, just look in the e-mail headers that are in each message: -------------------------------------- List-Id: Broadband for All in New Mexico <1st-mile-nm.mailman.dcn.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , -------------------------------------- From editorsteve at gmail.com Fri Mar 2 17:05:36 2018 From: editorsteve at gmail.com (Steve Ross) Date: Fri, 2 Mar 2018 20:05:36 -0500 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold In-Reply-To: References: <1B3B161D-6D4D-4455-AA03-FE6FC2A2245F@breeckerassociates.com> <91f1aab07d08099b4651f3530b85710f@1st-mile.org> <5AC7985D-AC4E-44A7-8170-9C116DA6EC44@mountainconnect.org> <4097D88E-C167-4446-BC87-03AA34C866B9@breeckerassociates.com> Message-ID: Oops. Really a typo started us down a different road. Sorry. Sorry. Meow. Steve Ross Editor-at-Large, Broadband Communities Magazine (www.bbcmag.com) 201-456-5933 mobile 707-WOW-SSR3 (707-969-7773) Google Voice editorsteve (Facebook, LinkedIn) editorsteve1 (Twitter) steve at bbcmag.com editorsteve at gmail.com On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 7:30 PM, Jeff wrote: > My cat knows she is a Goddess or certainly conducts herself in a manner > befitting a Goddess. > > > > *From: *1st-mile-nm <1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org> on behalf of > Steve Ross > *Date: *Friday, March 2, 2018 at 5:27 PM > *To: *Mimbres Communications > *Cc: *Richard Lowenberg , 1st-Mile-NM < > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org> > *Subject: *Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold > > > > I think the cats started that way with the egyptians... As gods. There > are mainly dog families in our NYC apartment building, mainly cat families > in our Boston building, and we all adjust and care for each other's pets. > > > > The quadrapeds know they all have a good thing going. And so do we. Btw > check out cat with ipad videos. Sigh. > > > > Btw, my wife has the S8 Note, which doubles as lightsaber and room heater. > But it does not handle band 71. The S9 does. And The LG v30. Need it for my > rural trips. Band 71 is the 600 mhz band tmobile is rolling out. Time to > upgrade my S3 Note.... > > > > On Mar 2, 2018 6:53 PM, "Mimbres Communications" wrote: > > A dog looks at you and thinks, "You love me, you feed me, you care for me > -- you must be a god!" > > > > A cat looks at you and thinks, "You love me, you feed me, you care for me > -- I must be a god!" > > > > On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 4:50 PM, Steve Ross wrote: > > Dog have masters, cats have staff. My wife and I are staff to two cats. I > think the world has a surplus of cat memes, but there's always room for a > few more....and they would accessorize their self-driving catmobiles with > catnip dispensers, string, and laser pointers. > > > > > > > > > Steve Ross > Editor-at-Large, Broadband Communities Magazine (www.bbcmag.com) > 201-456-5933 <(201)%20456-5933> mobile > 707-WOW-SSR3 (707-969-7773 <(707)%20969-7773>) Google Voice > editorsteve (Facebook, LinkedIn) > editorsteve1 (Twitter) > steve at bbcmag.com > editorsteve at gmail.com > > > > On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 6:41 PM, David Breecker [dba] < > david at breeckerassociates.com> wrote: > > Let?s stay with self-driving cats, could be the next hot YouTube meme ;-) > > > > Good weekend to all, > > db > > > > > > On Mar 2, 2018, at 4:22 PM, Steve Ross wrote: > > > > Cars, too. Meow. > > > > On Mar 2, 2018 6:22 PM, editorsteve at gmail.com wrote: > > Self driving cats need to know what all the other cars are doing. Very > opposite of autonomous. > > > > On Mar 2, 2018 6:15 PM, "Doug Orr" wrote: > > I'm pretty sure mimo is going to be like multiprocessor compensating for > the demise of Moore's law in processors around transistor density: > applications have to change for it to be of profound use, it won't speed up > things to their advertised potential, except maybe a few new things come > out as the result of new end to end stacks... > > > > Most of the speed hacks don't look like they will work well for anything > other than big parallel transfers, and latency is still speed of light > constrained. Anything involving the edge starts to eat power and comes with > troublesome consistency issues. > > > > People picturing super fast web and 8k movies are likely in for some > surprises. > > > > Self driving cars will need to be largely autonomous, so I find all of the > talk about how they are the 5g killer app confusing. That may just be my > ignorance. Wrt super chatty self driving cars, aggregate bandwidth is the > issue and there will be a lot of work carriers have to do to support cell > density at scale. Having your car stop working in a cell dead zone seems > like a bad consumer experience... > > > > 5g looks like the primary muddier of 5g waters to me. > > On Fri, Mar 2, 2018, 3:54 PM Jeff wrote: > > One could argue Samsung, with new LTE technology (4x4 MIMO antenna, > frequency aggregation, 256 QAM) introduced in their S8 phone, may have > muddied the 5G waters. > > Jeff > > On 2/28/18, 1:43 PM, "1st-mile-nm on behalf of Richard Lowenberg" < > 1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org on behalf of rl at 1st-mile.org> wrote: > > Following on recent postings. RL > > ------- > > Commercial service is years away, but even then, 5G won?t fulfill all > of > its promises > > https://spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/internet/5g-is-in- > danger-of-being-oversold > > By Stacey Higginbotham > > Just like graphene or Elon Musk?s startups, 5G has become a technology > savior. Proponents tout the poorly defined wireless technology as the > path to virtual reality, telemedicine, and self-?driving cars. > > But 5G is not a technology?it?s a buzzword unleashed by marketing > departments. As early as 2012, Broadcom was using it to sell Wi-Fi. In > reality, 5G is a term that telecommunications investors and executives > sling around as the solution to high infrastructure costs, the need for > more bandwidth, and a desire to boost margins. > > The unifying component behind 5G is faster wireless broadband service. > A > more stringent?and practical?definition is the use of high-frequency > millimeter waves (in addition to the microwaves that 4G LTE relies on > today) to deliver over-the-air broadband to phones or homes. > > If you?re talking about phones, 5G is still years away. And new > services > aren?t really on the menu. Just listen to the heads of several > telecommunications companies, who have begun to tamp down investors? > expectations around what 5G can deliver. > > (snip) > > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director > 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 <(505)%20603-5200> > Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, > rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org > --------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm > > > _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm > > > _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm > > _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm > > > > David Breecker, > > President > > > [image: cid:8A267772-F40A-46DC-B764-34AFA932ED45] > > > * David Breecker Associates* > > *www.breeckerassociates.com* > > > > Santa Fe Office: 505-690-2335 <(505)%20690-2335> > > Abiquiu Office: 505-685-4891 <(505)%20685-4891> > > Skype: dbreecker > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm > > > > > > -- > > Kurt Albershardt | Mimbres Communications, LLC | 575-342-0042 <(575)%20342-0042> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 7372 bytes Desc: not available URL: From doug.orr at gmail.com Fri Mar 2 17:19:30 2018 From: doug.orr at gmail.com (Doug Orr) Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2018 01:19:30 +0000 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold In-Reply-To: References: <1B3B161D-6D4D-4455-AA03-FE6FC2A2245F@breeckerassociates.com> <91f1aab07d08099b4651f3530b85710f@1st-mile.org> <5AC7985D-AC4E-44A7-8170-9C116DA6EC44@mountainconnect.org> <4097D88E-C167-4446-BC87-03AA34C866B9@breeckerassociates.com> Message-ID: Self driving cars need to know what other cars are doing, which they ascertain, currently, using non-network mechanisms like lidar. There might be some notion of more global traffic optimizations or accident avoidance with more chatter, that sort of thing would be very slow to roll out, given the levels of system risk they add...and the cars would still need to be primarily autonomous. Not to mention malicious acts. Let's not even talk about hacking scenarios that adding active network involvement opens up. Google's (waymo's) cars, for instance, have millions of miles already and nobody else on the road is telling them anything. So it's clearly not a requirement. For it to be part of an enhancement it needs to not add any significant liability... [Personal anecdote: I worked at Ford as a college student in the late 70's in the Advanced Engine Engineering department. I was student help in the group working on the second generation computer control (EEC III -- I don't think EEC I made it into production). They focused on Lincolns (their biggest EPA liability which got the latest tech). The computers had 4k foreground, 4k background rom. You worked on a model three years in the future. 82's were the first model where the computer wouldn't shut down when you turned the key off and the first model where the computer controlled the fuel injection -- meaning that a bug in the control software could keep gas pumping into the hot engine indefinitely turning it from "car" into "bomb." The more seasoned engineers had a lot of black humor about what they were going to say at "the trial"... We know more about software risks and defense in depth, thankfully, now, but there are still parallels ;] But, in any case I did look up what the web is saying about 5g in self driving cars. It looks like total marketing fantasy. The machine to machine part could make sense if you could make it secure but would be decades away for making something that would actually be safe and functional. And that's peer-to-peer, not making carrier networks sufficiently durable to be sure they won't contribute to fatalities. These are all just ideas and ideas that will be really hard to make reliable. My cats will love riding to the store for cream. I don't expect to get to use the car much. On Fri, Mar 2, 2018, 4:54 PM Mimbres Communications wrote: > A dog looks at you and thinks, "You love me, you feed me, you care for me > -- you must be a god!" > > A cat looks at you and thinks, "You love me, you feed me, you care for me > -- I must be a god!" > > On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 4:50 PM, Steve Ross wrote: > >> Dog have masters, cats have staff. My wife and I are staff to two cats. I >> think the world has a surplus of cat memes, but there's always room for a >> few more....and they would accessorize their self-driving catmobiles with >> catnip dispensers, string, and laser pointers. >> >> >> >> >> >> Steve Ross >> Editor-at-Large, Broadband Communities Magazine (www.bbcmag.com) >> 201-456-5933 <(201)%20456-5933> mobile >> 707-WOW-SSR3 (707-969-7773 <(707)%20969-7773>) Google Voice >> editorsteve (Facebook, LinkedIn) >> editorsteve1 (Twitter) >> steve at bbcmag.com >> editorsteve at gmail.com >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 6:41 PM, David Breecker [dba] < >> david at breeckerassociates.com> wrote: >> >>> Let?s stay with self-driving cats, could be the next hot YouTube meme ;-) >>> >>> Good weekend to all, >>> db >>> >>> >>> On Mar 2, 2018, at 4:22 PM, Steve Ross wrote: >>> >>> Cars, too. Meow. >>> >>> On Mar 2, 2018 6:22 PM, editorsteve at gmail.com wrote: >>> >>>> Self driving cats need to know what all the other cars are doing. Very >>>> opposite of autonomous. >>>> >>>> On Mar 2, 2018 6:15 PM, "Doug Orr" wrote: >>>> >>>>> I'm pretty sure mimo is going to be like multiprocessor compensating >>>>> for the demise of Moore's law in processors around transistor density: >>>>> applications have to change for it to be of profound use, it won't speed up >>>>> things to their advertised potential, except maybe a few new things come >>>>> out as the result of new end to end stacks... >>>>> >>>>> Most of the speed hacks don't look like they will work well for >>>>> anything other than big parallel transfers, and latency is still speed of >>>>> light constrained. Anything involving the edge starts to eat power and >>>>> comes with troublesome consistency issues. >>>>> >>>>> People picturing super fast web and 8k movies are likely in for some >>>>> surprises. >>>>> >>>>> Self driving cars will need to be largely autonomous, so I find all of >>>>> the talk about how they are the 5g killer app confusing. That may just be >>>>> my ignorance. Wrt super chatty self driving cars, aggregate bandwidth is >>>>> the issue and there will be a lot of work carriers have to do to support >>>>> cell density at scale. Having your car stop working in a cell dead zone >>>>> seems like a bad consumer experience... >>>>> >>>>> 5g looks like the primary muddier of 5g waters to me. >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Mar 2, 2018, 3:54 PM Jeff wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> One could argue Samsung, with new LTE technology (4x4 MIMO antenna, >>>>>> frequency aggregation, 256 QAM) introduced in their S8 phone, may have >>>>>> muddied the 5G waters. >>>>>> >>>>>> Jeff >>>>>> >>>>>> ?On 2/28/18, 1:43 PM, "1st-mile-nm on behalf of Richard Lowenberg" < >>>>>> 1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org on behalf of rl at 1st-mile.org> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Following on recent postings. RL >>>>>> >>>>>> ------- >>>>>> >>>>>> Commercial service is years away, but even then, 5G won?t fulfill >>>>>> all of >>>>>> its promises >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> https://spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/internet/5g-is-in-danger-of-being-oversold >>>>>> >>>>>> By Stacey Higginbotham >>>>>> >>>>>> Just like graphene or Elon Musk?s startups, 5G has become a >>>>>> technology >>>>>> savior. Proponents tout the poorly defined wireless technology as >>>>>> the >>>>>> path to virtual reality, telemedicine, and self-?driving cars. >>>>>> >>>>>> But 5G is not a technology?it?s a buzzword unleashed by marketing >>>>>> departments. As early as 2012, Broadcom was using it to sell >>>>>> Wi-Fi. In >>>>>> reality, 5G is a term that telecommunications investors and >>>>>> executives >>>>>> sling around as the solution to high infrastructure costs, the >>>>>> need for >>>>>> more bandwidth, and a desire to boost margins. >>>>>> >>>>>> The unifying component behind 5G is faster wireless broadband >>>>>> service. A >>>>>> more stringent?and practical?definition is the use of >>>>>> high-frequency >>>>>> millimeter waves (in addition to the microwaves that 4G LTE >>>>>> relies on >>>>>> today) to deliver over-the-air broadband to phones or homes. >>>>>> >>>>>> If you?re talking about phones, 5G is still years away. And new >>>>>> services >>>>>> aren?t really on the menu. Just listen to the heads of several >>>>>> telecommunications companies, who have begun to tamp down >>>>>> investors? >>>>>> expectations around what 5G can deliver. >>>>>> >>>>>> (snip) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director >>>>>> 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 <(505)%20603-5200> >>>>>> Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, >>>>>> rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org >>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> 1st-mile-nm mailing list >>>>>> 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org >>>>>> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> 1st-mile-nm mailing list >>>>>> 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org >>>>>> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 1st-mile-nm mailing list >>>>> 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org >>>>> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>> 1st-mile-nm mailing list >>> 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org >>> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm >>> >>> >>> David Breecker, >>> President >>> >>> [image: PastedGraphic-7.png] >>> >>> *David Breecker Associates* >>> *www.breeckerassociates.com * >>> >>> Santa Fe Office: 505-690-2335 <(505)%20690-2335> >>> Abiquiu Office: 505-685-4891 <(505)%20685-4891> >>> Skype: dbreecker >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 1st-mile-nm mailing list >> 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org >> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm >> >> > > > -- > > Kurt Albershardt | Mimbres Communications, LLC | 575-342-0042 <(575)%20342-0042> > > _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PastedGraphic-7.png Type: image/png Size: 7371 bytes Desc: not available URL: From cirrus.ed.consulting at gmail.com Sat Mar 3 18:12:15 2018 From: cirrus.ed.consulting at gmail.com (Eva Artschwager) Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2018 19:12:15 -0700 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold In-Reply-To: References: <1B3B161D-6D4D-4455-AA03-FE6FC2A2245F@breeckerassociates.com> <91f1aab07d08099b4651f3530b85710f@1st-mile.org> <011701d3b0f4$6f134900$4d39db00$@bbcmag.com> Message-ID: I have to take issue with the characterization of rural communities as using broadband primarily for entertainment and the toggled claim that, for this reason, they do need high speed service. I would argue that ?mostly entertainment? use develops because infrastructure deployment without training is not an effective driver of beneficial uses (nor of adoption). All the research and literature on digital inclusion supports this view I?m not an expert on the details of the technologies, but in my work in rural NM communities that access without skills (and affordability) isn?t very effective for generating economic or intellectual applications. Deployment needs to be packaged with community engagement programs that train people to utilize technology for improving education, employment, and health opportunities. Without this, a larger market for better bandwidth is not developed nor does the infrastructure create the larger economic development that can bring greater growth for both providers and communities (which will in turn require higher speeds). In deeply rural regions, traditional options for training don?t exist. Yet residents are still in need of job skills, students still need to complete homework assignments, and community members still need to access healthcare and services. I understand that initial returns on investment in rural communities are low, but letting these communities fail creates other economic challenges that can damage overall regional patterns of stability and growth. Eva Eva Artschwager Broadband Outreach and Digital Inclusion 1-505-660-3434 cirrus.ed.consulting at gmail.com Sent from my iPhone > On Mar 2, 2018, at 10:46 AM, Jane Coffin wrote: > > Hi All ? > > May I play devil?s advocate. I am not from NM (but love it there). I come from a rural coastal town in Maine. Local uptake can often start out with entertainment, and shift once the network is better and/or the community realizes the value-add. Note that we see this all over the world, and that entertainment content has been driving network infrastructure development in many parts of Sub-Saharan Africa, South East Asia, LAC, etc. I take your point on subsidization, but think there is a good reason for public network infrastructure dev. Why not subsidize the preliminary FTTH deployments with a long-range plan for community pay-back or just see it as worthwhile socio-economic dev? We build and maintain roads at the State and local level? > 2/ With you. We helped a project in rural South Africa purchase a mast (cost was $2,600.00). They were quoted a monthly rental of $2,600.00 on an existing mast. With the mast purchase, they expanded coverage and were able to shift to a hybrid not-for-profit/profit WISP. > > Best, > Jane > > Internet Society | www.internetsociety.org > Skype: janercoffin > Mobile/WhatsApp: +1.202.247.8429 > From: 1st-mile-nm <1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org> on behalf of John Badal > Date: Friday, March 2, 2018 at 12:33 PM > To: Steve Ross , Christopher Mitchell > Cc: Richard Lowenberg , 1st-Mile-NM <1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org>, "masha at bbcmag.com" > Subject: Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold > > Steve & Christopher, > > This has been a good discussion. I agree that anyone daring or committed enough to provide broadband in rural areas deserves praise. My primary concern about FTTH in high cost areas is actually twofold: 1) the added investment of new FTTH networks, especially using public grant money, is a wasteful use of public funds in light of the fact that the vast majority of bandwidth is being used for entertainment, not for academic or job enhancing information. A business case for unsubsidized FTTH systems in rural areas is hard to find. And 2) where the owner of the only utility poles in town decides to provide broadband services in competition with those that are attached to its poles, abuse of monopoly power is not only possible, but is actually in practice. I would love to see more partnerships ? private and public/private ? for the purpose of expanding rural broadband. What we?ve experienced instead is an arrogant abuse of power. > > John > > From: Steve Ross [mailto:editorsteve at gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2018 3:42 PM > To: Christopher Mitchell > Cc: John Badal ; 1st-Mile-NM <1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org>; rl at 1st-mile.org; masha at bbcmag.com > Subject: Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold > > BTW, one person's cross-subsidy is another's avoiding stranded costs. Rural counties are losing on average more than 1/4% of their population a year. A coop or tier3 LEC sees survival as a better alternative. I have shown that a quarter to half of all rural job loss is due to lack of broadband access. It is by far the BIGGEST source of rural job loss. > > I really have a lot of respect and admiration for any broadband deployers, including the national carriers. But when they can't make a business case for serving an area they should $%^&% get out of the way of others who think they might be able to. Instead they buy politicians. > > > > Steve Ross > Editor-at-Large, Broadband Communities Magazine (www.bbcmag.com) > 201-456-5933 mobile > 707-WOW-SSR3 (707-969-7773) Google Voice > editorsteve (Facebook, LinkedIn) > editorsteve1 (Twitter) > steve at bbcmag.com > editorsteve at gmail.com > > > On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 5:34 PM, Steve Ross wrote: > Chris is absolutely right, but making it happen is not as easy. Few electric coops have been willing to take the risk -- and Chris and I and others do a lot of missionary work. More than half of all new MDUs are not FTTH even though fiber is CHEAPER in that case. > > We can generally show that fiber can work at about 8 premises per mile taking the service... even less if pole attachment rights are not held hostage. But we don't know how revenue will flow from driverless vehicles to network deployers yet, and Washington is not paying any attention. > > > > Steve Ross > Editor-at-Large, Broadband Communities Magazine (www.bbcmag.com) > 201-456-5933 mobile > 707-WOW-SSR3 (707-969-7773) Google Voice > editorsteve (Facebook, LinkedIn) > editorsteve1 (Twitter) > steve at bbcmag.com > editorsteve at gmail.com > > > On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 4:50 PM, Christopher Mitchell wrote: > Any place that has electricity, especially those served by co-ops could get fiber ultimately. It may take a well-designed grant program, but it can be done far more efficiently than any of the universal service programs in operation today. > > Google decided to focus on dominating AI and driverless cars and such rather than deployment. There is no evidence that they were losing money, rather anyone that understands how such businesses make decisions should be aware that while there are fiber models that are profitable, they may not offer the return that some in Google were expecting. That's fine. the small ISPs I see building fiber steadily year after year are profitable. They aren't going to buy NFL stadium sponsorships, but they are providing a service that is desperately desired and they are making a good return. Google will focus on dominating the future of AI and driverless cars and who knows what. They have a different calculus. > > The vast majority of North Dakota has FTTH. I believe it is the 4th most sparsely populated state in the union. But it is very easy to simply ignore the evidence and pretend that it just can't be done. We have documented where rural fiber is available, and it is far more than most realize. > https://muninetworks.org/content/rural-cooperatives-page > > > Christopher Mitchell > Director, Community Broadband Networks > Institute for Local Self-Reliance > > MuniNetworks.org > @communitynets > 612-545-5185 > > On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 7:36 AM, John Badal wrote: > Business case? Even the well heeled Google has rethought its FTTH plans in urban areas far more densely populated than NM?s rural areas. The sizzle got ahead of the steak. > > John > > From: Christopher Mitchell [mailto:christopher at ilsr.org] > Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2018 8:32 AM > To: John Badal > Cc: masha at bbcmag.com; Doug Orr ; rl at 1st-mile.org; 1st-Mile-NM <1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org> > > Subject: Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold > > The point of a gig is not to use all of it anymore than the point of a highway is to experiment with the maximum number of cars you can put on it. > > The point of a gig is abundance - sure 452 Mbps would probably do that too, but a gig resonates and is a standard. > > It would be difficult for me to use all of the electricity that can flow into my house - but we overprovision certain kinds of infrastructure when that can unlock additional value. > > And finally, if we assume that communities will still need high quality Internet access in 30 years, everyone I talk to that does both fiber and wireless says that while fiber is more expensive on the front end, the much lower operating and future upgrade costs ultimately make it MORE cost effective than wireless over a period of decades. > > There are many legitimate reasons for people in rural areas to "cry" for better connectivity even if they have the same number of gigabit applications as we do cars that are 5 lanes wide. > > Christopher Mitchell > Director, Community Broadband Networks > Institute for Local Self-Reliance > > MuniNetworks.org > @communitynets > 612-545-5185 > > On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 4:48 PM, John Badal wrote: > 5G has the same sexy appeal to the uniformed as fiber to the home. Rural communities are crying for both, afraid they?d fall deeper into the digital divide, but unaware that the vast majority of consumers could never use gigabit speeds outside of recreating in the home Star Trek-like virtual reality holodecks. What makes much more sense to me is for Albuquerque to build 20-lane highways and 10-lane boulevards throughout the city to eliminate any congestion during rush hours, along with robotic car removal systems to dispense with cars damaged in an accident. > > John > > From: 1st-mile-nm [mailto:1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org] On Behalf Of Masha Zager > Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 5:30 PM > To: 'Doug Orr' ; rl at 1st-mile.org > Cc: '1st-Mile-NM' <1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org> > > Subject: Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold > > It?s not. See this: http://www.bbcmag.com/2017mags/Mar_Apr/BBC_Mar17_5GNotAnswer.pdf > > > Masha Zager > Editor-in-Chief, Broadband Communities > masha at bbcmag.com > 518-943-0374 > www.bbcmag.com > www.twitter.com/bbcmag > > From: 1st-mile-nm [mailto:1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org] On Behalf Of Doug Orr > Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 7:16 PM > To: rl at 1st-mile.org > Cc: 1st-Mile-NM > Subject: Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold > > I'm unclear as to why 5g fixed is going to be cheaper to deploy than fiber. If the state charges $250/antenna... that buys a lot of hardwired installer time. And the antennas need backhaul, presumably, so lighting up a neighborhood in anticipation of new customer uptake... that seems a lot like upgrading infrastructure that would be needed if the idea is to offer faster aggregate speeds. > > What's the model here? > > Does anyone know of real world benchmarks for 5G applications (e.g., netflix)? > > Doug > > On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 1:47 PM Richard Lowenberg wrote: > Following on recent postings. RL > > ------- > > Commercial service is years away, but even then, 5G won?t fulfill all of > its promises > > https://spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/internet/5g-is-in-danger-of-being-oversold > > By Stacey Higginbotham > > Just like graphene or Elon Musk?s startups, 5G has become a technology > savior. Proponents tout the poorly defined wireless technology as the > path to virtual reality, telemedicine, and self-?driving cars. > > But 5G is not a technology?it?s a buzzword unleashed by marketing > departments. As early as 2012, Broadcom was using it to sell Wi-Fi. In > reality, 5G is a term that telecommunications investors and executives > sling around as the solution to high infrastructure costs, the need for > more bandwidth, and a desire to boost margins. > > The unifying component behind 5G is faster wireless broadband service. A > more stringent?and practical?definition is the use of high-frequency > millimeter waves (in addition to the microwaves that 4G LTE relies on > today) to deliver over-the-air broadband to phones or homes. > > If you?re talking about phones, 5G is still years away. And new services > aren?t really on the menu. Just listen to the heads of several > telecommunications companies, who have begun to tamp down investors? > expectations around what 5G can deliver. > > (snip) > > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director > 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 > Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, > rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org > --------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm > > _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm > > > > _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From doug.orr at gmail.com Sat Mar 3 19:01:29 2018 From: doug.orr at gmail.com (Doug Orr) Date: Sun, 04 Mar 2018 03:01:29 +0000 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold In-Reply-To: References: <1B3B161D-6D4D-4455-AA03-FE6FC2A2245F@breeckerassociates.com> <91f1aab07d08099b4651f3530b85710f@1st-mile.org> <011701d3b0f4$6f134900$4d39db00$@bbcmag.com> Message-ID: Sorry, if I contributed to that idea, Eve. I wasn't at all talking about rural communities. That's the driver overall for network usage, not something rural communities are looking for per se. (I can find you stats on broadband usage--ita mostly Netflix and YouTube, in the large...) On Sat, Mar 3, 2018, 7:12 PM Eva Artschwager wrote: > > I have to take issue with the characterization of rural communities as > using broadband primarily for entertainment and the toggled claim that, for > this reason, they do need high speed service. I would argue that ?mostly > entertainment? use develops because infrastructure deployment without > training is not an effective driver of beneficial uses (nor of adoption). > All the research and literature on digital inclusion supports this view > I?m not an expert on the details of the technologies, but in my work in > rural NM communities that access without skills (and affordability) isn?t > very effective for generating economic or intellectual applications. > > Deployment needs to be packaged with community engagement programs that > train people to utilize technology for improving education, employment, and > health opportunities. Without this, a larger market for better bandwidth is > not developed nor does the infrastructure create the larger economic > development that can bring greater growth for both providers and > communities (which will in turn require higher speeds). In deeply rural > regions, traditional options for training don?t exist. Yet residents are > still in need of job skills, students still need to complete homework > assignments, and community members still need to access healthcare and > services. > > I understand that initial returns on investment in rural communities are > low, but letting these communities fail creates other economic challenges > that can damage overall regional patterns of stability and growth. > > Eva > > > Eva Artschwager > > Broadband Outreach and > Digital Inclusion > 1-505-660-3434 > cirrus.ed.consulting at gmail.com > Sent from my iPhone > > On Mar 2, 2018, at 10:46 AM, Jane Coffin wrote: > > Hi All ? > > > > May I play devil?s advocate. I am not from NM (but love it there). I > come from a rural coastal town in Maine. Local uptake can often start out > with entertainment, and shift once the network is better and/or the > community realizes the value-add. Note that we see this all over the > world, and that entertainment content has been driving network > infrastructure development in many parts of Sub-Saharan Africa, South East > Asia, LAC, etc. I take your point on subsidization, but think there is a > good reason for public network infrastructure dev. Why not subsidize the > preliminary FTTH deployments with a long-range plan for community pay-back > or just see it as worthwhile socio-economic dev? We build and maintain > roads at the State and local level? > > 2/ With you. We helped a project in rural South Africa purchase a mast > (cost was $2,600.00). They were quoted a monthly rental of $2,600.00 on an > existing mast. With the mast purchase, they expanded coverage and were > able to shift to a hybrid not-for-profit/profit WISP. > > > > Best, > > Jane > > > > Internet Society | www.internetsociety.org > > Skype: janercoffin > > Mobile/WhatsApp: +1.202.247.8429 > > *From: *1st-mile-nm <1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org> on behalf of > John Badal > *Date: *Friday, March 2, 2018 at 12:33 PM > *To: *Steve Ross , Christopher Mitchell < > christopher at ilsr.org> > *Cc: *Richard Lowenberg , 1st-Mile-NM < > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org>, "masha at bbcmag.com" > *Subject: *Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold > > > > Steve & Christopher, > > > > This has been a good discussion. I agree that anyone daring or committed > enough to provide broadband in rural areas deserves praise. My primary > concern about FTTH in high cost areas is actually twofold: 1) the added > investment of new FTTH networks, especially using public grant money, is a > wasteful use of public funds in light of the fact that the vast majority of > bandwidth is being used for entertainment, not for academic or job > enhancing information. A business case for unsubsidized FTTH systems in > rural areas is hard to find. And 2) where the owner of the only utility > poles in town decides to provide broadband services in competition with > those that are attached to its poles, abuse of monopoly power is not only > possible, but is actually in practice. I would love to see more > partnerships ? private and public/private ? for the purpose of expanding > rural broadband. What we?ve experienced instead is an arrogant abuse of > power. > > > > John > > > > *From:* Steve Ross [mailto:editorsteve at gmail.com ] > *Sent:* Thursday, March 1, 2018 3:42 PM > *To:* Christopher Mitchell > *Cc:* John Badal ; 1st-Mile-NM < > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org>; rl at 1st-mile.org; masha at bbcmag.com > *Subject:* Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold > > > > BTW, one person's cross-subsidy is another's avoiding stranded costs. > Rural counties are losing on average more than 1/4% of their population a > year. A coop or tier3 LEC sees survival as a better alternative. I have > shown that a quarter to half of all rural job loss is due to lack of > broadband access. It is by far the BIGGEST source of rural job loss. > > > > I really have a lot of respect and admiration for any broadband deployers, > including the national carriers. But when they can't make a business case > for serving an area they should $%^&% get out of the way of others who > think they might be able to. Instead they buy politicians. > > > > > Steve Ross > Editor-at-Large, Broadband Communities Magazine (www.bbcmag.com) > 201-456-5933 mobile > 707-WOW-SSR3 (707-969-7773) Google Voice > editorsteve (Facebook, LinkedIn) > editorsteve1 (Twitter) > steve at bbcmag.com > editorsteve at gmail.com > > > > On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 5:34 PM, Steve Ross wrote: > > Chris is absolutely right, but making it happen is not as easy. Few > electric coops have been willing to take the risk -- and Chris and I and > others do a lot of missionary work. More than half of all new MDUs are not > FTTH even though fiber is CHEAPER in that case. > > > > We can generally show that fiber can work at about 8 premises per mile > taking the service... even less if pole attachment rights are not held > hostage. But we don't know how revenue will flow from driverless vehicles > to network deployers yet, and Washington is not paying any attention. > > > > > Steve Ross > Editor-at-Large, Broadband Communities Magazine (www.bbcmag.com) > 201-456-5933 <(201)%20456-5933> mobile > 707-WOW-SSR3 (707-969-7773 <(707)%20969-7773>) Google Voice > editorsteve (Facebook, LinkedIn) > editorsteve1 (Twitter) > steve at bbcmag.com > editorsteve at gmail.com > > > > On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 4:50 PM, Christopher Mitchell > wrote: > > Any place that has electricity, especially those served by co-ops could > get fiber ultimately. It may take a well-designed grant program, but it can > be done far more efficiently than any of the universal service programs in > operation today. > > > > Google decided to focus on dominating AI and driverless cars and such > rather than deployment. There is no evidence that they were losing money, > rather anyone that understands how such businesses make decisions should be > aware that while there are fiber models that are profitable, they may not > offer the return that some in Google were expecting. That's fine. the small > ISPs I see building fiber steadily year after year are profitable. They > aren't going to buy NFL stadium sponsorships, but they are providing a > service that is desperately desired and they are making a good return. > Google will focus on dominating the future of AI and driverless cars and > who knows what. They have a different calculus. > > > > The vast majority of North Dakota has FTTH. I believe it is the 4th most > sparsely populated state in the union. But it is very easy to simply ignore > the evidence and pretend that it just can't be done. We have documented > where rural fiber is available, and it is far more than most realize. > > https://muninetworks.org/content/rural-cooperatives-page > > > > > Christopher Mitchell > Director, Community Broadband Networks > Institute for Local Self-Reliance > > > MuniNetworks.org > > @communitynets > > 612-545-5185 <(612)%20545-5185> > > > > On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 7:36 AM, John Badal wrote: > > Business case? Even the well heeled Google has rethought its FTTH plans > in urban areas far more densely populated than NM?s rural areas. The > sizzle got ahead of the steak. > > > > John > > > > *From:* Christopher Mitchell [mailto:christopher at ilsr.org] > *Sent:* Thursday, March 1, 2018 8:32 AM > *To:* John Badal > *Cc:* masha at bbcmag.com; Doug Orr ; rl at 1st-mile.org; > 1st-Mile-NM <1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org> > > > *Subject:* Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold > > > > The point of a gig is not to use all of it anymore than the point of a > highway is to experiment with the maximum number of cars you can put on it. > > > > The point of a gig is abundance - sure 452 Mbps would probably do that > too, but a gig resonates and is a standard. > > > > It would be difficult for me to use all of the electricity that can flow > into my house - but we overprovision certain kinds of infrastructure when > that can unlock additional value. > > > > And finally, if we assume that communities will still need high quality > Internet access in 30 years, everyone I talk to that does both fiber and > wireless says that while fiber is more expensive on the front end, the much > lower operating and future upgrade costs ultimately make it MORE cost > effective than wireless over a period of decades. > > > > There are many legitimate reasons for people in rural areas to "cry" for > better connectivity even if they have the same number of gigabit > applications as we do cars that are 5 lanes wide. > > > Christopher Mitchell > Director, Community Broadband Networks > Institute for Local Self-Reliance > > > MuniNetworks.org > > @communitynets > > 612-545-5185 <(612)%20545-5185> > > > > On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 4:48 PM, John Badal > wrote: > > 5G has the same sexy appeal to the uniformed as fiber to the home. Rural > communities are crying for both, afraid they?d fall deeper into the digital > divide, but unaware that the vast majority of consumers could never use > gigabit speeds outside of recreating in the home Star Trek-like virtual > reality holodecks. What makes much more sense to me is for Albuquerque > to build 20-lane highways and 10-lane boulevards throughout the city to > eliminate any congestion during rush hours, along with robotic car removal > systems to dispense with cars damaged in an accident. > > > > John > > > > *From:* 1st-mile-nm [mailto:1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org] *On > Behalf Of *Masha Zager > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 28, 2018 5:30 PM > *To:* 'Doug Orr' ; rl at 1st-mile.org > *Cc:* '1st-Mile-NM' <1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org> > > > *Subject:* Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold > > > > It?s not. See this: > http://www.bbcmag.com/2017mags/Mar_Apr/BBC_Mar17_5GNotAnswer.pdf > > > > > > > *Masha Zager*Editor-in-Chief, Broadband Communities > masha at bbcmag.com > 518-943-0374 <(518)%20943-0374> > www.bbcmag.com > www.twitter.com/bbcmag > > > > *From:* 1st-mile-nm [mailto:1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org > <1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org>] *On Behalf Of *Doug Orr > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 28, 2018 7:16 PM > *To:* rl at 1st-mile.org > *Cc:* 1st-Mile-NM > *Subject:* Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold > > > > I'm unclear as to why 5g fixed is going to be cheaper to deploy than > fiber. If the state charges $250/antenna... that buys a lot of hardwired > installer time. And the antennas need backhaul, presumably, so lighting up > a neighborhood in anticipation of new customer uptake... that seems a lot > like upgrading infrastructure that would be needed if the idea is to offer > faster aggregate speeds. > > > > What's the model here? > > > > Does anyone know of real world benchmarks for 5G applications (e.g., > netflix)? > > > > Doug > > > > On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 1:47 PM Richard Lowenberg wrote: > > Following on recent postings. RL > > ------- > > Commercial service is years away, but even then, 5G won?t fulfill all of > its promises > > > https://spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/internet/5g-is-in-danger-of-being-oversold > > By Stacey Higginbotham > > Just like graphene or Elon Musk?s startups, 5G has become a technology > savior. Proponents tout the poorly defined wireless technology as the > path to virtual reality, telemedicine, and self-?driving cars. > > But 5G is not a technology?it?s a buzzword unleashed by marketing > departments. As early as 2012, Broadcom was using it to sell Wi-Fi. In > reality, 5G is a term that telecommunications investors and executives > sling around as the solution to high infrastructure costs, the need for > more bandwidth, and a desire to boost margins. > > The unifying component behind 5G is faster wireless broadband service. A > more stringent?and practical?definition is the use of high-frequency > millimeter waves (in addition to the microwaves that 4G LTE relies on > today) to deliver over-the-air broadband to phones or homes. > > If you?re talking about phones, 5G is still years away. And new services > aren?t really on the menu. Just listen to the heads of several > telecommunications companies, who have begun to tamp down investors? > expectations around what 5G can deliver. > > (snip) > > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director > 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 <(505)%20603-5200> > Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, > rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org > --------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm > > > _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm > > _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From david at breeckerassociates.com Sun Mar 4 11:42:42 2018 From: david at breeckerassociates.com (David Breecker [dba]) Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2018 12:42:42 -0700 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold In-Reply-To: References: <1B3B161D-6D4D-4455-AA03-FE6FC2A2245F@breeckerassociates.com> <91f1aab07d08099b4651f3530b85710f@1st-mile.org> <011701d3b0f4$6f134900$4d39db00$@bbcmag.com> Message-ID: <35BA443F-BD4C-4179-BFFA-9F2F967DEB4D@breeckerassociates.com> Thanks Eva; to your point, here?s another relevant finding from our work analyzing rural electrification in the emerging economies: A solid community input and engagement effort, at the very start of site evaluation and system design, is an absolute requirement for a successful project (we even authored a white paper on the subject as part of a DOE study of electrification in India: http://microgridsystemslab.com/2014/12/10/human-factors-report-available/ ) db > On Mar 3, 2018, at 7:12 PM, Eva Artschwager wrote: > > > I have to take issue with the characterization of rural communities as using broadband primarily for entertainment and the toggled claim that, for this reason, they do need high speed service. I would argue that ?mostly entertainment? use develops because infrastructure deployment without training is not an effective driver of beneficial uses (nor of adoption). All the research and literature on digital inclusion supports this view I?m not an expert on the details of the technologies, but in my work in rural NM communities that access without skills (and affordability) isn?t very effective for generating economic or intellectual applications. > > Deployment needs to be packaged with community engagement programs that train people to utilize technology for improving education, employment, and health opportunities. Without this, a larger market for better bandwidth is not developed nor does the infrastructure create the larger economic development that can bring greater growth for both providers and communities (which will in turn require higher speeds). In deeply rural regions, traditional options for training don?t exist. Yet residents are still in need of job skills, students still need to complete homework assignments, and community members still need to access healthcare and services. > > I understand that initial returns on investment in rural communities are low, but letting these communities fail creates other economic challenges that can damage overall regional patterns of stability and growth. > > Eva > > > Eva Artschwager > > Broadband Outreach and > Digital Inclusion > 1-505-660-3434 > cirrus.ed.consulting at gmail.com Sent from my iPhone > > On Mar 2, 2018, at 10:46 AM, Jane Coffin > wrote: > >> Hi All ? >> >> May I play devil?s advocate. I am not from NM (but love it there). I come from a rural coastal town in Maine. Local uptake can often start out with entertainment, and shift once the network is better and/or the community realizes the value-add. Note that we see this all over the world, and that entertainment content has been driving network infrastructure development in many parts of Sub-Saharan Africa, South East Asia, LAC, etc. I take your point on subsidization, but think there is a good reason for public network infrastructure dev. Why not subsidize the preliminary FTTH deployments with a long-range plan for community pay-back or just see it as worthwhile socio-economic dev? We build and maintain roads at the State and local level? >> 2/ With you. We helped a project in rural South Africa purchase a mast (cost was $2,600.00). They were quoted a monthly rental of $2,600.00 on an existing mast. With the mast purchase, they expanded coverage and were able to shift to a hybrid not-for-profit/profit WISP. >> >> Best, >> Jane >> >> Internet Society | www.internetsociety.org >> Skype: janercoffin >> Mobile/WhatsApp: +1.202.247.8429 >> From: 1st-mile-nm <1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org > on behalf of John Badal > >> Date: Friday, March 2, 2018 at 12:33 PM >> To: Steve Ross >, Christopher Mitchell > >> Cc: Richard Lowenberg >, 1st-Mile-NM <1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org >, "masha at bbcmag.com " > >> Subject: Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold >> >> Steve & Christopher, <> >> >> This has been a good discussion. I agree that anyone daring or committed enough to provide broadband in rural areas deserves praise. My primary concern about FTTH in high cost areas is actually twofold: 1) the added investment of new FTTH networks, especially using public grant money, is a wasteful use of public funds in light of the fact that the vast majority of bandwidth is being used for entertainment, not for academic or job enhancing information. A business case for unsubsidized FTTH systems in rural areas is hard to find. And 2) where the owner of the only utility poles in town decides to provide broadband services in competition with those that are attached to its poles, abuse of monopoly power is not only possible, but is actually in practice. I would love to see more partnerships ? private and public/private ? for the purpose of expanding rural broadband. What we?ve experienced instead is an arrogant abuse of power. >> >> John >> >> From: Steve Ross [mailto:editorsteve at gmail.com ] >> Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2018 3:42 PM >> To: Christopher Mitchell > >> Cc: John Badal >; 1st-Mile-NM <1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org >; rl at 1st-mile.org ; masha at bbcmag.com >> Subject: Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold >> >> BTW, one person's cross-subsidy is another's avoiding stranded costs. Rural counties are losing on average more than 1/4% of their population a year. A coop or tier3 LEC sees survival as a better alternative. I have shown that a quarter to half of all rural job loss is due to lack of broadband access. It is by far the BIGGEST source of rural job loss. >> >> I really have a lot of respect and admiration for any broadband deployers, including the national carriers. But when they can't make a business case for serving an area they should $%^&% get out of the way of others who think they might be able to. Instead they buy politicians. >> >> >> >> Steve Ross >> Editor-at-Large, Broadband Communities Magazine (www.bbcmag.com ) >> 201-456-5933 mobile >> 707-WOW-SSR3 (707-969-7773) Google Voice >> editorsteve (Facebook, LinkedIn) >> editorsteve1 (Twitter) >> steve at bbcmag.com >> editorsteve at gmail.com >> >> On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 5:34 PM, Steve Ross > wrote: >> Chris is absolutely right, but making it happen is not as easy. Few electric coops have been willing to take the risk -- and Chris and I and others do a lot of missionary work. More than half of all new MDUs are not FTTH even though fiber is CHEAPER in that case. >> >> We can generally show that fiber can work at about 8 premises per mile taking the service... even less if pole attachment rights are not held hostage. But we don't know how revenue will flow from driverless vehicles to network deployers yet, and Washington is not paying any attention. >> >> >> >> Steve Ross >> Editor-at-Large, Broadband Communities Magazine (www.bbcmag.com ) >> 201-456-5933 mobile >> 707-WOW-SSR3 (707-969-7773 ) Google Voice >> editorsteve (Facebook, LinkedIn) >> editorsteve1 (Twitter) >> steve at bbcmag.com >> editorsteve at gmail.com >> >> On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 4:50 PM, Christopher Mitchell > wrote: >> Any place that has electricity, especially those served by co-ops could get fiber ultimately. It may take a well-designed grant program, but it can be done far more efficiently than any of the universal service programs in operation today. >> >> Google decided to focus on dominating AI and driverless cars and such rather than deployment. There is no evidence that they were losing money, rather anyone that understands how such businesses make decisions should be aware that while there are fiber models that are profitable, they may not offer the return that some in Google were expecting. That's fine. the small ISPs I see building fiber steadily year after year are profitable. They aren't going to buy NFL stadium sponsorships, but they are providing a service that is desperately desired and they are making a good return. Google will focus on dominating the future of AI and driverless cars and who knows what. They have a different calculus. >> >> The vast majority of North Dakota has FTTH. I believe it is the 4th most sparsely populated state in the union. But it is very easy to simply ignore the evidence and pretend that it just can't be done. We have documented where rural fiber is available, and it is far more than most realize. >> https://muninetworks.org/content/rural-cooperatives-page >> >> >> Christopher Mitchell >> Director, Community Broadband Networks >> Institute for Local Self-Reliance >> >> MuniNetworks.org >> @communitynets >> 612-545-5185 >> >> On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 7:36 AM, John Badal > wrote: >> Business case? Even the well heeled Google has rethought its FTTH plans in urban areas far more densely populated than NM?s rural areas. The sizzle got ahead of the steak. >> >> John >> >> From: Christopher Mitchell [mailto:christopher at ilsr.org ] >> Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2018 8:32 AM >> To: John Badal > >> Cc: masha at bbcmag.com ; Doug Orr >; rl at 1st-mile.org ; 1st-Mile-NM <1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > >> >> Subject: Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold >> >> The point of a gig is not to use all of it anymore than the point of a highway is to experiment with the maximum number of cars you can put on it. >> >> The point of a gig is abundance - sure 452 Mbps would probably do that too, but a gig resonates and is a standard. >> >> It would be difficult for me to use all of the electricity that can flow into my house - but we overprovision certain kinds of infrastructure when that can unlock additional value. >> >> And finally, if we assume that communities will still need high quality Internet access in 30 years, everyone I talk to that does both fiber and wireless says that while fiber is more expensive on the front end, the much lower operating and future upgrade costs ultimately make it MORE cost effective than wireless over a period of decades. >> >> There are many legitimate reasons for people in rural areas to "cry" for better connectivity even if they have the same number of gigabit applications as we do cars that are 5 lanes wide. >> >> Christopher Mitchell >> Director, Community Broadband Networks >> Institute for Local Self-Reliance >> >> MuniNetworks.org >> @communitynets >> 612-545-5185 >> >> On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 4:48 PM, John Badal > wrote: >> 5G has the same sexy appeal to the uniformed as fiber to the home. Rural communities are crying for both, afraid they?d fall deeper into the digital divide, but unaware that the vast majority of consumers could never use gigabit speeds outside of recreating in the home Star Trek-like virtual reality holodecks. What makes much more sense to me is for Albuquerque to build 20-lane highways and 10-lane boulevards throughout the city to eliminate any congestion during rush hours, along with robotic car removal systems to dispense with cars damaged in an accident. >> >> John >> >> From: 1st-mile-nm [mailto:1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org ] On Behalf Of Masha Zager >> Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 5:30 PM >> To: 'Doug Orr' >; rl at 1st-mile.org >> Cc: '1st-Mile-NM' <1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > >> >> Subject: Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold >> >> It?s not. See this: http://www.bbcmag.com/2017mags/Mar_Apr/BBC_Mar17_5GNotAnswer.pdf >> >> >> Masha Zager >> Editor-in-Chief, Broadband Communities >> masha at bbcmag.com >> 518-943-0374 >> www.bbcmag.com >> www.twitter.com/bbcmag >> >> From: 1st-mile-nm [mailto:1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org ] On Behalf Of Doug Orr >> Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 7:16 PM >> To: rl at 1st-mile.org >> Cc: 1st-Mile-NM >> Subject: Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold >> >> I'm unclear as to why 5g fixed is going to be cheaper to deploy than fiber. If the state charges $250/antenna... that buys a lot of hardwired installer time. And the antennas need backhaul, presumably, so lighting up a neighborhood in anticipation of new customer uptake... that seems a lot like upgrading infrastructure that would be needed if the idea is to offer faster aggregate speeds. >> >> What's the model here? >> >> Does anyone know of real world benchmarks for 5G applications (e.g., netflix)? >> >> Doug >> >> On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 1:47 PM Richard Lowenberg > wrote: >> Following on recent postings. RL >> >> ------- >> >> Commercial service is years away, but even then, 5G won?t fulfill all of >> its promises >> >> https://spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/internet/5g-is-in-danger-of-being-oversold >> >> By Stacey Higginbotham >> >> Just like graphene or Elon Musk?s startups, 5G has become a technology >> savior. Proponents tout the poorly defined wireless technology as the >> path to virtual reality, telemedicine, and self-?driving cars. >> >> But 5G is not a technology?it?s a buzzword unleashed by marketing >> departments. As early as 2012, Broadcom was using it to sell Wi-Fi. In >> reality, 5G is a term that telecommunications investors and executives >> sling around as the solution to high infrastructure costs, the need for >> more bandwidth, and a desire to boost margins. >> >> The unifying component behind 5G is faster wireless broadband service. A >> more stringent?and practical?definition is the use of high-frequency >> millimeter waves (in addition to the microwaves that 4G LTE relies on >> today) to deliver over-the-air broadband to phones or homes. >> >> If you?re talking about phones, 5G is still years away. And new services >> aren?t really on the menu. Just listen to the heads of several >> telecommunications companies, who have begun to tamp down investors? >> expectations around what 5G can deliver. >> >> (snip) >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------- >> Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director >> 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 >> Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, >> rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org >> --------------------------------------------------------------- >> _______________________________________________ >> 1st-mile-nm mailing list >> 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org >> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 1st-mile-nm mailing list >> 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org >> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 1st-mile-nm mailing list >> 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org >> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 1st-mile-nm mailing list >> 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org >> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm > _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm David Breecker, President David Breecker Associates www.breeckerassociates.com Santa Fe Office: 505-690-2335 Abiquiu Office: 505-685-4891 Skype: dbreecker -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PastedGraphic-7.png Type: image/png Size: 7371 bytes Desc: not available URL: From editorsteve at gmail.com Sun Mar 4 12:33:22 2018 From: editorsteve at gmail.com (Steve Ross) Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2018 15:33:22 -0500 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold In-Reply-To: <35BA443F-BD4C-4179-BFFA-9F2F967DEB4D@breeckerassociates.com> References: <1B3B161D-6D4D-4455-AA03-FE6FC2A2245F@breeckerassociates.com> <91f1aab07d08099b4651f3530b85710f@1st-mile.org> <011701d3b0f4$6f134900$4d39db00$@bbcmag.com> <35BA443F-BD4C-4179-BFFA-9F2F967DEB4D@breeckerassociates.com> Message-ID: David is absolutely right, and the same goes for broadband. Some time and money spent on user education can increase the take rate and/or ARPU by 10%, doubling the margin! Detailed design work can cut capital requirements both in network layout and by careful phasing. Many communities and community consultants use our financial models -- they are free and we even provide an hour or two of free coaching. But as we emphasize in our workshops (the next one will be April 30 at our Summit in Austin) the models are a quick and cheap way to get your foot in the door and build community trust (the calculations, unlike the FCC model and data sets, are quite transparent). But if they suggest anything within 10-20, even 30% of breakeven, consultants can often find ways to bridge the gap on both the cost and the revenue sides. One issue with electric co-ops is that they like to treat all customers the same -- and may even be required to, by state law or their own bylaws. So they often avoid timing tricks such as temporary P2P wireless in some network segments. Steve Ross Editor-at-Large, Broadband Communities Magazine (www.bbcmag.com) 201-456-5933 mobile 707-WOW-SSR3 (707-969-7773) Google Voice editorsteve (Facebook, LinkedIn) editorsteve1 (Twitter) steve at bbcmag.com editorsteve at gmail.com On Sun, Mar 4, 2018 at 2:42 PM, David Breecker [dba] < david at breeckerassociates.com> wrote: > Thanks Eva; to your point, here?s another relevant finding from our work > analyzing rural electrification in the emerging economies: > > A solid community input and engagement effort, at the very *start* of > site evaluation and system design, is an absolute requirement for a > successful project (we even authored a white paper on the subject as part > of a DOE study of electrification in India: http:// > microgridsystemslab.com/2014/12/10/human-factors-report-available/) > db > > > > On Mar 3, 2018, at 7:12 PM, Eva Artschwager com> wrote: > > > I have to take issue with the characterization of rural communities as > using broadband primarily for entertainment and the toggled claim that, for > this reason, they do need high speed service. I would argue that ?mostly > entertainment? use develops because infrastructure deployment without > training is not an effective driver of beneficial uses (nor of adoption). > All the research and literature on digital inclusion supports this view > I?m not an expert on the details of the technologies, but in my work in > rural NM communities that access without skills (and affordability) isn?t > very effective for generating economic or intellectual applications. > > Deployment needs to be packaged with community engagement programs that > train people to utilize technology for improving education, employment, and > health opportunities. Without this, a larger market for better bandwidth is > not developed nor does the infrastructure create the larger economic > development that can bring greater growth for both providers and > communities (which will in turn require higher speeds). In deeply rural > regions, traditional options for training don?t exist. Yet residents are > still in need of job skills, students still need to complete homework > assignments, and community members still need to access healthcare and > services. > > I understand that initial returns on investment in rural communities are > low, but letting these communities fail creates other economic challenges > that can damage overall regional patterns of stability and growth. > > Eva > > > Eva Artschwager > > Broadband Outreach and > Digital Inclusion > 1-505-660-3434 <(505)%20660-3434> > cirrus.ed.consulting at gmail.com > Sent from my iPhone > > On Mar 2, 2018, at 10:46 AM, Jane Coffin wrote: > > Hi All ? > > May I play devil?s advocate. I am not from NM (but love it there). I > come from a rural coastal town in Maine. Local uptake can often start out > with entertainment, and shift once the network is better and/or the > community realizes the value-add. Note that we see this all over the > world, and that entertainment content has been driving network > infrastructure development in many parts of Sub-Saharan Africa, South East > Asia, LAC, etc. I take your point on subsidization, but think there is a > good reason for public network infrastructure dev. Why not subsidize the > preliminary FTTH deployments with a long-range plan for community pay-back > or just see it as worthwhile socio-economic dev? We build and maintain > roads at the State and local level? > 2/ With you. We helped a project in rural South Africa purchase a mast > (cost was $2,600.00). They were quoted a monthly rental of $2,600.00 on an > existing mast. With the mast purchase, they expanded coverage and were > able to shift to a hybrid not-for-profit/profit WISP. > > Best, > Jane > > Internet Society | www.internetsociety.org > Skype: janercoffin > Mobile/WhatsApp: +1.202.247.8429 <(202)%20247-8429> > *From: *1st-mile-nm <1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org> on behalf of > John Badal > *Date: *Friday, March 2, 2018 at 12:33 PM > *To: *Steve Ross , Christopher Mitchell < > christopher at ilsr.org> > *Cc: *Richard Lowenberg , 1st-Mile-NM < > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org>, "masha at bbcmag.com" > *Subject: *Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold > > Steve & Christopher, > > This has been a good discussion. I agree that anyone daring or committed > enough to provide broadband in rural areas deserves praise. My primary > concern about FTTH in high cost areas is actually twofold: 1) the added > investment of new FTTH networks, especially using public grant money, is a > wasteful use of public funds in light of the fact that the vast majority of > bandwidth is being used for entertainment, not for academic or job > enhancing information. A business case for unsubsidized FTTH systems in > rural areas is hard to find. And 2) where the owner of the only utility > poles in town decides to provide broadband services in competition with > those that are attached to its poles, abuse of monopoly power is not only > possible, but is actually in practice. I would love to see more > partnerships ? private and public/private ? for the purpose of expanding > rural broadband. What we?ve experienced instead is an arrogant abuse of > power. > > John > > *From:* Steve Ross [mailto:editorsteve at gmail.com ] > *Sent:* Thursday, March 1, 2018 3:42 PM > *To:* Christopher Mitchell > *Cc:* John Badal ; 1st-Mile-NM < > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org>; rl at 1st-mile.org; masha at bbcmag.com > *Subject:* Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold > > BTW, one person's cross-subsidy is another's avoiding stranded costs. > Rural counties are losing on average more than 1/4% of their population a > year. A coop or tier3 LEC sees survival as a better alternative. I have > shown that a quarter to half of all rural job loss is due to lack of > broadband access. It is by far the BIGGEST source of rural job loss. > > I really have a lot of respect and admiration for any broadband deployers, > including the national carriers. But when they can't make a business case > for serving an area they should $%^&% get out of the way of others who > think they might be able to. Instead they buy politicians. > > > > Steve Ross > Editor-at-Large, Broadband Communities Magazine (www.bbcmag.com) > 201-456-5933 <(201)%20456-5933> mobile > 707-WOW-SSR3 (707-969-7773 <(707)%20969-7773>) Google Voice > editorsteve (Facebook, LinkedIn) > editorsteve1 (Twitter) > steve at bbcmag.com > editorsteve at gmail.com > > On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 5:34 PM, Steve Ross wrote: > > Chris is absolutely right, but making it happen is not as easy. Few > electric coops have been willing to take the risk -- and Chris and I and > others do a lot of missionary work. More than half of all new MDUs are not > FTTH even though fiber is CHEAPER in that case. > > We can generally show that fiber can work at about 8 premises per mile > taking the service... even less if pole attachment rights are not held > hostage. But we don't know how revenue will flow from driverless vehicles > to network deployers yet, and Washington is not paying any attention. > > > > Steve Ross > Editor-at-Large, Broadband Communities Magazine (www.bbcmag.com) > 201-456-5933 <(201)%20456-5933> mobile > 707-WOW-SSR3 (707-969-7773 <(707)%20969-7773>) Google Voice > editorsteve (Facebook, LinkedIn) > editorsteve1 (Twitter) > steve at bbcmag.com > editorsteve at gmail.com > > On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 4:50 PM, Christopher Mitchell > wrote: > > Any place that has electricity, especially those served by co-ops could > get fiber ultimately. It may take a well-designed grant program, but it can > be done far more efficiently than any of the universal service programs in > operation today. > > Google decided to focus on dominating AI and driverless cars and such > rather than deployment. There is no evidence that they were losing money, > rather anyone that understands how such businesses make decisions should be > aware that while there are fiber models that are profitable, they may not > offer the return that some in Google were expecting. That's fine. the small > ISPs I see building fiber steadily year after year are profitable. They > aren't going to buy NFL stadium sponsorships, but they are providing a > service that is desperately desired and they are making a good return. > Google will focus on dominating the future of AI and driverless cars and > who knows what. They have a different calculus. > > The vast majority of North Dakota has FTTH. I believe it is the 4th most > sparsely populated state in the union. But it is very easy to simply ignore > the evidence and pretend that it just can't be done. We have documented > where rural fiber is available, and it is far more than most realize. > https://muninetworks.org/content/rural-cooperatives-page > > > Christopher Mitchell > Director, Community Broadband Networks > Institute for Local Self-Reliance > > MuniNetworks.org > @communitynets > 612-545-5185 <(612)%20545-5185> > > On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 7:36 AM, John Badal wrote: > > Business case? Even the well heeled Google has rethought its FTTH plans > in urban areas far more densely populated than NM?s rural areas. The > sizzle got ahead of the steak. > > John > > *From:* Christopher Mitchell [mailto:christopher at ilsr.org] > *Sent:* Thursday, March 1, 2018 8:32 AM > *To:* John Badal > *Cc:* masha at bbcmag.com; Doug Orr ; rl at 1st-mile.org; > 1st-Mile-NM <1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org> > > *Subject:* Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold > > The point of a gig is not to use all of it anymore than the point of a > highway is to experiment with the maximum number of cars you can put on it. > > The point of a gig is abundance - sure 452 Mbps would probably do that > too, but a gig resonates and is a standard. > > It would be difficult for me to use all of the electricity that can flow > into my house - but we overprovision certain kinds of infrastructure when > that can unlock additional value. > > And finally, if we assume that communities will still need high quality > Internet access in 30 years, everyone I talk to that does both fiber and > wireless says that while fiber is more expensive on the front end, the much > lower operating and future upgrade costs ultimately make it MORE cost > effective than wireless over a period of decades. > > There are many legitimate reasons for people in rural areas to "cry" for > better connectivity even if they have the same number of gigabit > applications as we do cars that are 5 lanes wide. > > Christopher Mitchell > Director, Community Broadband Networks > Institute for Local Self-Reliance > > MuniNetworks.org > @communitynets > 612-545-5185 <(612)%20545-5185> > > On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 4:48 PM, John Badal > wrote: > > 5G has the same sexy appeal to the uniformed as fiber to the home. Rural > communities are crying for both, afraid they?d fall deeper into the digital > divide, but unaware that the vast majority of consumers could never use > gigabit speeds outside of recreating in the home Star Trek-like virtual > reality holodecks. What makes much more sense to me is for Albuquerque > to build 20-lane highways and 10-lane boulevards throughout the city to > eliminate any congestion during rush hours, along with robotic car removal > systems to dispense with cars damaged in an accident. > > John > > *From:* 1st-mile-nm [mailto:1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org] *On > Behalf Of *Masha Zager > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 28, 2018 5:30 PM > *To:* 'Doug Orr' ; rl at 1st-mile.org > *Cc:* '1st-Mile-NM' <1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org> > > *Subject:* Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold > > It?s not. See this: http://www.bbcmag.com/2017mags/Mar_Apr/BBC_Mar17_ > 5GNotAnswer.pdf > > > > *Masha Zager*Editor-in-Chief, Broadband Communities > masha at bbcmag.com > 518-943-0374 <(518)%20943-0374> > www.bbcmag.com > www.twitter.com/bbcmag > > *From:* 1st-mile-nm [mailto:1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org > <1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org>] *On Behalf Of *Doug Orr > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 28, 2018 7:16 PM > *To:* rl at 1st-mile.org > *Cc:* 1st-Mile-NM > *Subject:* Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold > > I'm unclear as to why 5g fixed is going to be cheaper to deploy than > fiber. If the state charges $250/antenna... that buys a lot of hardwired > installer time. And the antennas need backhaul, presumably, so lighting up > a neighborhood in anticipation of new customer uptake... that seems a lot > like upgrading infrastructure that would be needed if the idea is to offer > faster aggregate speeds. > > What's the model here? > > Does anyone know of real world benchmarks for 5G applications (e.g., > netflix)? > > Doug > > On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 1:47 PM Richard Lowenberg wrote: > > Following on recent postings. RL > > ------- > > Commercial service is years away, but even then, 5G won?t fulfill all of > its promises > > https://spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/internet/5g-is-in- > danger-of-being-oversold > > By Stacey Higginbotham > > Just like graphene or Elon Musk?s startups, 5G has become a technology > savior. Proponents tout the poorly defined wireless technology as the > path to virtual reality, telemedicine, and self-?driving cars. > > But 5G is not a technology?it?s a buzzword unleashed by marketing > departments. As early as 2012, Broadcom was using it to sell Wi-Fi. In > reality, 5G is a term that telecommunications investors and executives > sling around as the solution to high infrastructure costs, the need for > more bandwidth, and a desire to boost margins. > > The unifying component behind 5G is faster wireless broadband service. A > more stringent?and practical?definition is the use of high-frequency > millimeter waves (in addition to the microwaves that 4G LTE relies on > today) to deliver over-the-air broadband to phones or homes. > > If you?re talking about phones, 5G is still years away. And new services > aren?t really on the menu. Just listen to the heads of several > telecommunications companies, who have begun to tamp down investors? > expectations around what 5G can deliver. > > (snip) > > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director > 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 <(505)%20603-5200> > Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, > rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org > --------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm > > > _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm > > _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm > > > David Breecker, > President > > > *David Breecker Associates* > *www.breeckerassociates.com * > > Santa Fe Office: 505-690-2335 <(505)%20690-2335> > Abiquiu Office: 505-685-4891 <(505)%20685-4891> > Skype: dbreecker > > > _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PastedGraphic-7.png Type: image/png Size: 7371 bytes Desc: not available URL: From cirrus.ed.consulting at gmail.com Sun Mar 4 16:54:01 2018 From: cirrus.ed.consulting at gmail.com (Eva Artschwager) Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2018 17:54:01 -0700 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold In-Reply-To: <35BA443F-BD4C-4179-BFFA-9F2F967DEB4D@breeckerassociates.com> References: <1B3B161D-6D4D-4455-AA03-FE6FC2A2245F@breeckerassociates.com> <91f1aab07d08099b4651f3530b85710f@1st-mile.org> <011701d3b0f4$6f134900$4d39db00$@bbcmag.com> <35BA443F-BD4C-4179-BFFA-9F2F967DEB4D@breeckerassociates.com> Message-ID: <0F480B00-C22B-48FA-B0CF-715AEE869AD6@gmail.com> I couldn?t agree more Thanks for the citation Eva Artschwager Broadband Outreach and Digital Inclusion 1-505-660-3434 cirrus.ed.consulting at gmail.com Sent from my iPhone > On Mar 4, 2018, at 12:42 PM, David Breecker [dba] wrote: > > Thanks Eva; to your point, here?s another relevant finding from our work analyzing rural electrification in the emerging economies: > > A solid community input and engagement effort, at the very start of site evaluation and system design, is an absolute requirement for a successful project (we even authored a white paper on the subject as part of a DOE study of electrification in India: http://microgridsystemslab.com/2014/12/10/human-factors-report-available/) > db > > > >> On Mar 3, 2018, at 7:12 PM, Eva Artschwager wrote: >> >> >> I have to take issue with the characterization of rural communities as using broadband primarily for entertainment and the toggled claim that, for this reason, they do need high speed service. I would argue that ?mostly entertainment? use develops because infrastructure deployment without training is not an effective driver of beneficial uses (nor of adoption). All the research and literature on digital inclusion supports this view I?m not an expert on the details of the technologies, but in my work in rural NM communities that access without skills (and affordability) isn?t very effective for generating economic or intellectual applications. >> >> Deployment needs to be packaged with community engagement programs that train people to utilize technology for improving education, employment, and health opportunities. Without this, a larger market for better bandwidth is not developed nor does the infrastructure create the larger economic development that can bring greater growth for both providers and communities (which will in turn require higher speeds). In deeply rural regions, traditional options for training don?t exist. Yet residents are still in need of job skills, students still need to complete homework assignments, and community members still need to access healthcare and services. >> >> I understand that initial returns on investment in rural communities are low, but letting these communities fail creates other economic challenges that can damage overall regional patterns of stability and growth. >> >> Eva >> >> >> Eva Artschwager >> >> Broadband Outreach and >> Digital Inclusion >> 1-505-660-3434 >> cirrus.ed.consulting at gmail.com >> Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On Mar 2, 2018, at 10:46 AM, Jane Coffin wrote: >>> >>> Hi All ? >>> >>> May I play devil?s advocate. I am not from NM (but love it there). I come from a rural coastal town in Maine. Local uptake can often start out with entertainment, and shift once the network is better and/or the community realizes the value-add. Note that we see this all over the world, and that entertainment content has been driving network infrastructure development in many parts of Sub-Saharan Africa, South East Asia, LAC, etc. I take your point on subsidization, but think there is a good reason for public network infrastructure dev. Why not subsidize the preliminary FTTH deployments with a long-range plan for community pay-back or just see it as worthwhile socio-economic dev? We build and maintain roads at the State and local level? >>> 2/ With you. We helped a project in rural South Africa purchase a mast (cost was $2,600.00). They were quoted a monthly rental of $2,600.00 on an existing mast. With the mast purchase, they expanded coverage and were able to shift to a hybrid not-for-profit/profit WISP. >>> >>> Best, >>> Jane >>> >>> Internet Society | www.internetsociety.org >>> Skype: janercoffin >>> Mobile/WhatsApp: +1.202.247.8429 >>> From: 1st-mile-nm <1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org> on behalf of John Badal >>> Date: Friday, March 2, 2018 at 12:33 PM >>> To: Steve Ross , Christopher Mitchell >>> Cc: Richard Lowenberg , 1st-Mile-NM <1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org>, "masha at bbcmag.com" >>> Subject: Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold >>> >>> Steve & Christopher, >>> >>> This has been a good discussion. I agree that anyone daring or committed enough to provide broadband in rural areas deserves praise. My primary concern about FTTH in high cost areas is actually twofold: 1) the added investment of new FTTH networks, especially using public grant money, is a wasteful use of public funds in light of the fact that the vast majority of bandwidth is being used for entertainment, not for academic or job enhancing information. A business case for unsubsidized FTTH systems in rural areas is hard to find. And 2) where the owner of the only utility poles in town decides to provide broadband services in competition with those that are attached to its poles, abuse of monopoly power is not only possible, but is actually in practice. I would love to see more partnerships ? private and public/private ? for the purpose of expanding rural broadband. What we?ve experienced instead is an arrogant abuse of power. >>> >>> John >>> >>> From: Steve Ross [mailto:editorsteve at gmail.com] >>> Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2018 3:42 PM >>> To: Christopher Mitchell >>> Cc: John Badal ; 1st-Mile-NM <1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org>; rl at 1st-mile.org; masha at bbcmag.com >>> Subject: Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold >>> >>> BTW, one person's cross-subsidy is another's avoiding stranded costs. Rural counties are losing on average more than 1/4% of their population a year. A coop or tier3 LEC sees survival as a better alternative. I have shown that a quarter to half of all rural job loss is due to lack of broadband access. It is by far the BIGGEST source of rural job loss. >>> >>> I really have a lot of respect and admiration for any broadband deployers, including the national carriers. But when they can't make a business case for serving an area they should $%^&% get out of the way of others who think they might be able to. Instead they buy politicians. >>> >>> >>> >>> Steve Ross >>> Editor-at-Large, Broadband Communities Magazine (www.bbcmag.com) >>> 201-456-5933 mobile >>> 707-WOW-SSR3 (707-969-7773) Google Voice >>> editorsteve (Facebook, LinkedIn) >>> editorsteve1 (Twitter) >>> steve at bbcmag.com >>> editorsteve at gmail.com >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 5:34 PM, Steve Ross wrote: >>> Chris is absolutely right, but making it happen is not as easy. Few electric coops have been willing to take the risk -- and Chris and I and others do a lot of missionary work. More than half of all new MDUs are not FTTH even though fiber is CHEAPER in that case. >>> >>> We can generally show that fiber can work at about 8 premises per mile taking the service... even less if pole attachment rights are not held hostage. But we don't know how revenue will flow from driverless vehicles to network deployers yet, and Washington is not paying any attention. >>> >>> >>> >>> Steve Ross >>> Editor-at-Large, Broadband Communities Magazine (www.bbcmag.com) >>> 201-456-5933 mobile >>> 707-WOW-SSR3 (707-969-7773) Google Voice >>> editorsteve (Facebook, LinkedIn) >>> editorsteve1 (Twitter) >>> steve at bbcmag.com >>> editorsteve at gmail.com >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 4:50 PM, Christopher Mitchell wrote: >>> Any place that has electricity, especially those served by co-ops could get fiber ultimately. It may take a well-designed grant program, but it can be done far more efficiently than any of the universal service programs in operation today. >>> >>> Google decided to focus on dominating AI and driverless cars and such rather than deployment. There is no evidence that they were losing money, rather anyone that understands how such businesses make decisions should be aware that while there are fiber models that are profitable, they may not offer the return that some in Google were expecting. That's fine. the small ISPs I see building fiber steadily year after year are profitable. They aren't going to buy NFL stadium sponsorships, but they are providing a service that is desperately desired and they are making a good return. Google will focus on dominating the future of AI and driverless cars and who knows what. They have a different calculus. >>> >>> The vast majority of North Dakota has FTTH. I believe it is the 4th most sparsely populated state in the union. But it is very easy to simply ignore the evidence and pretend that it just can't be done. We have documented where rural fiber is available, and it is far more than most realize. >>> https://muninetworks.org/content/rural-cooperatives-page >>> >>> >>> Christopher Mitchell >>> Director, Community Broadband Networks >>> Institute for Local Self-Reliance >>> >>> MuniNetworks.org >>> @communitynets >>> 612-545-5185 >>> >>> On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 7:36 AM, John Badal wrote: >>> Business case? Even the well heeled Google has rethought its FTTH plans in urban areas far more densely populated than NM?s rural areas. The sizzle got ahead of the steak. >>> >>> John >>> >>> From: Christopher Mitchell [mailto:christopher at ilsr.org] >>> Sent: Thursday, March 1, 2018 8:32 AM >>> To: John Badal >>> Cc: masha at bbcmag.com; Doug Orr ; rl at 1st-mile.org; 1st-Mile-NM <1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org> >>> >>> Subject: Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold >>> >>> The point of a gig is not to use all of it anymore than the point of a highway is to experiment with the maximum number of cars you can put on it. >>> >>> The point of a gig is abundance - sure 452 Mbps would probably do that too, but a gig resonates and is a standard. >>> >>> It would be difficult for me to use all of the electricity that can flow into my house - but we overprovision certain kinds of infrastructure when that can unlock additional value. >>> >>> And finally, if we assume that communities will still need high quality Internet access in 30 years, everyone I talk to that does both fiber and wireless says that while fiber is more expensive on the front end, the much lower operating and future upgrade costs ultimately make it MORE cost effective than wireless over a period of decades. >>> >>> There are many legitimate reasons for people in rural areas to "cry" for better connectivity even if they have the same number of gigabit applications as we do cars that are 5 lanes wide. >>> >>> Christopher Mitchell >>> Director, Community Broadband Networks >>> Institute for Local Self-Reliance >>> >>> MuniNetworks.org >>> @communitynets >>> 612-545-5185 >>> >>> On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 4:48 PM, John Badal wrote: >>> 5G has the same sexy appeal to the uniformed as fiber to the home. Rural communities are crying for both, afraid they?d fall deeper into the digital divide, but unaware that the vast majority of consumers could never use gigabit speeds outside of recreating in the home Star Trek-like virtual reality holodecks. What makes much more sense to me is for Albuquerque to build 20-lane highways and 10-lane boulevards throughout the city to eliminate any congestion during rush hours, along with robotic car removal systems to dispense with cars damaged in an accident. >>> >>> John >>> >>> From: 1st-mile-nm [mailto:1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org] On Behalf Of Masha Zager >>> Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 5:30 PM >>> To: 'Doug Orr' ; rl at 1st-mile.org >>> Cc: '1st-Mile-NM' <1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org> >>> >>> Subject: Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold >>> >>> It?s not. See this: http://www.bbcmag.com/2017mags/Mar_Apr/BBC_Mar17_5GNotAnswer.pdf >>> >>> >>> Masha Zager >>> Editor-in-Chief, Broadband Communities >>> masha at bbcmag.com >>> 518-943-0374 >>> www.bbcmag.com >>> www.twitter.com/bbcmag >>> >>> From: 1st-mile-nm [mailto:1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org] On Behalf Of Doug Orr >>> Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 7:16 PM >>> To: rl at 1st-mile.org >>> Cc: 1st-Mile-NM >>> Subject: Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold >>> >>> I'm unclear as to why 5g fixed is going to be cheaper to deploy than fiber. If the state charges $250/antenna... that buys a lot of hardwired installer time. And the antennas need backhaul, presumably, so lighting up a neighborhood in anticipation of new customer uptake... that seems a lot like upgrading infrastructure that would be needed if the idea is to offer faster aggregate speeds. >>> >>> What's the model here? >>> >>> Does anyone know of real world benchmarks for 5G applications (e.g., netflix)? >>> >>> Doug >>> >>> On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 1:47 PM Richard Lowenberg wrote: >>> Following on recent postings. RL >>> >>> ------- >>> >>> Commercial service is years away, but even then, 5G won?t fulfill all of >>> its promises >>> >>> https://spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/internet/5g-is-in-danger-of-being-oversold >>> >>> By Stacey Higginbotham >>> >>> Just like graphene or Elon Musk?s startups, 5G has become a technology >>> savior. Proponents tout the poorly defined wireless technology as the >>> path to virtual reality, telemedicine, and self-?driving cars. >>> >>> But 5G is not a technology?it?s a buzzword unleashed by marketing >>> departments. As early as 2012, Broadcom was using it to sell Wi-Fi. In >>> reality, 5G is a term that telecommunications investors and executives >>> sling around as the solution to high infrastructure costs, the need for >>> more bandwidth, and a desire to boost margins. >>> >>> The unifying component behind 5G is faster wireless broadband service. A >>> more stringent?and practical?definition is the use of high-frequency >>> millimeter waves (in addition to the microwaves that 4G LTE relies on >>> today) to deliver over-the-air broadband to phones or homes. >>> >>> If you?re talking about phones, 5G is still years away. And new services >>> aren?t really on the menu. Just listen to the heads of several >>> telecommunications companies, who have begun to tamp down investors? >>> expectations around what 5G can deliver. >>> >>> (snip) >>> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------- >>> Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director >>> 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 >>> Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, >>> rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org >>> --------------------------------------------------------------- >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 1st-mile-nm mailing list >>> 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org >>> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 1st-mile-nm mailing list >>> 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org >>> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 1st-mile-nm mailing list >>> 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org >>> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 1st-mile-nm mailing list >>> 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org >>> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm >> _______________________________________________ >> 1st-mile-nm mailing list >> 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org >> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm > > David Breecker, > President > > > > David Breecker Associates > www.breeckerassociates.com > > Santa Fe Office: 505-690-2335 > Abiquiu Office: 505-685-4891 > Skype: dbreecker > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PastedGraphic-7.png Type: image/png Size: 7371 bytes Desc: not available URL: From doug.orr at gmail.com Mon Mar 5 10:56:16 2018 From: doug.orr at gmail.com (Doug Orr) Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2018 18:56:16 +0000 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold In-Reply-To: <0F480B00-C22B-48FA-B0CF-715AEE869AD6@gmail.com> References: <1B3B161D-6D4D-4455-AA03-FE6FC2A2245F@breeckerassociates.com> <91f1aab07d08099b4651f3530b85710f@1st-mile.org> <011701d3b0f4$6f134900$4d39db00$@bbcmag.com> <35BA443F-BD4C-4179-BFFA-9F2F967DEB4D@breeckerassociates.com> <0F480B00-C22B-48FA-B0CF-715AEE869AD6@gmail.com> Message-ID: Sorry to further continue this thread, but here's a pretty interesting, comprehensive article on GF: https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/zmwkdx/eight-years-later-google-fiber-is-a-faint-echo-of-the-disruption-we-were-promised Cites the microtrenching, trouble with poles, a glancing reference to triple play, and general headwinds problems. And, credits it for having changed the conversation... Doug On Sun, Mar 4, 2018 at 5:54 PM Eva Artschwager < cirrus.ed.consulting at gmail.com> wrote: > > I couldn?t agree more > Thanks for the citation > > > > Eva Artschwager > > Broadband Outreach and > Digital Inclusion > 1-505-660-3434 <(505)%20660-3434> > cirrus.ed.consulting at gmail.com > Sent from my iPhone > > On Mar 4, 2018, at 12:42 PM, David Breecker [dba] < > david at breeckerassociates.com> wrote: > > Thanks Eva; to your point, here?s another relevant finding from our work > analyzing rural electrification in the emerging economies: > > A solid community input and engagement effort, at the very *start* of > site evaluation and system design, is an absolute requirement for a > successful project (we even authored a white paper on the subject as part > of a DOE study of electrification in India: > http://microgridsystemslab.com/2014/12/10/human-factors-report-available/) > db > > > > On Mar 3, 2018, at 7:12 PM, Eva Artschwager < > cirrus.ed.consulting at gmail.com> wrote: > > > I have to take issue with the characterization of rural communities as > using broadband primarily for entertainment and the toggled claim that, for > this reason, they do need high speed service. I would argue that ?mostly > entertainment? use develops because infrastructure deployment without > training is not an effective driver of beneficial uses (nor of adoption). > All the research and literature on digital inclusion supports this view > I?m not an expert on the details of the technologies, but in my work in > rural NM communities that access without skills (and affordability) isn?t > very effective for generating economic or intellectual applications. > > Deployment needs to be packaged with community engagement programs that > train people to utilize technology for improving education, employment, and > health opportunities. Without this, a larger market for better bandwidth is > not developed nor does the infrastructure create the larger economic > development that can bring greater growth for both providers and > communities (which will in turn require higher speeds). In deeply rural > regions, traditional options for training don?t exist. Yet residents are > still in need of job skills, students still need to complete homework > assignments, and community members still need to access healthcare and > services. > > I understand that initial returns on investment in rural communities are > low, but letting these communities fail creates other economic challenges > that can damage overall regional patterns of stability and growth. > > Eva > > > Eva Artschwager > > Broadband Outreach and > Digital Inclusion > 1-505-660-3434 <(505)%20660-3434> > cirrus.ed.consulting at gmail.com > Sent from my iPhone > > On Mar 2, 2018, at 10:46 AM, Jane Coffin wrote: > > Hi All ? > > May I play devil?s advocate. I am not from NM (but love it there). I > come from a rural coastal town in Maine. Local uptake can often start out > with entertainment, and shift once the network is better and/or the > community realizes the value-add. Note that we see this all over the > world, and that entertainment content has been driving network > infrastructure development in many parts of Sub-Saharan Africa, South East > Asia, LAC, etc. I take your point on subsidization, but think there is a > good reason for public network infrastructure dev. Why not subsidize the > preliminary FTTH deployments with a long-range plan for community pay-back > or just see it as worthwhile socio-economic dev? We build and maintain > roads at the State and local level? > 2/ With you. We helped a project in rural South Africa purchase a mast > (cost was $2,600.00). They were quoted a monthly rental of $2,600.00 on an > existing mast. With the mast purchase, they expanded coverage and were > able to shift to a hybrid not-for-profit/profit WISP. > > Best, > Jane > > Internet Society | www.internetsociety.org > Skype: janercoffin > Mobile/WhatsApp: +1.202.247.8429 <(202)%20247-8429> > *From: *1st-mile-nm <1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org> on behalf of > John Badal > *Date: *Friday, March 2, 2018 at 12:33 PM > *To: *Steve Ross , Christopher Mitchell < > christopher at ilsr.org> > *Cc: *Richard Lowenberg , 1st-Mile-NM < > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org>, "masha at bbcmag.com" > *Subject: *Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold > > Steve & Christopher, > > This has been a good discussion. I agree that anyone daring or committed > enough to provide broadband in rural areas deserves praise. My primary > concern about FTTH in high cost areas is actually twofold: 1) the added > investment of new FTTH networks, especially using public grant money, is a > wasteful use of public funds in light of the fact that the vast majority of > bandwidth is being used for entertainment, not for academic or job > enhancing information. A business case for unsubsidized FTTH systems in > rural areas is hard to find. And 2) where the owner of the only utility > poles in town decides to provide broadband services in competition with > those that are attached to its poles, abuse of monopoly power is not only > possible, but is actually in practice. I would love to see more > partnerships ? private and public/private ? for the purpose of expanding > rural broadband. What we?ve experienced instead is an arrogant abuse of > power. > > John > > *From:* Steve Ross [mailto:editorsteve at gmail.com ] > *Sent:* Thursday, March 1, 2018 3:42 PM > *To:* Christopher Mitchell > *Cc:* John Badal ; 1st-Mile-NM < > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org>; rl at 1st-mile.org; masha at bbcmag.com > *Subject:* Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold > > BTW, one person's cross-subsidy is another's avoiding stranded costs. > Rural counties are losing on average more than 1/4% of their population a > year. A coop or tier3 LEC sees survival as a better alternative. I have > shown that a quarter to half of all rural job loss is due to lack of > broadband access. It is by far the BIGGEST source of rural job loss. > > I really have a lot of respect and admiration for any broadband deployers, > including the national carriers. But when they can't make a business case > for serving an area they should $%^&% get out of the way of others who > think they might be able to. Instead they buy politicians. > > > > Steve Ross > Editor-at-Large, Broadband Communities Magazine (www.bbcmag.com) > 201-456-5933 <(201)%20456-5933> mobile > 707-WOW-SSR3 (707-969-7773 <(707)%20969-7773>) Google Voice > editorsteve (Facebook, LinkedIn) > editorsteve1 (Twitter) > steve at bbcmag.com > editorsteve at gmail.com > > On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 5:34 PM, Steve Ross wrote: > > Chris is absolutely right, but making it happen is not as easy. Few > electric coops have been willing to take the risk -- and Chris and I and > others do a lot of missionary work. More than half of all new MDUs are not > FTTH even though fiber is CHEAPER in that case. > > We can generally show that fiber can work at about 8 premises per mile > taking the service... even less if pole attachment rights are not held > hostage. But we don't know how revenue will flow from driverless vehicles > to network deployers yet, and Washington is not paying any attention. > > > > Steve Ross > Editor-at-Large, Broadband Communities Magazine (www.bbcmag.com) > 201-456-5933 <(201)%20456-5933> mobile > 707-WOW-SSR3 (707-969-7773 <(707)%20969-7773>) Google Voice > editorsteve (Facebook, LinkedIn) > editorsteve1 (Twitter) > steve at bbcmag.com > editorsteve at gmail.com > > On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 4:50 PM, Christopher Mitchell > wrote: > > Any place that has electricity, especially those served by co-ops could > get fiber ultimately. It may take a well-designed grant program, but it can > be done far more efficiently than any of the universal service programs in > operation today. > > Google decided to focus on dominating AI and driverless cars and such > rather than deployment. There is no evidence that they were losing money, > rather anyone that understands how such businesses make decisions should be > aware that while there are fiber models that are profitable, they may not > offer the return that some in Google were expecting. That's fine. the small > ISPs I see building fiber steadily year after year are profitable. They > aren't going to buy NFL stadium sponsorships, but they are providing a > service that is desperately desired and they are making a good return. > Google will focus on dominating the future of AI and driverless cars and > who knows what. They have a different calculus. > > The vast majority of North Dakota has FTTH. I believe it is the 4th most > sparsely populated state in the union. But it is very easy to simply ignore > the evidence and pretend that it just can't be done. We have documented > where rural fiber is available, and it is far more than most realize. > https://muninetworks.org/content/rural-cooperatives-page > > > Christopher Mitchell > Director, Community Broadband Networks > Institute for Local Self-Reliance > > MuniNetworks.org > @communitynets > 612-545-5185 <(612)%20545-5185> > > On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 7:36 AM, John Badal wrote: > > Business case? Even the well heeled Google has rethought its FTTH plans > in urban areas far more densely populated than NM?s rural areas. The > sizzle got ahead of the steak. > > John > > *From:* Christopher Mitchell [mailto:christopher at ilsr.org] > *Sent:* Thursday, March 1, 2018 8:32 AM > *To:* John Badal > *Cc:* masha at bbcmag.com; Doug Orr ; rl at 1st-mile.org; > 1st-Mile-NM <1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org> > > *Subject:* Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold > > The point of a gig is not to use all of it anymore than the point of a > highway is to experiment with the maximum number of cars you can put on it. > > The point of a gig is abundance - sure 452 Mbps would probably do that > too, but a gig resonates and is a standard. > > It would be difficult for me to use all of the electricity that can flow > into my house - but we overprovision certain kinds of infrastructure when > that can unlock additional value. > > And finally, if we assume that communities will still need high quality > Internet access in 30 years, everyone I talk to that does both fiber and > wireless says that while fiber is more expensive on the front end, the much > lower operating and future upgrade costs ultimately make it MORE cost > effective than wireless over a period of decades. > > There are many legitimate reasons for people in rural areas to "cry" for > better connectivity even if they have the same number of gigabit > applications as we do cars that are 5 lanes wide. > > Christopher Mitchell > Director, Community Broadband Networks > Institute for Local Self-Reliance > > MuniNetworks.org > @communitynets > 612-545-5185 <(612)%20545-5185> > > On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 4:48 PM, John Badal > wrote: > > 5G has the same sexy appeal to the uniformed as fiber to the home. Rural > communities are crying for both, afraid they?d fall deeper into the digital > divide, but unaware that the vast majority of consumers could never use > gigabit speeds outside of recreating in the home Star Trek-like virtual > reality holodecks. What makes much more sense to me is for Albuquerque > to build 20-lane highways and 10-lane boulevards throughout the city to > eliminate any congestion during rush hours, along with robotic car removal > systems to dispense with cars damaged in an accident. > > John > > *From:* 1st-mile-nm [mailto:1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org] *On > Behalf Of *Masha Zager > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 28, 2018 5:30 PM > *To:* 'Doug Orr' ; rl at 1st-mile.org > *Cc:* '1st-Mile-NM' <1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org> > > *Subject:* Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold > > It?s not. See this: > http://www.bbcmag.com/2017mags/Mar_Apr/BBC_Mar17_5GNotAnswer.pdf > > > > *Masha Zager*Editor-in-Chief, Broadband Communities > masha at bbcmag.com > 518-943-0374 <(518)%20943-0374> > www.bbcmag.com > www.twitter.com/bbcmag > > *From:* 1st-mile-nm [mailto:1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org > <1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org>] *On Behalf Of *Doug Orr > *Sent:* Wednesday, February 28, 2018 7:16 PM > *To:* rl at 1st-mile.org > *Cc:* 1st-Mile-NM > *Subject:* Re: [1st-mile-nm] IEEE: 5G is in Danger of Being Oversold > > I'm unclear as to why 5g fixed is going to be cheaper to deploy than > fiber. If the state charges $250/antenna... that buys a lot of hardwired > installer time. And the antennas need backhaul, presumably, so lighting up > a neighborhood in anticipation of new customer uptake... that seems a lot > like upgrading infrastructure that would be needed if the idea is to offer > faster aggregate speeds. > > What's the model here? > > Does anyone know of real world benchmarks for 5G applications (e.g., > netflix)? > > Doug > > On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 1:47 PM Richard Lowenberg wrote: > > Following on recent postings. RL > > ------- > > Commercial service is years away, but even then, 5G won?t fulfill all of > its promises > > > https://spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/internet/5g-is-in-danger-of-being-oversold > > By Stacey Higginbotham > > Just like graphene or Elon Musk?s startups, 5G has become a technology > savior. Proponents tout the poorly defined wireless technology as the > path to virtual reality, telemedicine, and self-?driving cars. > > But 5G is not a technology?it?s a buzzword unleashed by marketing > departments. As early as 2012, Broadcom was using it to sell Wi-Fi. In > reality, 5G is a term that telecommunications investors and executives > sling around as the solution to high infrastructure costs, the need for > more bandwidth, and a desire to boost margins. > > The unifying component behind 5G is faster wireless broadband service. A > more stringent?and practical?definition is the use of high-frequency > millimeter waves (in addition to the microwaves that 4G LTE relies on > today) to deliver over-the-air broadband to phones or homes. > > If you?re talking about phones, 5G is still years away. And new services > aren?t really on the menu. Just listen to the heads of several > telecommunications companies, who have begun to tamp down investors? > expectations around what 5G can deliver. > > (snip) > > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director > 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 <(505)%20603-5200> > Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, > rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org > --------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm > > > _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm > > _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm > > > David Breecker, > President > > > *David Breecker Associates* > *www.breeckerassociates.com * > > Santa Fe Office: 505-690-2335 <(505)%20690-2335> > Abiquiu Office: 505-685-4891 <(505)%20685-4891> > Skype: dbreecker > > _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PastedGraphic-7.png Type: image/png Size: 7371 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PastedGraphic-7.png Type: image/png Size: 7371 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rl at 1st-mile.org Tue Mar 6 12:08:13 2018 From: rl at 1st-mile.org (Richard Lowenberg) Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2018 13:08:13 -0700 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] 5G - NYTimes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Last week's lively exchanges here were a bit too much for some subscribers. However, to add to the 5G discussions, here's an article in the NY Times, that poses some of the state and local issues and concerns, which we here will have to deal with also. RL https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/02/technology/5g-cellular-service.html --------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org --------------------------------------------------------------- From mimcom at sw-ei.com Tue Mar 6 12:46:23 2018 From: mimcom at sw-ei.com (Mimbres Communications) Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 13:46:23 -0700 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] 5G - NYTimes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: https://www.publicintegrity.org/2018/03/02/21475/5g-wireless-pits-cities-against-telecoms-and-their-friends-fcc is also worth a read. On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 1:08 PM, Richard Lowenberg wrote: > Last week's lively exchanges here were a bit too much for some > subscribers. However, to add to the 5G discussions, here's an > article in the NY Times, that poses some of the state and local > issues and concerns, which we here will have to deal with also. > RL > > https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/02/technology/5g-cellular-service.html > > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director > 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 > Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, > rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org > --------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm > -- Kurt Albershardt | Mimbres Communications, LLC | 575-342-0042 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From doug.orr at gmail.com Tue Mar 6 12:57:00 2018 From: doug.orr at gmail.com (Doug Orr) Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2018 20:57:00 +0000 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] 5G - NYTimes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: [Limiting myself to one comment :] AIUI, by sheerest coincidence our state legislature is planning to charge $250/pole. I'm all in favor of the city/state not making money on broadband, fwiw, if we're serious about expanding its availability. That said, there's got to be a backhaul network, so there's still fiber network(s) being laid to make this work. Comcast installers (according to Glassdoor) make $18/hr so I don't see how you're changing the economics of last 100' delivery. But, I guess, claiming you're improving local broadband can justify wiring up tons of antennas that can later be used for mobile? Last curmudgeon thought -- part of going mobile is moving processing "to the edge". Those antennas are ugly and they may not be the end of what's needed in your neighborhood for mobile to actually work. Oh Agit, we're going to need a microscope to find your good points. Doug On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 1:08 PM Richard Lowenberg wrote: > Last week's lively exchanges here were a bit too much for some > subscribers. However, to add to the 5G discussions, here's an > article in the NY Times, that poses some of the state and local > issues and concerns, which we here will have to deal with also. > RL > > https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/02/technology/5g-cellular-service.html > > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director > 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 <(505)%20603-5200> > Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, > rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org > --------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rl at 1st-mile.org Thu Mar 8 10:00:42 2018 From: rl at 1st-mile.org (Richard Lowenberg) Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2018 11:00:42 -0700 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] EducationSuperHighway: E-rate delays and denials Message-ID: http://delaysanddenials.org A federal program intended to help school districts attain better access to the internet is under fire. Advocates for connectivity say the Federal Communications Commission is leaving many rural districts in limbo with long delays and denials. Most of the concerns surround applications for federal aid to connect rural schools to fiber optic networks through the E-rate program. ?Red tape and bureaucracy? are causing huge delays in getting their projects reviewed,? said Evan Marwell, CEO of EducationSuperHighway, a nonprofit that has long advocated for school connectivity. The group estimates it takes an average of nine months to get a decision on a fiber project. He said that the contractor in charge of reviewing applications and FCC administrators ?are so concerned, so focused on waste, fraud and abuse, and making sure a dollar doesn?t get spent the wrong way, that they are losing sight of the real goal, which is to get kids connected. They?re making it really hard.? EducationSuperHighway launched a website to track delays and denials, hoping to put pressure on the FCC. According to the site, 38 fiber optics projects in 17 states have been awaiting decisions since last year. In addition, the group says 61 projects in 28 states have been ?unfairly denied.? (snip) A number of NM school districts are among the delayed and denied, noted on the web site. See also: https://morningconsult.com/opinions/closing-school-broadband-gap --------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org --------------------------------------------------------------- From rl at 1st-mile.org Thu Mar 8 12:51:05 2018 From: rl at 1st-mile.org (Richard Lowenberg) Date: Thu, 08 Mar 2018 13:51:05 -0700 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] EducationSuperHighway: E-rate delays and denials In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <87921278cfe8b10d7dca72ba6df98bd7@1st-mile.org> As a short follow-up to my prior posting re: EducationSuperHighway's web site noting E-rate delays and denials, here is their listing of NM schools. The details and reasons are not available, so any clarification from involved subscribers is appreciated. Nationally, 61 fiber projects have been unfairly denied. New Mexico: ? Bernalillo Public Schools ? Central Consolidated School District 22 ? Farmington Municipal School District 5 Nationally, 38 fiber projects are still waiting on decisions from last year. New Mexico: ? Dulce School District ? Socorro Consolidated School District RL On 2018-03-08 11:00, Richard Lowenberg wrote: > http://delaysanddenials.org > > A federal program intended to help school districts attain better > access to the internet is under fire. Advocates for connectivity say > the Federal Communications Commission is leaving many rural districts > in limbo with long delays and denials. Most of the concerns surround > applications for federal aid to connect rural schools to fiber optic > networks through the E-rate program. ?Red tape and bureaucracy? are > causing huge delays in getting their projects reviewed,? said Evan > Marwell, CEO of EducationSuperHighway, a nonprofit that has long > advocated for school connectivity. The group estimates it takes an > average of nine months to get a decision on a fiber project. He said > that the contractor in charge of reviewing applications and FCC > administrators ?are so concerned, so focused on waste, fraud and > abuse, and making sure a dollar doesn?t get spent the wrong way, that > they are losing sight of the real goal, which is to get kids > connected. They?re making it really hard.? EducationSuperHighway > launched a website to track delays and denials, hoping to put pressure > on the FCC. According to the site, 38 fiber optics projects in 17 > states have been awaiting decisions since last year. In addition, the > group says 61 projects in 28 states have been ?unfairly denied.? > (snip) > > A number of NM school districts are among the delayed and denied, > noted on the web site. > > See also: > https://morningconsult.com/opinions/closing-school-broadband-gap > --------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org --------------------------------------------------------------- From david at breeckerassociates.com Sat Mar 10 08:51:45 2018 From: david at breeckerassociates.com (David Breecker [dba]) Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2018 09:51:45 -0700 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] FCC broadband data map Message-ID: <2CC139D2-D12A-436E-9332-E07DE510E7EF@breeckerassociates.com> Have folks seen this? I just heard about it: Interactive map highlights presence, limitations of broadband access March 08, 2018 A new map of broadband access based on Federal Communications Commission (FCC) data offers a granular look at the internet options available to Americans. Based on data submitted by internet service providers through FCC?s Form 477, the map provides insight on the types and speeds of internet access available on a block-by-block basis across the country. Notably, the maps do not include information on the cost of internet service. https://broadbandmap.fcc.gov/#/ David Breecker, President David Breecker Associates www.breeckerassociates.com Santa Fe Office: 505-690-2335 Abiquiu Office: 505-685-4891 Skype: dbreecker -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PastedGraphic-7.png Type: image/png Size: 7371 bytes Desc: not available URL: From mimcom at sw-ei.com Sat Mar 10 09:11:59 2018 From: mimcom at sw-ei.com (Mimbres Communications) Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2018 10:11:59 -0700 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] FCC broadband data map In-Reply-To: <2CC139D2-D12A-436E-9332-E07DE510E7EF@breeckerassociates.com> References: <2CC139D2-D12A-436E-9332-E07DE510E7EF@breeckerassociates.com> Message-ID: It made the rounds a few weeks ago. Riddled with glaring inaccuracies in our area. On Sat, Mar 10, 2018 at 9:51 AM, David Breecker [dba] < david at breeckerassociates.com> wrote: > Have folks seen this? I just heard about it: > > Interactive map highlights presence, limitations of broadband access > March 08, 2018 > > - > - > - > - > > A new map of broadband access based on > Federal Communications Commission (FCC) data offers a granular look at the > internet options available to Americans. Based on data submitted by > internet service providers through FCC?s Form 477, the map provides insight > on the types and speeds of internet access available on a block-by-block > basis across the country. Notably, the maps do not include information on > the cost of internet service. > https://broadbandmap.fcc.gov/#/ > > > David Breecker, > President > > > *David Breecker Associates* > *www.breeckerassociates.com * > > Santa Fe Office: 505-690-2335 <(505)%20690-2335> > Abiquiu Office: 505-685-4891 <(505)%20685-4891> > Skype: dbreecker > > > _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm > > -- Kurt Albershardt | Mimbres Communications, LLC | 575-342-0042 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PastedGraphic-7.png Type: image/png Size: 7371 bytes Desc: not available URL: From doug.orr at gmail.com Thu Mar 15 12:59:00 2018 From: doug.orr at gmail.com (Doug Orr) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 19:59:00 +0000 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] broadband economics Message-ID: I stumbled across this recently: Essays in Broadband Economics was the dissertation of Sarah Oh at GMU. I haven't been able to find a link to the actual dissertation, but here's the abstract , which looks interesting. Ms. Oh is now at the Technological Policy Institute and has produced a variety of interesting posts include this one on rural broadband and universal service. And related is a presentation on bandwidth and latency, as related to willingness by consumers to pay. I'm sure you-all know more about this than I do. Hopefully it's interesting. Doug -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From editorsteve at gmail.com Thu Mar 15 15:44:49 2018 From: editorsteve at gmail.com (Steve Ross) Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2018 22:44:49 +0000 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] broadband economics In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks. When Sarah was doing the thesis she got some stuff from us, and I saw the orals last summer. This reminds me to get the whole thesis. It was due to be accessible right about now. Deliberately, she did not get into community economic impacts. Usf doesn't actually consider them directly. So it is not an answer to the issue of rural job loss and population loss stranding rural assets. You help people, not communities. Subsidies don't work if you have no access. Satellite access is really an emergency thing, and not cheap. She was really looking at whether bidders were lowballing estimated costs to get grants or loans, or highballing to inflate what they applied for. She didn't find any of that. We noted that the cost estimates had to roughly conform to the FCC models when it came to grants, and while there is a separate rural cost series (FCC buys them from Costquest ) it is necessarily pretty generic. When it comes to RUS loans, the loan officers are much more precise in their own calculations. Yes, government hands out grants in a more sloppy way than it hands out loans! Go figure. She did not want to get into the issue of rural communities just wanting to survive vs wall street trying to efficiently allocate capital . Wall Street cannot get into community issues and communities should not be forced to think about competitive returns when, on average, a quarter to half of all rural population loss is due to lack of broadband access. The panel discussion was funny. She's a "here is what we think we know from the numbers" gal. The other panelists just hate spending any money to help the poor, or to help increase incomes. The idea that a Tennessee congresswoman would block rural financial aid for broadband is just evil and beyond dumb. -- Steve Ross On Thu, Mar 15, 2018, 3:59 PM Doug Orr wrote: > I stumbled across this recently: Essays in Broadband Economics was the > dissertation of Sarah Oh at GMU. I haven't been able to find a link to the > actual dissertation, but here's the abstract > , which looks interesting. > > Ms. Oh is now at the Technological Policy Institute and has produced a variety > of interesting posts > > include this one on rural broadband > and > universal service. > > And related is a presentation > > on bandwidth and latency, as related to willingness by consumers to pay. > > I'm sure you-all know more about this than I do. Hopefully it's > interesting. > > Doug > _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From doug.orr at gmail.com Sun Mar 18 18:14:09 2018 From: doug.orr at gmail.com (Doug Orr) Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 01:14:09 +0000 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] broadband economics In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Very interesting and very cool insight. Thanks for sharing that. Mercatus seems to be libertarian leaning (Koch funded and the awesome Tyler Cowen was on her committee), so not surprising they're not oriented towards organizing public resources. Overall the rural stuff just seems to be something there has to be public mandate and funding if it's going to work... On Thu, Mar 15, 2018 at 4:45 PM Steve Ross wrote: > Thanks. When Sarah was doing the thesis she got some stuff from us, and I > saw the orals last summer. This reminds me to get the whole thesis. It was > due to be accessible right about now. > > Deliberately, she did not get into community economic impacts. Usf doesn't > actually consider them directly. So it is not an answer to the issue of > rural job loss and population loss stranding rural assets. You help people, > not communities. Subsidies don't work if you have no access. Satellite > access is really an emergency thing, and not cheap. > > She was really looking at whether bidders were lowballing estimated costs > to get grants or loans, or highballing to inflate what they applied for. > She didn't find any of that. We noted that the cost estimates had to > roughly conform to the FCC models when it came to grants, and while there > is a separate rural cost series (FCC buys them from Costquest ) it is > necessarily pretty generic. When it comes to RUS loans, the loan officers > are much more precise in their own calculations. Yes, government hands out > grants in a more sloppy way than it hands out loans! Go figure. > > She did not want to get into the issue of rural communities just wanting > to survive vs wall street trying to efficiently allocate capital . Wall > Street cannot get into community issues and communities should not be > forced to think about competitive returns when, on average, a quarter to > half of all rural population loss is due to lack of broadband access. > > The panel discussion was funny. She's a "here is what we think we know > from the numbers" gal. The other panelists just hate spending any money to > help the poor, or to help increase incomes. The idea that a Tennessee > congresswoman would block rural financial aid for broadband is just evil > and beyond dumb. > > -- Steve Ross > > On Thu, Mar 15, 2018, 3:59 PM Doug Orr wrote: > >> I stumbled across this recently: Essays in Broadband Economics was the >> dissertation of Sarah Oh at GMU. I haven't been able to find a link to the >> actual dissertation, but here's the abstract >> , which looks interesting. >> >> Ms. Oh is now at the Technological Policy Institute and has produced a variety >> of interesting posts >> >> include this one on rural broadband >> and >> universal service. >> >> And related is a presentation >> >> on bandwidth and latency, as related to willingness by consumers to pay. >> >> I'm sure you-all know more about this than I do. Hopefully it's >> interesting. >> >> Doug >> > _______________________________________________ >> 1st-mile-nm mailing list >> 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org >> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rl at 1st-mile.org Wed Mar 21 08:49:16 2018 From: rl at 1st-mile.org (Richard Lowenberg) Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2018 09:49:16 -0600 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] USDA Community Connect Program Message-ID: <4f88ac671038b2269e9857fa678d1f01@1st-mile.org> USDA Seeks Applications for Funding to Increase Access to E-Connectivity/Broadband in Unserved Rural Areas https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2018/03/20/usda-seeks-applications-funding-increase-access-e WASHINGTON, March 20, 2018 ? Assistant to the Secretary for Rural Development Anne Hazlett today announced that USDA is accepting applications for grants to fund broadband infrastructure projects in unserved rural communities. ?E-connectivity is essential to the economic vitality and quality of life in rural communities,? Hazlett said. ?Investing in broadband can strengthen rural economic growth and improve critical access to jobs, education, health care and social services.? USDA is accepting applications through May 14 in the Community Connect program. Grants from $100,000 to $3 million are available to state and local governments, federally-recognized tribes, nonprofits and for-profit corporations. Applicants must be able to provide a 15 percent match on the desired grant amount. The funds must be used to provide broadband service at a minimum rate-of-data transmission of 25 megabits downstream and 3 megabits upstream, which is the speed benchmark that the Federal Communications Commission has officially adopted for broadband connectivity. Awardees must use USDA funding to offer free broadband service to all critical community facilities in their proposed service areas for two years and provide a community center with free broadband service for two years. (snip) --------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org --------------------------------------------------------------- From rl at 1st-mile.org Wed Mar 28 08:31:06 2018 From: rl at 1st-mile.org (Richard Lowenberg) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 09:31:06 -0600 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] REDI Net Audit Update Message-ID: The REDI Net is an important broadband initiative in the north-central NM region, originally funded with ARRA broadband stimulus program monies. The project is now governed by joint powers authority, made up of key community and Pueblo partners, with Rio Arriba County as fiscal agent. Past poor accounting and management practices are now harming this project which can otherwise vitalize the lives and livelihoods of regional people, unfortunately. RL -------- Audit finds $1 million missing from federally funded broadband project By Joseph Ditzler | The New Mexican Mar 27, 2018 http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/audit-finds-million-missing-from-federally-funded-broadband-project/article_5512b99c-e125-5d1c-813c-8defe19886af.html Results of a state audit released Tuesday found nearly $1 million in unaccounted-for-expenses and $200,000 worth of fiber-optic cable missing from a federally funded project that brought broadband connectivity to Northern New Mexico. State Auditor Wayne Johnson, in a letter Tuesday that accompanied the audit, said the North Central New Mexico Economic Development District ?is unable to provide multiple source documents? to account for the missing funds and cable. If the district has those records, Johnson wrote, it should immediately provide copies to both the project?s general manager and the Office of State Auditor. Three contractors that worked on the project, called REDI Net, have been or will be subpoenaed to provide records, said State Auditor spokesman Enrique Knell. He did not identify the contractors. ?There?s a million missing,? Knell said. ?That doesn?t necessarily mean it went into somebody?s personal pocket. It just means they can?t account for where it went.? A comparison of inventories in January 2013 and June 2014 revealed the missing fiber-optic cable, according to the audit report. The project started with 34.65 miles of cable, of which 14.35 miles was used for the project and 8.18 miles were sold to Los Alamos County, leaving 12.12 miles unaccounted for. The yearlong audit, by the independent Jaramillo Accounting Group of Albuquerque, showed the district used inaccurate or incomplete practices to account for the REDI Net project funds. REDI Net ?still does not have a complete listing of its capital assets that were constructed with money from the federal grant,? Johnson wrote. The North Central district is an association of local governments in Colfax, Los Alamos, Mora, Rio Arriba, San Miguel, Sandoval, Santa Fe and Taos counties. It had responsibility to administer $10.5 million from a July 2010 federal grant from the Obama-era American Recovery and Reinvestment Act to develop a high-speed broadband network in Northern New Mexico, a project that became REDI Net. In 2015, Rio Arriba County asked the North Central district for financial information as part of an accounting before taking over fiscal responsibility for REDI Net, according to the audit summary. As part of that process, ?questions arose and information came to to the attention of the REDI Net board that caused concerns about certain transactions (the district) had charged to the grant.? Those questions triggered the state audit, which began in May 2017 and concluded Friday with a presentation to the district and REDI Net. Jaramillo Accounting Group found that the economic development district had failed to comply with a joint powers agreement, under which the district took responsibility for building the broadband network on behalf of its eventual users. Those users include Los Alamos, Rio Arriba and Santa Fe counties and the pueblos of Okhay Owingeh, Santa Clara, Pojoaque and Tesuque. The audit found ?significant violations? of that agreement by the district, including its withdrawal of $198,767 from the REDI Net account at the Los Alamos National Bank in March 2016 ?without prior notice or approval.? Most of the missing $1 million ? $955,792 ? was traced to failures by the district, according to the auditors, to provide ?supporting documentation for all disbursements.? The North Central district?s ?inability or unwillingness? to provide the Jaramillo Group auditors with complete records and ?the severe disorganization of and missing records? meant ?serious delays? in the audit and limited results, according to the report. Tim Armer, executive director of the North Central New Mexico Economic Development District, did not return a call Tuesday seeking comment. This is not the only state audit of the North Central New Mexico Economic Development District. Johnson announced in January that the district would be scrutinized for its administration of funds, including billing practices, vendor reimbursement and federal grants related to the district?s contract with the state Aging and Long-Term Services Department. The North Central district administers the Non-Metro Area Agency on Aging for the state. Contact Joseph Ditzler at 505-986-3034 or jditzler at sfnewmexican.com. --------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org --------------------------------------------------------------- From rl at 1st-mile.org Wed Mar 28 11:19:13 2018 From: rl at 1st-mile.org (Richard Lowenberg) Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2018 12:19:13 -0600 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] Colorado News (from MuniNetworks) Message-ID: <39ab9f70f9404d2c0e625e921e0e91d8@1st-mile.org> Colorado Legislature Revamps Incumbent Right Of First Refusal, Blocking Monopoly Battle Tactic Mon, March 26, 2018 | Posted by lgonzalez https://muninetworks.org/content/colorado-legislature-revamps-incumbent-right-first-refusal-blocking-monopoly-battle-tactic A bill making its way through the Colorado General Assembly is tackling one of the tools that big incumbent ISPs use to secure their positions as monopoly Internet access providers - the right of first refusal. If HB 1099 passes, and other states see the savvy behind this approach, community leaders and advocates for a competitive broadband market will be able to put a chink in the monopoly armor. (snip) --------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org --------------------------------------------------------------- From rl at 1st-mile.org Thu Mar 29 10:36:12 2018 From: rl at 1st-mile.org (Richard Lowenberg) Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 11:36:12 -0600 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] Cortez Council moves forward with broadband pilot Message-ID: Cortez Council moves forward with broadband pilot Residents may sign up for wireless plan By Stephanie Alderton Journal Staff Writer Wednesday, March 28, 2018 https://the-journal.com/articles/90626 The Cortez City Council on Tuesday voted unanimously to approve the fees and costs for a broadband pilot program. Through the program, dubbed the Cortez Community Network Pilot, the city will install in-home wireless devices called GigaCenters, and provide fiber to connect some residents with the city?s existing network. Installation will cost $150, and participants in the pilot will pay $60 per month, plus a $10 rental fee for the device, to get internet speeds of up to 100 Mbps. The program is designed to test whether the city can become a long-term internet service provider. General Services Director Rick Smith proposed the project during a council workshop on March 13, saying it could help the city provide high-speed internet directly to more residents, which has been a longtime goal for his department. Depending on how the program goes, the General Services department might end up building a citywide network. The city already has a fiber network in several areas of town, including some residential areas. According to the resolution that the council approved, the CCN pilot will charge $150 for city staff to install up to 250 feet of additional fiber to connect homes with that network, but residents will be responsible for digging the ditches through which the fiber can run. The $10 rental fee for a GigaCenter will include a replacement in case it is damaged. Smith?s proposal could potentially provide more bandwidth to participants than the commercial internet providers on which most Cortez residents have relied in the past. According to its website, CenturyLink offers speeds of up to 20 Mbps for a minimum of $45 per month to Cortez residents. A Montezuma County-based provider, Zumacom, advertises up to 25 Mbps for $129.99 per month. Smith said the CCN Pilot program is in high demand. ?I?ve got about a dozen people waiting to get on the pilot already,? he said. Most of the council members? discussion during their meeting focused on potential legal issues with the pilot, like whether the city would be liable to pay for a stolen GigaCenter, and whether the fiber installed as part of the project would belong to the city or the resident. City Manager Shane Hale said he believed stolen devices would be covered by residents? insurance, and City Attorney Mike Green said all materials provided by the city will still belong to the city throughout the program. Mayor Karen Sheek praised Smith and the city staff for moving forward so quickly with the project. She asked Smith to keep the council updated on how many people join the pilot. ?I think we should have a giant thermometer down there at the Service Center ... to show progress,? she joked. On Wednesday, Smith confirmed via email that 11 residents and businesses are in various stages of being connected through the pilot program. He said 58 other people and businesses have requested broadband when it becomes available in their areas. Anyone interested in joining the pilot should go to the Cortez Service Center on 110 W. Progress Circle to find out whether it?s available to them, he said. Right now, the pilot is limited to parts of the city where fiber has already been installed. --------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org --------------------------------------------------------------- From rl at 1st-mile.org Fri Mar 30 07:58:55 2018 From: rl at 1st-mile.org (Richard Lowenberg) Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2018 08:58:55 -0600 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] RUS Takes a New Approach to Broadband Loan Applications Message-ID: RUS Takes a New Approach to Broadband Loan Applications 3/29/18 at 10:47 AM by Joan Engebretson http://www.telecompetitor.com/rus-takes-a-new-approach-to-broadband-loan-applications/ The U.S. Department of Agriculture?s Rural Utilities Service has begun accepting RUS broadband loan applications for fiscal year 2018. For years, the program has provided low-interest loans for broadband network construction and is currently operating based on parameters established in the 2014 Farm Bill. There are some changes to the RUS broadband loan application process effective immediately, however. The minimum and maximum loan amounts that applicants can request have been raised to $100,00 and $25 million, respectively. In addition, the RUS has revised the definition of broadband service and broadband lending service. Those definitions are now identical and are set at 25 Mbps downstream and 3 Mbps upstream, which means that applicants will be eligible for funding for areas lacking 25/3 Mbps service and will be required to deploy service at speeds of at least 25/3 Mbps in areas for which they receive funding. Importantly, the RUS is also taking a new approach to the loan application period and to how applications are selected to receive funding. RUS Broadband Loan Applications Traditionally, RUS broadband loan applications have been accepted only during specific time windows, but the agency now plans to accept loan applications on a rolling basis through September 30. ?Based on a review of the applications submitted since the implementation of the 2014 Farm Bill, RUS has determined that the use of application windows has not effectively supported the agency?s mission to finance improved broadband service in rural areas,? said the RUS in a notice published in the Federal Register yesterday. Applications will be processed on a first come, first served basis and every 90 days the RUS will conduct an evaluation of the submitted applications. During the evaluation, applications will be ranked based on the percentage of unserved households that the applicant proposes to serve. ?[E]ligible applications that propose to serve a higher percentage of unserved households will receive funding offers before other eligible applications that propose to serve a lower percentage of unserved households,? the RUS wrote. ?Loan offers are limited to the funds available at the time of the agency?s decision to approve an application.? The changes to the RUS broadband loan program, aimed at financing improved broadband service in rural areas, are the latest example of a broad policy push toward improving broadband availability in rural areas. Other examples of this push include a recent $540 million increase in the Universal Service Fund and a wide range of proposed legislation. --------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org --------------------------------------------------------------- From rl at 1st-mile.org Wed Apr 4 12:52:47 2018 From: rl at 1st-mile.org (Richard Lowenberg) Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2018 13:52:47 -0600 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] RUS Distance Learning & Telemedicine Grants Round Message-ID: The Rural Utilities Service (RUS), an agency of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), announces its Distance Learning and Telemedicine (DLT) Grant Program application window for Fiscal Year (FY) 2018. Submissions must be postmarked or received no later than June 4, 2018 to be eligible for FY 2018 grant funding. DLT grants are designed to provide access to education, training, and health care resources for rural Americans. The DLT Program provides financial assistance to encourage and improve telemedicine and distance learning services in rural areas through the use of telecommunications, computer networks, and related advanced technologies by students, teachers, medical professionals, and rural residents. The grants, which are awarded through a competitive process, may be used to fund telecommunicationsenabled information, audio and video equipment, and related advanced technologies which extend educational and medical access into rural areas. Grants are intended to benefit end users in rural areas, who are often not in the same location as the source of the educational or health care service. (Benton Summary) https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2018-04-03/pdf/2018-06503.pdf --------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org --------------------------------------------------------------- From doug.orr at gmail.com Sat Apr 7 14:48:55 2018 From: doug.orr at gmail.com (Doug Orr) Date: Sat, 07 Apr 2018 21:48:55 +0000 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] =?utf-8?q?FCC_approves_SpaceX_plan_for_4=2C425-sate?= =?utf-8?q?llite_broadband_network_=E2=80=93_TechCrunch?= Message-ID: https://techcrunch.com/2018/03/29/fcc-approves-spacex-plan-for-4425-satellite-broadband-network/ Have a look at the hn comments as well -- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16776900 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From editorsteve at gmail.com Sat Apr 7 18:43:20 2018 From: editorsteve at gmail.com (Steve Ross) Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2018 01:43:20 +0000 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] =?utf-8?q?FCC_approves_SpaceX_plan_for_4=2C425-sate?= =?utf-8?q?llite_broadband_network_=E2=80=93_TechCrunch?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Been following this but still got a lot of insight from the comments. Even with SpaceX cheaper launches, how is the lofting and maintenance of 4000 satellites cheaper than fiber or p2p wireless? The business case assumes the bulk of the users would be outside the USA. Is that a good assumption? On Sat, Apr 7, 2018, 5:49 PM Doug Orr wrote: > > > https://techcrunch.com/2018/03/29/fcc-approves-spacex-plan-for-4425-satellite-broadband-network/ > > Have a look at the hn comments as well -- > > https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16776900 > > > _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From doug.orr at gmail.com Sat Apr 7 18:52:48 2018 From: doug.orr at gmail.com (Doug Orr) Date: Sun, 08 Apr 2018 01:52:48 +0000 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] =?utf-8?q?FCC_approves_SpaceX_plan_for_4=2C425-sate?= =?utf-8?q?llite_broadband_network_=E2=80=93_TechCrunch?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Ironically, it only makes sense if the economics work for low density rural where fiber and wireless have well known challenges. I'm assuming the economics are expected to improve with scale, which terrestrial probably wouldn't... On Sat, Apr 7, 2018, 7:43 PM Steve Ross wrote: > Been following this but still got a lot of insight from the comments. Even > with SpaceX cheaper launches, how is the lofting and maintenance of 4000 > satellites cheaper than fiber or p2p wireless? The business case assumes > the bulk of the users would be outside the USA. Is that a good assumption? > > On Sat, Apr 7, 2018, 5:49 PM Doug Orr wrote: > >> >> >> https://techcrunch.com/2018/03/29/fcc-approves-spacex-plan-for-4425-satellite-broadband-network/ >> >> Have a look at the hn comments as well -- >> >> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16776900 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 1st-mile-nm mailing list >> 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org >> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rl at 1st-mile.org Mon Apr 16 10:16:06 2018 From: rl at 1st-mile.org (Richard Lowenberg) Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2018 11:16:06 -0600 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] Fwd: High-Speed Networking between New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada and California In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: -------- Original Message -------- Subject: High-Speed Networking between New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada and California Date: 2018-04-16 10:02 From: AbqGig RSVP: Google Form [https://goo.gl/forms/IDk2UBXtvy5oZ3eE3 ] Please join us to discuss current initiatives and future partnerships in the establishment of improved network accessibility, affordability, availability, and reliability along the Interstate-40 (I-40) Corridor. The meeting will be hosted by Sun Corridor Network (https://suncorridornet.org/), bigbyte.cc Corp (http://bigbyte.cc) and AbqGig (mailto: info at abqgig.net ). This meeting will address the absence of available fiber along the I-40 corridor limits reliable redundant paths for core fiber services that are increasingly critical to institutions, businesses, and communities in California, Arizona, Nevada, and New Mexico. Moreover, the tribal communities along I-40 are among the least connected populations in the United States. Adoption and use of the Internet along the I-40 communities for education training, health and wellness, economic development, and services delivery is, on average, well below 25 percent. These disconnected rural communities are placed at significant disadvantage and further risk against both general public policy goals and more personal aspirations that are left unfilled due to the lack of 21st century robust Internet network services availability. There are a variety of initiatives and conversations about improving broadband networks among tribal, federal, state, community and private entities. Our broad vision in the Sun Corridor Network and our collaborators in New Mexico, California, and Nevada is to develop a strategic pathway among a broad coalition of the willing to catalyze the planning, deployment, and accelerated use of robust network infrastructure to support the needs of both the K-20 education systems along the I-40 corridor and facilitate both public and private opportunities in communities among the isolated rural communities along the I-40 corridor. To facilitate this conversation, the Sun Corridor Network is holding meetings in Kingman, Arizona, Flagstaff, Arizona, Gallup, New Mexico, and in Albuquerque, New Mexico to collect data regarding networking needs, issues, and opportunities. We hope you or your designee will be able to contribute your interests, insights, and questions to this vital issue. Please join us. When: Thursday, April 26 @ 10 a.m. ? 12 p.m. Location: bigbyte.cc, Cafeteria, 123 Central Avenue NW, Albuquerque, NM 87102. Parking: Located in Joy Junction parking lot on the corner of 1st and Copper. An attendant will be in a parking booth and will direct you to a space. Enter bigbyte facility through the red door. For more information: Ricardo Aguilar (info at abqgig.net ) or Alex Trujillo (atrujillo at bigbyte.cc ) Please RSVP Google Form [https://goo.gl/forms/52LnfnbBAlG47CMl1 ] by Wednesday, April 25th to have access to the meeting room. We look forward to seeing you on the 26th! Ricardo Aguilar and Alex Trujillo --------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org --------------------------------------------------------------- From rl at 1st-mile.org Wed Apr 25 07:59:12 2018 From: rl at 1st-mile.org (Richard Lowenberg) Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2018 08:59:12 -0600 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] Santa Fe aims to improve broadband, cell coverage Message-ID: <2f73d177d0339b33da457e3f4097a1f9@1st-mile.org> Santa Fe aims to improve broadband, cell coverage By Tripp Stelnicki | The New Mexican Apr 24, 2018 http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/santa-fe-aims-to-improve-broadband-cell-coverage/article_83d99271-2815-598a-a5d1-0ac61c8fb6e4.html A cell signal eludes Mark Johnson in his downtown office. The chief executive of Descartes Labs, a buzzy tech startup expanding its footprint at a new headquarters on Guadalupe Street, instead uses a video-conferencing application or desk phone in current office on Paseo de Peralta. ?That?s suboptimal,? Matt Brown, the city?s economic development director, deadpanned last week. But a wave of new telecom infrastructure is en route, and in a city where famously spotty cellular and internet service has long bedeviled 21st century businesses, residents and tourists alike, there?s optimism Santa Fe will soon turn the great connectivity corner. A raft of telecommunication franchise agreements are coming down the city?s legislative pike; the resulting network expansions in the city?s public rights of way could eventually provide Santa Feans with faster speeds, broader coverage and additional retail competition ? and thus lower costs, according to city fiscal analyses. ?This is our biggest and best opportunity in many years,? said Brown. Around the signal, however, there will be noise, as the outspoken cadre of local residents who say cellular radiation poses a grave health risk are likely to protest the proposed agreements when they appear before the City Council in early May. ?If they pass this, we will lose control of our streets and sidewalks,? said Arthur Firstenberg, the outspoken local advocate against electromagnetic radiation. ?To us, this is a mortal threat. It will injure people. It will kill people. We will have no more honeybees. We will have no more birds.? The proposed ordinances generally establish new access rights to the public right of way for telephone and internet service providers, whether with cables or antennas. They follow a tweak to city law approved last year that eased access for such companies ? an arcane smoothing of permitting processes that nonetheless drew impassioned condemnations from the anti-wireless activist bloc of Santa Feans, as well as some residents who were concerned about the debatable aesthetic effects of antennas on top of light poles. All the same, the new telecom right-of-way changes earned the unanimous support of the City Council, as it both aligned with the city?s renewed emphasis on improved connectivity for economic development aims and accommodated federal law, which obligates the city to allow ?non-discriminatory access? in public rights of way to telecom carriers. State law also has changed, with a newly approved Wireless Consumer and Advanced Infrastructure Act that establishes new access and regulation rules for small cellular facilities on public infrastructure. Per its proposed agreement with the city, NMSURF, a local provider, would provide fiber-to-the-premises internet to residences and businesses at ultra-fast gigabit speeds. Alisha Catanach, a company spokesperson, said its first phase would reach as many as 500 businesses and homes. Cyber Mesa and Plateau Telecommunications would be permitted to use the city right of way for their telecommunication services, according to their proposed agreements. Conterra Ultra Broadband, a telecommunication provider based in Charlotte, N.C., would construct a fiber-optic network connecting public schools to the Santa Fe school district?s central office, with the option to expand to other businesses, schools and organization. The fifth franchise arrangement, with a Broadband Network of New Mexico, meanwhile, would allow that company to install new poles in public rights of way and lease space there to others? antennas and fiber-optic cable, according to a city fiscal write-up. ?What that means for our system overall is we increase resilience,? Brown said, adding that the city sought to mirror the terms in the new state law. The Broadband Network franchise, of the five, should ?provide the greatest near-term improvement? of connectivity, said City Councilor Mike Harris, who sponsored the five franchise proposals. But ?all of the franchisees should add to the efficiency of telecom services in our city over time,? Harris added. The movement is drawing favorable responses from some who keep a close eye on the effect mediocre connectivity has had on Santa Fe business, tourism and everyday life. ?We favor a public-private partnership around broadband and wireless, and I think that?s what?s happening,? said Simon Brackley of the Santa Fe Chamber of Commerce. ?The city is meeting with the providers to determine how to create the most competitive and reliable service throughout the community. There?s definitely optimism.? At least one local telecom company representative, who asked not to be identified so as not to jeopardize the company?s relationship with the city, questioned the City Hall sales pitch. ?This whole business of, ?It?s going to benefit Santa Fe by increasing competition and getting more fiber in the ground,? well, that?s purely a justification to impose the franchise fee,? the representative said, a reference to a 2 percent imposition on the companies? gross charges included in each of the city?s proposed agreements. City memos show the revenue from franchise fees is unknown but is expected to be minimal and decline ?as new competition lowers the retail rates on which most of the fees are based.? The Broadband Network agreement will require one-time and annual franchise fees depending on the number of poles installed and the number of antennas co-located there. ?We are absolutely not doing this because it is somehow an opportunity for the city to try to generate more revenues,? Brown said. ?We are advocating and supporting the passage of these five franchises because we think it will service those strategic goals: greater reliability, greater broadband access across our whole city and particularly in those areas that are currently underserved, and creating a greater competitions landscape to drive down costs. We expect that to happen.? Of course, in Santa Fe, there are those who hope it won?t. Firstenberg ? alongside fellow plaintiffs Monika Steinhoff and the Santa Fe Alliance for Public Health and Safety ? filed a federal lawsuit against the city earlier this year. It contends the city?s recent telecommunication ordinance changes, as well as former Mayor Javier Gonzales? emergency proclamation allowing temporary Verizon installations, should be struck down as they violate the constitutional rights of residents who claim sensitivities to radio frequencies. The lawsuit claimed such residents ?will no longer be safe in their homes, at work, or while traveling on the public streets,? and that homes and businesses will be rendered ?uninhabitable and unusable.? A senior U.S. judge dismissed the complaint earlier this month. Firstenberg said he is investigating an appeal. The five franchise agreements are scheduled to come before the City Council for public hearings May 9. ?We are raising the alarm,? Firstenberg said. But, he added, referring to last year?s ordinance change, and the court dismissal, ?A lot of people are discouraged.? --------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org --------------------------------------------------------------- From rl at 1st-mile.org Mon Apr 30 09:28:37 2018 From: rl at 1st-mile.org (Richard Lowenberg) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2018 10:28:37 -0600 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] Santa Fe broadband franchising Message-ID: <37441b167d5c35b9249c2b570feab9eb@1st-mile.org> Story from earlier in April. Local companies vie for franchise agreements By T.S. Last / Journal North Published: Friday, April 6th, 2018 https://www.abqjournal.com/1155332/local-companies-vie-for-franchise-agreements-ex-use-of-city-rights-of-way-central-to-the-proposal.html SANTA FE, N.M. ? Most of the five telecommunications companies set to enter into franchise agreements with Santa Fe city government for use of rights of way already have local connections. One is Cyber Mesa, which provides telephone, internet and ethernet services, and has a foothold in the city-owned Railyard, under a project undertaken by city government that has also helped provide services for people who don?t live within the city limits. Proposals aim to boost SF's cell and wireless services A few years ago, the city awarded Cyber Mesa a $1 million broadband infrastructure project that connected a 2-mile gap between CenturyLink?s exchange building downtown and a fiber hub station at the south end of the Railyard. The money came from city capital improvement project (CIP) bonds. ?We expect soon to wire up everybody in the Railyard, and, in that event, the Railyard will be able to become a tech center,? said Cyber Mesa owner Jane Hill. That project has already benefited state government, she said, by connecting state government buildings downtown with those on St. Francis Drive with fiber cable. As part of that project, the locally owned company has also partnered with the city on Santa Fe Fiber, organized as a wholly owned subsidiary of Cyber Mesa. Hill says Santa Fe Fiber has provided wireless services to neighborhoods, including Hyde Park Estates and Los Caminitos north of Santa Fe. ?Even though they?re outside the city limits, they?re still part of the Santa Fe community,? she said, adding that people living there spend money in the city. ?So I think it?s a win-win for the city and these communities.? In response to Journal questions, Sean Moody, a former city of Santa Fe employee who worked on the project and is now under city contract as a consultant, said in an email that the city?s ?sole agreement with Cyber Mesa is the $1 million CIP Broadband Project, under which Cyber Mesa built and administers Santa Fe Fiber, a fiber optic network providing wholesale-only Internet, Ethernet, and dark fiber services to any qualified provider.? He also said, ?There is no condition in the City-Cyber Mesa contract which would exclude Santa Fe Fiber?s wholesale customers from providing service to those who live or work outside the city. To reiterate, Santa Fe Fiber is designed to be an alternate source of wholesale Internet available to any competitive provider.? The goal ?is to improve broadband conditions throughout the city by creating a competitive wholesale option to what was effectively an unregulated backhaul monopoly operated by CenturyLink,? said Moody. Other players Another local company proposed for a city franchise agreement, NMSURF, provides telephone and internet services, and plans to utilize the city?s rights of way for ?fiber-to-the-premise? network to reach homes and businesses throughout the city at speeds ranging from 100 megabits per second to 1 gigabit per second, according to city documents. Similarly, Plateau Telecommunications, Inc., a rural cooperative based in Clovis, provides telephone, internet and ethernet using fiber optic cable. It installed underground cable in Santa Fe with federal grant funding through the Broadband Technologies Opportunities Program in 2011 and 2012. Conterra Ultra Broadband, LLC, already has a contract with Santa Fe Public Schools to construct and operate a fiber optic network that connects 28 school sites with the district?s central office on Alta Vista Street. It will provide high-speed network connectivity at speeds up to 10 gigabits. Ninety percent of the funding for that $4.68 million project comes from the federal E-rate program for schools and libraries, while the remaining 10 percent will be paid from a 2-mill levy approved by school district voters. City documents show that Conterra plans to operate commercially to provide internet, ethernet and dark fiber to telecommunication providers, as well as schools, businesses, and governmental and non-governmental institutions. The fifth applicant for use of the city?s rights of way is Broadband Network of New Mexico, which is looking to install poles in rights of way, then lease vertical space on the poles to other companies for access to antenna and fiber optic cable. It must first obtain a franchise before applying for city approval for any above-ground facility, as there will be a visual impact. According to a city staff report, the company would pay a one-time fee for the franchise and then annual fees based on the number of poles and antennas that are installed. The other four companies would pay the city a 2 percent franchise fee applied to gross charges. --------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org --------------------------------------------------------------- From doug.orr at gmail.com Mon Apr 30 10:04:58 2018 From: doug.orr at gmail.com (Doug Orr) Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2018 17:04:58 +0000 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] comcast maneuvering Message-ID: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/04/comcast-wont-give-new-speed-boost-to-internet-users-who-dont-buy-tv-service/ I should probably double down on my negative predictions. It's the interstate battle of the failing business models. Doug -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From doug.orr at gmail.com Thu May 3 19:53:57 2018 From: doug.orr at gmail.com (Doug Orr) Date: Fri, 04 May 2018 02:53:57 +0000 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] 5g likelihood Message-ID: Hey All, It's been a little while since I scoffed at the likelihood of 5g being used as part of an autonomous vehicle control plane, but I was inspired recently by reviewing the current set of DARPA research programs. **Read the following just for fun. Nothing actionable follows** So, first, you probably know DARPA is the contemporary name for ARPA, the defense agency that brought us the Internet. They do advanced research and development in strategic defense areas that are very technically challenging (referred to as "DARPA hard ," in fact, reflecting a level of ambition required for those competing to win various DARPA projects). Worth reviewing: Here , is the set of current research areas. Here's a set they're currently soliciting for. Super smart people looking at the frontiers of the capabilities of the industrial world and how to use it for military defense or advantage. Really, as a citizen, you ought to have a look, since it's very enlightening as to what we're afraid of and what we're pursuing in our defense. Between social networking, biothreats, hypersonic vehicles, defending against misuse of CRISPR genetic editing, and making it so that soldiers can climb vertical walls without ropes...there's a lot of crazy stuff there. With respect to 5g and critical systems (e.g., cars), a few open research areas apply, in my reading: Wireless network defense Ensuring that IC development chains can be trusted Challenges in millimeter and sub-mm wavelengths (you need higher sampling rates to observe and control these frequencies) Using AI to overcome frequency spectrum shortage from device overcrowding Alternatives to vulnerable GPS systems Side-channel attacks in software systems Reducing vulnerability due to RF jamming attacks Safely sharing spectrum by military with (other military or) commercial users Making software resilient to reverse engineering attacks Creating distributed control planes not dependent on reliable, high bandwidth environments Crazy shit you have to do if you lose some big chunk of the power grid Generic "holy crap if someone cyberwarfares us we're in trouble" (presumably applies to critical transportation systems) Ability to fly without depending on lots of sensor infrastructure Operation of small area millimeter wave hotspots Model for secure integration of critical systems with Cloud computing Jammer-countering measures to enable communication in the face of adversarial conditions in shared media. Framework for countering botnets Defense against modern DDoS Defense against novel cross-network security violations Issues with secure, resilient software updates in embedded systems Addressing the problem of securing composed heterogeneous systems Avoiding surveillance interference in wireless networks Overcoming additive complexity issues when layering systems Defense against jamming in crowded spectrum conditions Another take on communicating in contested spectrum conditions Generic systems resistance to cyber attack Systems that aren't subject to resource limitation attack Crazy radar interference shit Navigation in the event of jamming It's kind of a long list. It's unlikely that the mobile telcos have it all figured out. So, I'm still skeptical that we ought to be relying on 5g for our critical transportation systems in this half century given that *all of these research areas, presumably, contain DARPA-hard problems*. One of my former charges recently got a senior position with one of the self driving software companies. He used to be in charge of keeping Google's external network reliable. I'll get a reading from him as to whether autonomous automobile software vendors believe 5g is as useful as a core technology for self driving cars as...mobile network operators do. Doug -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From doug.orr at gmail.com Mon May 7 06:57:23 2018 From: doug.orr at gmail.com (Doug Orr) Date: Mon, 07 May 2018 13:57:23 +0000 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] 5g likelihood In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Generally interesting and relevant wrt the likely antagonistic environment self-driving cars need to live in: https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2018/05/criminal-gang-used-drone-swarm-obstruct-fbi-raid/147956/ If you outlaw autonomous frequency jamming drones, only outlaws.... Doug On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 8:53 PM Doug Orr wrote: > Hey All, > > It's been a little while since I scoffed at the likelihood of 5g being > used as part of an autonomous vehicle control plane, but I was inspired > recently by reviewing the current set of DARPA > research programs. > > **Read the following just for fun. Nothing actionable follows** > > So, first, you probably know DARPA is the contemporary name for ARPA, the > defense agency that brought us the Internet. They do advanced research and > development in strategic defense areas that are very technically > challenging (referred to as "DARPA hard > ," in fact, > reflecting a level of ambition required for those competing to win various > DARPA projects). > > Worth reviewing: > > Here , is the set of current research > areas. > > Here's a set > they're currently soliciting for. > > Super smart people looking at the frontiers of the capabilities of the > industrial world and how to use it for military defense or advantage. > Really, as a citizen, you ought to have a look, since it's very > enlightening as to what we're afraid of and what we're pursuing in our > defense. Between social networking, biothreats, hypersonic vehicles, > defending against misuse of CRISPR genetic editing, and making it so that > soldiers can climb vertical walls without ropes...there's a lot of crazy > stuff there. > > With respect to 5g and critical systems (e.g., cars), a few open research > areas apply, in my reading: > > Wireless network defense > > Ensuring that IC development chains can be trusted > > Challenges in millimeter and sub-mm wavelengths > (you need higher sampling > rates to observe and control these frequencies) > Using AI to overcome frequency spectrum shortage from device overcrowding > > Alternatives to vulnerable GPS systems > > Side-channel attacks in software systems > > Reducing vulnerability due to RF jamming attacks > > Safely sharing spectrum by military with (other military or) commercial > users > > Making software resilient to reverse engineering attacks > > Creating distributed control planes not dependent on reliable, high > bandwidth environments > > Crazy shit you have to do if you lose some big chunk of the power grid > > Generic "holy crap if someone cyberwarfares us we're in trouble" > (presumably applies to critical > transportation systems) > Ability to fly without depending on lots of sensor infrastructure > > Operation of small area millimeter wave hotspots > > Model for secure integration of critical systems with Cloud computing > > Jammer-countering measures to enable communication in the face of > adversarial conditions in shared media. > > Framework for countering botnets > > Defense against modern DDoS > > Defense against novel cross-network security violations > > Issues with secure, resilient software updates in embedded systems > > Addressing the problem of securing composed heterogeneous systems > > Avoiding surveillance interference in wireless networks > > Overcoming additive complexity issues when layering systems > > Defense against jamming in crowded spectrum conditions > > Another take on communicating in contested spectrum conditions > > Generic systems resistance to cyber attack > > Systems that aren't subject to resource limitation attack > > Crazy radar interference shit > > Navigation in the event of jamming > > > It's kind of a long list. It's unlikely that the mobile telcos have it all > figured out. So, I'm still skeptical that we ought to be relying on 5g for > our critical transportation systems in this half century given that *all of > these research areas, presumably, contain DARPA-hard problems*. > > One of my former charges recently got a senior position with one of the > self driving software companies. He used to be in charge of keeping > Google's external network reliable. I'll get a reading from him as to > whether autonomous automobile software vendors believe 5g is as useful as a > core technology for self driving cars as...mobile network operators do. > > Doug > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rl at 1st-mile.org Tue May 8 17:40:08 2018 From: rl at 1st-mile.org (Richard Lowenberg) Date: Tue, 08 May 2018 18:40:08 -0600 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] "CenturyLink and Residential Broadband" Message-ID: <324e5746830be53f504d5be0cc3b9fb6@1st-mile.org> From POTs and PANs: "CenturyLink and Residential Broadband" :: "CenturyLink is in the midst of a corporate reorganization that is going to result is a major shift in the focus of the company. .... What might all of this mean for CenturyLink broadband customers? For rural customers it means that any upgrades that are being made using CAF II funding are likely the last upgrades they will ever see. ...[T]he new management team has made it clear they are deemphasizing residential broadband. This management transition probably closes the book on CenturyLink as a last-mile ISP." For the entire blog, see: https://potsandpansbyccg.com/2018/05/08/centurylink-and-residential-broadband/ RL --------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org --------------------------------------------------------------- From rl at 1st-mile.org Thu May 10 09:02:06 2018 From: rl at 1st-mile.org (Richard Lowenberg) Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 10:02:06 -0600 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] Despite protests, council OKs wireless telecommunication measures Message-ID: <3b6ca9f6cf261f8183b6fd00656e3f34@1st-mile.org> Note, I did not attend last night's City Council meeting, but anticipated the process and outcomes reported below. I had and still have deep concerns about the poorly understood economic and community inclusion aspects of this decision making, rather than the health effects of wireless radiation. Behind the scenes conversations, however, led me to understand that City staff and consultants are also still considering a number of critical issues. The five franchises, I'm told, are therefore short term, only through September. City Councilors are legally being pressed by recent State mandates, with which they need to comply (Senate Bill 14, passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor). The City is pursuing preparation of a strategic plan that will more comprehensively addresses our telecom. near future. All or some of the five newly franchised companies may or may not deploy fiber or wireless infrastructure in the near term. This matter is ongoing, and deserves some focused attention, analysis and clear-headedness. The health effects of various wireless radiating systems is contentious, with lots of good science being countered with lots of bad or inadequate science. It is a long term issue to be better understood and acted upon, as blinding consumerism drives tech. adoption. To the extent possible, we ought to practice the Precautionary Principle. Young children and the elderly may be most susceptible to (non-ionizing) EM radiation. Might schools limit wireless networking, in favor of extended fiber nets? Should the City establish wireless 'quiet zones'? How will neighborhoods and the City benefit from our tele-networking developments, and who benefits; how and when? Lots of questions remain. RL ------ Despite protests, council OKs wireless telecommunication measures By Tripp Stelnicki | tstelnicki at sfnewmexican.com May 9, 2018 The dozens of Santa Fe residents who claim they are endangered by the radio frequencies emitted by telecommunication facilities protested five proposed telecom franchise agreements at length Wednesday night before the City Council. Amid the interruptions of the frequently disorderly crowd, councilors approved the agreements, which are expected to pave the way to enhanced wireless and cellular connectivity. The decision places the city in accordance with a new state law that will establish access and regulation rules for small cellular facilities on public infrastructure. The five ordinances establish new access rights to public rights of way for telephone and internet service providers, whether with cables or antennas. Subsequent network expansions could eventually provide Santa Feans with faster speeds, broader coverage and additional retail competition, according to city fiscal analyses. Each of the council votes was 7-2 in favor; councilors Chris Rivera and Renee Villarreal were against. ?I can?t imagine what it would be like to live like some of these people do with the issues they might have,? Rivera said, referring to the health concerns expressed by some who came to the meeting. ?Thirty years from now, we may be looking at this the way we do look at cigarettes.? The well-attended, two-hour hearing began with fireworks. A leader in the local advocacy against electromagnetic radiation, Arthur Firstenberg, launched into a lengthy and emotional tirade about what he alleged are the mortal risks posed by the telecom facilities ? ignoring repeated requests to relinquish the podium after his allotted time had expired. He alternated between reading his prepared remarks and shouting at Mayor Alan Webber as the mayor sought to restore order in the boisterous council chamber. ?Don?t tell me to shut up!? Firstenberg yelled. Webber, showing exasperation but not anger, sternly and repeatedly asked ? and then instructed ? Firstenberg to stop and admonished the crowd for their applause when he had finished. It would not be the last time Webber asked the crowd for quiet. Nodding toward the long line of residents waiting to speak behind Firstenberg, Webber said, ?To hold the podium for that amount of time is simply disrespectful of everybody else.? The residents who spoke for roughly an hour afterward echoed Firstenberg?s concerns at a lower volume, variously saying they were victims of encroaching wireless ?toxins? and that the city must protect their health. Many attributed the franchise applications to the telecom industry?s coming wave of improved wireless technologies known as 5G. But a city land-use senior planner, Dan Esquibel, said that no matter when that next generation of wireless arrives elsewhere, it was not imminent in Santa Fe, which he said does not yet have the necessary fiber-optic infrastructure. ?I don?t think we?re going to be seeing 5G for quite some time,? Esquibel said. Assistant City Attorney Marcos Martinez reminded councilors that federal law prohibits them from considering ?environmental effects? and ?health effects that may flow from the environmental effects? of radio frequency emissions. Webber said the approvals represented the city taking control of its own infrastructural investments. Still, he said, he took the testimony ?very seriously.? ?I think it?s completely legitimate to be very vigilant and to recognize not all technology is progress,? Webber said. --------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org --------------------------------------------------------------- From rl at 1st-mile.org Thu May 10 09:11:04 2018 From: rl at 1st-mile.org (Richard Lowenberg) Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 10:11:04 -0600 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] The False 5G Narrative in DC Message-ID: <51205d4e0fd83057e2a3006bc77328d5@1st-mile.org> Piggy-backing on my prior posting and previous postings on this list, I am once again referring to (today's) insightful POTs & PANs blog: The False 5G Narrative in DC, which also applies to our State. https://potsandpansbyccg.com/2018/05/10/the-false-5g-narrative-in-dc/ RL --------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org --------------------------------------------------------------- From angel at cs.unm.edu Thu May 10 09:31:30 2018 From: angel at cs.unm.edu (Edward Angel) Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 10:31:30 -0600 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] Despite protests, council OKs wireless telecommunication measures In-Reply-To: <3b6ca9f6cf261f8183b6fd00656e3f34@1st-mile.org> References: <3b6ca9f6cf261f8183b6fd00656e3f34@1st-mile.org> Message-ID: Not much as changed in the past 15 years. When many of us argued against the flawed telcom ordinance, the same people did the same thing. The major reason it was passed in its flawed form was that the mayor refused to have any more public meetings about it, all of which got out of control and ended with one in which the mayor was accused of being a Nazi. At the city council meeting where the ordinance passed on a tie vote, 75 of them lined up behind us to speak against the ordinance, some of us spoke first and talked about the importance of developing a fiber infrastructure. That calmed down most of the 75 who then said they supported fiber. It took them about a week for them to realize the fiber was used to connect cell towers and they switched to opposing fiber too. Ed _______________________ Ed Angel Founding Director, Art, Research, Technology and Science Laboratory (ARTS Lab) Professor Emeritus of Computer Science, University of New Mexico 1017 Sierra Pinon Santa Fe, NM 87501 505-984-0136 (home) angel at cs.unm.edu 505-453-4944 (cell) http://www.cs.unm.edu/~angel > On May 10, 2018, at 10:02 AM, Richard Lowenberg wrote: > > Note, I did not attend last night's City Council meeting, but > anticipated the process and outcomes reported below. I had > and still have deep concerns about the poorly understood economic > and community inclusion aspects of this decision making, rather > than the health effects of wireless radiation. Behind the scenes > conversations, however, led me to understand that City staff and > consultants are also still considering a number of critical issues. > The five franchises, I'm told, are therefore short term, only > through September. City Councilors are legally being pressed by > recent State mandates, with which they need to comply (Senate Bill 14, > passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor). The City > is pursuing preparation of a strategic plan that will more > comprehensively addresses our telecom. near future. All or some of > the five newly franchised companies may or may not deploy fiber or > wireless infrastructure in the near term. This matter is ongoing, > and deserves some focused attention, analysis and clear-headedness. > > The health effects of various wireless radiating systems is > contentious, with lots of good science being countered with lots of > bad or inadequate science. It is a long term issue to be better > understood and acted upon, as blinding consumerism drives tech. > adoption. To the extent possible, we ought to practice the > Precautionary Principle. Young children and the elderly may be > most susceptible to (non-ionizing) EM radiation. Might schools > limit wireless networking, in favor of extended fiber nets? > Should the City establish wireless 'quiet zones'? How will > neighborhoods and the City benefit from our tele-networking > developments, and who benefits; how and when? > Lots of questions remain. > > RL > > ------ > > Despite protests, council OKs wireless telecommunication measures > > By Tripp Stelnicki | tstelnicki at sfnewmexican.com May 9, 2018 > > The dozens of Santa Fe residents who claim they are endangered by the radio frequencies emitted by telecommunication facilities protested five proposed telecom franchise agreements at length Wednesday night before the City Council. > > Amid the interruptions of the frequently disorderly crowd, councilors approved the agreements, which are expected to pave the way to enhanced wireless and cellular connectivity. The decision places the city in accordance with a new state law that will establish access and regulation rules for small cellular facilities on public infrastructure. > > The five ordinances establish new access rights to public rights of way for telephone and internet service providers, whether with cables or antennas. > > Subsequent network expansions could eventually provide Santa Feans with faster speeds, broader coverage and additional retail competition, according to city fiscal analyses. > > Each of the council votes was 7-2 in favor; councilors Chris Rivera and Renee Villarreal were against. > > ?I can?t imagine what it would be like to live like some of these people do with the issues they might have,? Rivera said, referring to the health concerns expressed by some who came to the meeting. ?Thirty years from now, we may be looking at this the way we do look at cigarettes.? > > The well-attended, two-hour hearing began with fireworks. A leader in the local advocacy against electromagnetic radiation, Arthur Firstenberg, launched into a lengthy and emotional tirade about what he alleged are the mortal risks posed by the telecom facilities ? ignoring repeated requests to relinquish the podium after his allotted time had expired. He alternated between reading his prepared remarks and shouting at Mayor Alan Webber as the mayor sought to restore order in the boisterous council chamber. > > ?Don?t tell me to shut up!? Firstenberg yelled. > > Webber, showing exasperation but not anger, sternly and repeatedly asked ? and then instructed ? Firstenberg to stop and admonished the crowd for their applause when he had finished. > > It would not be the last time Webber asked the crowd for quiet. > > Nodding toward the long line of residents waiting to speak behind Firstenberg, Webber said, ?To hold the podium for that amount of time is simply disrespectful of everybody else.? > > The residents who spoke for roughly an hour afterward echoed Firstenberg?s concerns at a lower volume, variously saying they were victims of encroaching wireless ?toxins? and that the city must protect their health. > > Many attributed the franchise applications to the telecom industry?s coming wave of improved wireless technologies known as 5G. > > But a city land-use senior planner, Dan Esquibel, said that no matter when that next generation of wireless arrives elsewhere, it was not imminent in Santa Fe, which he said does not yet have the necessary fiber-optic infrastructure. > > ?I don?t think we?re going to be seeing 5G for quite some time,? Esquibel said. > > Assistant City Attorney Marcos Martinez reminded councilors that federal law prohibits them from considering ?environmental effects? and ?health effects that may flow from the environmental effects? of radio frequency emissions. > > Webber said the approvals represented the city taking control of its own infrastructural investments. Still, he said, he took the testimony ?very seriously.? > > ?I think it?s completely legitimate to be very vigilant and to recognize not all technology is progress,? Webber said. > > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director > 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 > Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, > rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org > --------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From doug.orr at gmail.com Thu May 10 10:18:01 2018 From: doug.orr at gmail.com (Doug Orr) Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 17:18:01 +0000 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] The False 5G Narrative in DC In-Reply-To: <51205d4e0fd83057e2a3006bc77328d5@1st-mile.org> References: <51205d4e0fd83057e2a3006bc77328d5@1st-mile.org> Message-ID: Great article. It seems like the only likely underlying reasons to push 5g are either (a) carriers are needing to update infrastructure to even stay in the game, given bandwidth requirements of video, or (b) wireless carriers are taking a run at cable's video customers, offering them the bait of having a single source of internet instead of needing two subscriptions. In either case, the likelihood of improving service to underserved areas is not increased. Those customers are still too expensive to reach. In-town consumers could save some money by cutting out a subscription or through pressure on cable companies (case b) but I'm willing to bet the mobile operators are smart enough to not leave that money on the table, given the completely duopolistic competition. I love the smell of bundling in the morning... smells like victory. All they need is some content for the old people who aren't up to figuring out cord cutting (hello Time Warner!) And the only downside is some completely crazy, ugly, unnecessary infrastructure to deliver signals across the street. My Google Fi connection sends my phone calls over the internet via wifi so they're piggybacking on my Comcast connection when I'm home. This would rube goldberg that all the other way around. Doug On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 10:12 AM Richard Lowenberg wrote: > Piggy-backing on my prior posting and previous postings on this list, > I am once again referring to (today's) insightful POTs & PANs blog: > The False 5G Narrative in DC, which also applies to our State. > > https://potsandpansbyccg.com/2018/05/10/the-false-5g-narrative-in-dc/ > > RL > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director > 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 <(505)%20603-5200> > Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, > rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org > --------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From christopher at ilsr.org Thu May 10 14:35:25 2018 From: christopher at ilsr.org (Christopher Mitchell) Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 16:35:25 -0500 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] Despite protests, council OKs wireless telecommunication measures In-Reply-To: References: <3b6ca9f6cf261f8183b6fd00656e3f34@1st-mile.org> Message-ID: It would be helpful to settle this among reasonable people if only we tracked the rate of new cancer diagnoses. Oh wait, we do! Men are seeing less risk of cancer and women are about stable. In the meantime, I guess 38% of us will eventually get cancer of some kind - but that is because we have tamed damn near everything else that would have killed us otherwise. Of course the anti-vaccers want to take care of that - I guess more people dying of easily-prevented diseases could game the stats to make it look like there is less cancer because people will die long before they have a chance to get cancer. I might be concerned about some of these claims about wireless except that we have been using these devices, bathed in this spectrum for what, 15 years? If there is a health exposure risk, it is quite small and should certainly be studied. In the meantime, we have no shortage of tin foil. Christopher Mitchell Director, Community Broadband Networks Institute for Local Self-Reliance MuniNetworks.org @communitynets 612-545-5185 On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:31 AM, Edward Angel wrote: > Not much as changed in the past 15 years. When many of us argued against > the flawed telcom ordinance, the same people did the same thing. The major > reason it was passed in its flawed form was that the mayor refused to have > any more public meetings about it, all of which got out of control and > ended with one in which the mayor was accused of being a Nazi. At the city > council meeting where the ordinance passed on a tie vote, 75 of them lined > up behind us to speak against the ordinance, some of us spoke first and > talked about the importance of developing a fiber infrastructure. That > calmed down most of the 75 who then said they supported fiber. It took them > about a week for them to realize the fiber was used to connect cell towers > and they switched to opposing fiber too. > > Ed > _______________________ > > Ed Angel > > Founding Director, Art, Research, Technology and Science Laboratory > (ARTS Lab) > Professor Emeritus of Computer Science, University of New Mexico > > 1017 Sierra Pinon > Santa Fe, NM 87501 > 505-984-0136 (home) angel at cs.unm.edu > 505-453-4944 (cell) http://www.cs.unm.edu/~angel > > On May 10, 2018, at 10:02 AM, Richard Lowenberg wrote: > > Note, I did not attend last night's City Council meeting, but > anticipated the process and outcomes reported below. I had > and still have deep concerns about the poorly understood economic > and community inclusion aspects of this decision making, rather > than the health effects of wireless radiation. Behind the scenes > conversations, however, led me to understand that City staff and > consultants are also still considering a number of critical issues. > The five franchises, I'm told, are therefore short term, only > through September. City Councilors are legally being pressed by > recent State mandates, with which they need to comply (Senate Bill 14, > passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor). The City > is pursuing preparation of a strategic plan that will more > comprehensively addresses our telecom. near future. All or some of > the five newly franchised companies may or may not deploy fiber or > wireless infrastructure in the near term. This matter is ongoing, > and deserves some focused attention, analysis and clear-headedness. > > The health effects of various wireless radiating systems is > contentious, with lots of good science being countered with lots of > bad or inadequate science. It is a long term issue to be better > understood and acted upon, as blinding consumerism drives tech. > adoption. To the extent possible, we ought to practice the > Precautionary Principle. Young children and the elderly may be > most susceptible to (non-ionizing) EM radiation. Might schools > limit wireless networking, in favor of extended fiber nets? > Should the City establish wireless 'quiet zones'? How will > neighborhoods and the City benefit from our tele-networking > developments, and who benefits; how and when? > Lots of questions remain. > > RL > > ------ > > Despite protests, council OKs wireless telecommunication measures > > By Tripp Stelnicki | tstelnicki at sfnewmexican.com May 9, 2018 > > The dozens of Santa Fe residents who claim they are endangered by the > radio frequencies emitted by telecommunication facilities protested five > proposed telecom franchise agreements at length Wednesday night before the > City Council. > > Amid the interruptions of the frequently disorderly crowd, councilors > approved the agreements, which are expected to pave the way to enhanced > wireless and cellular connectivity. The decision places the city in > accordance with a new state law that will establish access and regulation > rules for small cellular facilities on public infrastructure. > > The five ordinances establish new access rights to public rights of way > for telephone and internet service providers, whether with cables or > antennas. > > Subsequent network expansions could eventually provide Santa Feans with > faster speeds, broader coverage and additional retail competition, > according to city fiscal analyses. > > Each of the council votes was 7-2 in favor; councilors Chris Rivera and > Renee Villarreal were against. > > ?I can?t imagine what it would be like to live like some of these people > do with the issues they might have,? Rivera said, referring to the health > concerns expressed by some who came to the meeting. ?Thirty years from now, > we may be looking at this the way we do look at cigarettes.? > > The well-attended, two-hour hearing began with fireworks. A leader in the > local advocacy against electromagnetic radiation, Arthur Firstenberg, > launched into a lengthy and emotional tirade about what he alleged are the > mortal risks posed by the telecom facilities ? ignoring repeated requests > to relinquish the podium after his allotted time had expired. He alternated > between reading his prepared remarks and shouting at Mayor Alan Webber as > the mayor sought to restore order in the boisterous council chamber. > > ?Don?t tell me to shut up!? Firstenberg yelled. > > Webber, showing exasperation but not anger, sternly and repeatedly asked ? > and then instructed ? Firstenberg to stop and admonished the crowd for > their applause when he had finished. > > It would not be the last time Webber asked the crowd for quiet. > > Nodding toward the long line of residents waiting to speak behind > Firstenberg, Webber said, ?To hold the podium for that amount of time is > simply disrespectful of everybody else.? > > The residents who spoke for roughly an hour afterward echoed Firstenberg?s > concerns at a lower volume, variously saying they were victims of > encroaching wireless ?toxins? and that the city must protect their health. > > Many attributed the franchise applications to the telecom industry?s > coming wave of improved wireless technologies known as 5G. > > But a city land-use senior planner, Dan Esquibel, said that no matter when > that next generation of wireless arrives elsewhere, it was not imminent in > Santa Fe, which he said does not yet have the necessary fiber-optic > infrastructure. > > ?I don?t think we?re going to be seeing 5G for quite some time,? Esquibel > said. > > Assistant City Attorney Marcos Martinez reminded councilors that federal > law prohibits them from considering ?environmental effects? and ?health > effects that may flow from the environmental effects? of radio frequency > emissions. > > Webber said the approvals represented the city taking control of its own > infrastructural investments. Still, he said, he took the testimony ?very > seriously.? > > ?I think it?s completely legitimate to be very vigilant and to recognize > not all technology is progress,? Webber said. > > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director > 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 > Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, > rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org > --------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm > > > > _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeff at mountainconnect.org Thu May 10 15:05:31 2018 From: jeff at mountainconnect.org (Jeff) Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 22:05:31 +0000 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] Despite protests, council OKs wireless telecommunication measures In-Reply-To: References: <3b6ca9f6cf261f8183b6fd00656e3f34@1st-mile.org> Message-ID: <02A360CD-7167-42AC-BDD2-4EFFADCA6615@mountainconnect.org> Unless you are Iron Man without the getup and can hover for long and sustained periods, it?s a pointless discussion. Unless, of course, you enjoy rooftop camping and setup your tent next to an AT&T site. One could argue that you are more likely at risk inside your home. From: 1st-mile-nm <1st-mile-nm-bounces+jeff=mountainconnect.org at mailman.dcn.org> on behalf of Christopher Mitchell Date: Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 3:36 PM To: Edward Angel Cc: Richard Lowenberg , 1st-mile Nm <1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org> Subject: Re: [1st-mile-nm] Despite protests, council OKs wireless telecommunication measures It would be helpful to settle this among reasonable people if only we tracked the rate of new cancer diagnoses. Oh wait, we do! Men are seeing less risk of cancer and women are about stable. In the meantime, I guess 38% of us will eventually get cancer of some kind - but that is because we have tamed damn near everything else that would have killed us otherwise. Of course the anti-vaccers want to take care of that - I guess more people dying of easily-prevented diseases could game the stats to make it look like there is less cancer because people will die long before they have a chance to get cancer. I might be concerned about some of these claims about wireless except that we have been using these devices, bathed in this spectrum for what, 15 years? If there is a health exposure risk, it is quite small and should certainly be studied. In the meantime, we have no shortage of tin foil. Christopher Mitchell Director, Community Broadband Networks Institute for Local Self-Reliance MuniNetworks.org @communitynets 612-545-5185 On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:31 AM, Edward Angel > wrote: Not much as changed in the past 15 years. When many of us argued against the flawed telcom ordinance, the same people did the same thing. The major reason it was passed in its flawed form was that the mayor refused to have any more public meetings about it, all of which got out of control and ended with one in which the mayor was accused of being a Nazi. At the city council meeting where the ordinance passed on a tie vote, 75 of them lined up behind us to speak against the ordinance, some of us spoke first and talked about the importance of developing a fiber infrastructure. That calmed down most of the 75 who then said they supported fiber. It took them about a week for them to realize the fiber was used to connect cell towers and they switched to opposing fiber too. Ed _______________________ Ed Angel Founding Director, Art, Research, Technology and Science Laboratory (ARTS Lab) Professor Emeritus of Computer Science, University of New Mexico 1017 Sierra Pinon Santa Fe, NM 87501 505-984-0136 (home) angel at cs.unm.edu 505-453-4944 (cell) http://www.cs.unm.edu/~angel On May 10, 2018, at 10:02 AM, Richard Lowenberg > wrote: Note, I did not attend last night's City Council meeting, but anticipated the process and outcomes reported below. I had and still have deep concerns about the poorly understood economic and community inclusion aspects of this decision making, rather than the health effects of wireless radiation. Behind the scenes conversations, however, led me to understand that City staff and consultants are also still considering a number of critical issues. The five franchises, I'm told, are therefore short term, only through September. City Councilors are legally being pressed by recent State mandates, with which they need to comply (Senate Bill 14, passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor). The City is pursuing preparation of a strategic plan that will more comprehensively addresses our telecom. near future. All or some of the five newly franchised companies may or may not deploy fiber or wireless infrastructure in the near term. This matter is ongoing, and deserves some focused attention, analysis and clear-headedness. The health effects of various wireless radiating systems is contentious, with lots of good science being countered with lots of bad or inadequate science. It is a long term issue to be better understood and acted upon, as blinding consumerism drives tech. adoption. To the extent possible, we ought to practice the Precautionary Principle. Young children and the elderly may be most susceptible to (non-ionizing) EM radiation. Might schools limit wireless networking, in favor of extended fiber nets? Should the City establish wireless 'quiet zones'? How will neighborhoods and the City benefit from our tele-networking developments, and who benefits; how and when? Lots of questions remain. RL ------ Despite protests, council OKs wireless telecommunication measures By Tripp Stelnicki | tstelnicki at sfnewmexican.com May 9, 2018 The dozens of Santa Fe residents who claim they are endangered by the radio frequencies emitted by telecommunication facilities protested five proposed telecom franchise agreements at length Wednesday night before the City Council. Amid the interruptions of the frequently disorderly crowd, councilors approved the agreements, which are expected to pave the way to enhanced wireless and cellular connectivity. The decision places the city in accordance with a new state law that will establish access and regulation rules for small cellular facilities on public infrastructure. The five ordinances establish new access rights to public rights of way for telephone and internet service providers, whether with cables or antennas. Subsequent network expansions could eventually provide Santa Feans with faster speeds, broader coverage and additional retail competition, according to city fiscal analyses. Each of the council votes was 7-2 in favor; councilors Chris Rivera and Renee Villarreal were against. ?I can?t imagine what it would be like to live like some of these people do with the issues they might have,? Rivera said, referring to the health concerns expressed by some who came to the meeting. ?Thirty years from now, we may be looking at this the way we do look at cigarettes.? The well-attended, two-hour hearing began with fireworks. A leader in the local advocacy against electromagnetic radiation, Arthur Firstenberg, launched into a lengthy and emotional tirade about what he alleged are the mortal risks posed by the telecom facilities ? ignoring repeated requests to relinquish the podium after his allotted time had expired. He alternated between reading his prepared remarks and shouting at Mayor Alan Webber as the mayor sought to restore order in the boisterous council chamber. ?Don?t tell me to shut up!? Firstenberg yelled. Webber, showing exasperation but not anger, sternly and repeatedly asked ? and then instructed ? Firstenberg to stop and admonished the crowd for their applause when he had finished. It would not be the last time Webber asked the crowd for quiet. Nodding toward the long line of residents waiting to speak behind Firstenberg, Webber said, ?To hold the podium for that amount of time is simply disrespectful of everybody else.? The residents who spoke for roughly an hour afterward echoed Firstenberg?s concerns at a lower volume, variously saying they were victims of encroaching wireless ?toxins? and that the city must protect their health. Many attributed the franchise applications to the telecom industry?s coming wave of improved wireless technologies known as 5G. But a city land-use senior planner, Dan Esquibel, said that no matter when that next generation of wireless arrives elsewhere, it was not imminent in Santa Fe, which he said does not yet have the necessary fiber-optic infrastructure. ?I don?t think we?re going to be seeing 5G for quite some time,? Esquibel said. Assistant City Attorney Marcos Martinez reminded councilors that federal law prohibits them from considering ?environmental effects? and ?health effects that may flow from the environmental effects? of radio frequency emissions. Webber said the approvals represented the city taking control of its own infrastructural investments. Still, he said, he took the testimony ?very seriously.? ?I think it?s completely legitimate to be very vigilant and to recognize not all technology is progress,? Webber said. --------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org --------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ 1st-mile-nm mailing list 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm _______________________________________________ 1st-mile-nm mailing list 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From david at breeckerassociates.com Thu May 10 17:31:06 2018 From: david at breeckerassociates.com (David Breecker [dba]) Date: Thu, 10 May 2018 18:31:06 -0600 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] Despite protests, council OKs wireless telecommunication measures In-Reply-To: <02A360CD-7167-42AC-BDD2-4EFFADCA6615@mountainconnect.org> References: <3b6ca9f6cf261f8183b6fd00656e3f34@1st-mile.org> <02A360CD-7167-42AC-BDD2-4EFFADCA6615@mountainconnect.org> Message-ID: The one solid meta-study I?ve seen that said there might be a tiny increased risk if you hold your phone tightly to the side of your head for long periods of time also stated that the most effective barrier is indeed? tin foil :) > On May 10, 2018, at 4:05 PM, Jeff wrote: > > Unless you are Iron Man without the getup and can hover for long and sustained periods, it?s a pointless discussion. Unless, of course, you enjoy rooftop camping and setup your tent next to an AT&T site. One could argue that you are more likely at risk inside your home. > > From: 1st-mile-nm <1st-mile-nm-bounces+jeff=mountainconnect.org at mailman.dcn.org> on behalf of Christopher Mitchell > Date: Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 3:36 PM > To: Edward Angel > Cc: Richard Lowenberg , 1st-mile Nm <1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org> > Subject: Re: [1st-mile-nm] Despite protests, council OKs wireless telecommunication measures > > It would be helpful to settle this among reasonable people if only we tracked the rate of new cancer diagnoses. Oh wait, we do!? Men are seeing less risk of cancer and women are about stable. In the meantime, I guess 38% of us will eventually get cancer of some kind - but that is because we have tamed damn near everything else that would have killed us otherwise. Of course the anti-vaccers want to take care of that - I guess more people dying of easily-prevented diseases could game the stats to make it look like there is less cancer because people will die long before they have a chance to get cancer.? <> > > I might be concerned about some of these claims about wireless except that we have been using these devices, bathed in this spectrum for what, 15 years? If there is a health exposure risk, it is quite small and should certainly be studied. > > In the meantime, we have no shortage of tin foil. > > Christopher Mitchell > Director, Community Broadband Networks > Institute for Local Self-Reliance > > MuniNetworks.org > @communitynets > 612-545-5185 > > On Thu, May 10, 2018 at 11:31 AM, Edward Angel > wrote: > Not much as changed in the past 15 years. When many of us argued against the flawed telcom ordinance, the same people did the same thing. The major reason it was passed in its flawed form was that the mayor refused to have any more public meetings about it, all of which got out of control and ended with one in which the mayor was accused of being a Nazi. At the city council meeting where the ordinance passed on a tie vote, 75 of them lined up behind us to speak against the ordinance, some of us spoke first and talked about the importance of developing a fiber infrastructure. That calmed down most of the 75 who then said they supported fiber. It took them about a week for them to realize the fiber was used to connect cell towers and they switched to opposing fiber too. > > Ed > _______________________ > > Ed Angel > > Founding Director, Art, Research, Technology and Science Laboratory (ARTS Lab) > Professor Emeritus of Computer Science, University of New Mexico > > 1017 Sierra Pinon > Santa Fe, NM 87501 > 505-984-0136 (home) angel at cs.unm.edu > 505-453-4944 (cell) http://www.cs.unm.edu/~angel > > > On May 10, 2018, at 10:02 AM, Richard Lowenberg > wrote: > > Note, I did not attend last night's City Council meeting, but > anticipated the process and outcomes reported below. I had > and still have deep concerns about the poorly understood economic > and community inclusion aspects of this decision making, rather > than the health effects of wireless radiation. Behind the scenes > conversations, however, led me to understand that City staff and > consultants are also still considering a number of critical issues. > The five franchises, I'm told, are therefore short term, only > through September. City Councilors are legally being pressed by > recent State mandates, with which they need to comply (Senate Bill 14, > passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor). The City > is pursuing preparation of a strategic plan that will more > comprehensively addresses our telecom. near future. All or some of > the five newly franchised companies may or may not deploy fiber or > wireless infrastructure in the near term. This matter is ongoing, > and deserves some focused attention, analysis and clear-headedness. > > The health effects of various wireless radiating systems is > contentious, with lots of good science being countered with lots of > bad or inadequate science. It is a long term issue to be better > understood and acted upon, as blinding consumerism drives tech. > adoption. To the extent possible, we ought to practice the > Precautionary Principle. Young children and the elderly may be > most susceptible to (non-ionizing) EM radiation. Might schools > limit wireless networking, in favor of extended fiber nets? > Should the City establish wireless 'quiet zones'? How will > neighborhoods and the City benefit from our tele-networking > developments, and who benefits; how and when? > Lots of questions remain. > > RL > > ------ > > Despite protests, council OKs wireless telecommunication measures > > By Tripp Stelnicki | tstelnicki at sfnewmexican.com May 9, 2018 > > The dozens of Santa Fe residents who claim they are endangered by the radio frequencies emitted by telecommunication facilities protested five proposed telecom franchise agreements at length Wednesday night before the City Council. > > Amid the interruptions of the frequently disorderly crowd, councilors approved the agreements, which are expected to pave the way to enhanced wireless and cellular connectivity. The decision places the city in accordance with a new state law that will establish access and regulation rules for small cellular facilities on public infrastructure. > > The five ordinances establish new access rights to public rights of way for telephone and internet service providers, whether with cables or antennas. > > Subsequent network expansions could eventually provide Santa Feans with faster speeds, broader coverage and additional retail competition, according to city fiscal analyses. > > Each of the council votes was 7-2 in favor; councilors Chris Rivera and Renee Villarreal were against. > > ?I can?t imagine what it would be like to live like some of these people do with the issues they might have,? Rivera said, referring to the health concerns expressed by some who came to the meeting. ?Thirty years from now, we may be looking at this the way we do look at cigarettes.? > > The well-attended, two-hour hearing began with fireworks. A leader in the local advocacy against electromagnetic radiation, Arthur Firstenberg, launched into a lengthy and emotional tirade about what he alleged are the mortal risks posed by the telecom facilities ? ignoring repeated requests to relinquish the podium after his allotted time had expired. He alternated between reading his prepared remarks and shouting at Mayor Alan Webber as the mayor sought to restore order in the boisterous council chamber. > > ?Don?t tell me to shut up!? Firstenberg yelled. > > Webber, showing exasperation but not anger, sternly and repeatedly asked ? and then instructed ? Firstenberg to stop and admonished the crowd for their applause when he had finished. > > It would not be the last time Webber asked the crowd for quiet. > > Nodding toward the long line of residents waiting to speak behind Firstenberg, Webber said, ?To hold the podium for that amount of time is simply disrespectful of everybody else.? > > The residents who spoke for roughly an hour afterward echoed Firstenberg?s concerns at a lower volume, variously saying they were victims of encroaching wireless ?toxins? and that the city must protect their health. > > Many attributed the franchise applications to the telecom industry?s coming wave of improved wireless technologies known as 5G. > > But a city land-use senior planner, Dan Esquibel, said that no matter when that next generation of wireless arrives elsewhere, it was not imminent in Santa Fe, which he said does not yet have the necessary fiber-optic infrastructure. > > ?I don?t think we?re going to be seeing 5G for quite some time,? Esquibel said. > > Assistant City Attorney Marcos Martinez reminded councilors that federal law prohibits them from considering ?environmental effects? and ?health effects that may flow from the environmental effects? of radio frequency emissions. > > Webber said the approvals represented the city taking control of its own infrastructural investments. Still, he said, he took the testimony ?very seriously.? > > ?I think it?s completely legitimate to be very vigilant and to recognize not all technology is progress,? Webber said. > > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director > 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 > Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, > rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org > --------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm > > > _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm > > _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm David Breecker, President David Breecker Associates www.breeckerassociates.com Santa Fe Office: 505-690-2335 Abiquiu Office: 505-685-4891 Skype: dbreecker -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PastedGraphic-7.png Type: image/png Size: 7371 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rl at 1st-mile.org Thu May 17 11:56:01 2018 From: rl at 1st-mile.org (Richard Lowenberg) Date: Thu, 17 May 2018 12:56:01 -0600 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] Sovereignty Is More Than a Designation, It Is a Responsibility: Brian Tagaban - ISOC Blog Message-ID: The latest Internet Society blog features an interview with Brian Tagaban with great photo (a subscriber here), who moderated the 1st-Mile Institute co-organized Indigenous Connectivity Summit, held in Santa Fe last Nov. RL -------- Sovereignty Is More Than a Designation, It Is a Responsibility By April Froncek Managing Editor https://www.internetsociety.org/blog/2018/05/sovereignty-is-more-than-a-designation-it-is-a-responsibility/ The Internet can provide access to healthcare, education, and economic opportunity, but many indigenous communities face challenges to Internet access and inclusion. Brian Tagaban, Director of Government Policy at Sacred Wind Communications and former executive director of the Navajo Nation Telecommunication Regulatory Commission, is at RightsCon this week ? the world?s leading conference on human rights in the digital age ? to discuss the digital divide in indigenous communities in North America. He?s there as an Internet Society fellow and joined by other fellows Bill Murdoch, an IT specialist at the Manitoba First Nation School System and the First Nations Health & Social Secretariat of Manitoba, and Madeleine Redfern, the mayor of Iqaluit in Nunavut, Canada. We spoke to Tagaban at the first Indigenous Connectivity Summit. The event was the start of a critical conversation about how indigenous communities can connect themselves to the Internet on their own terms. He detailed the time, diligence, and effort required to build a regulatory framework, and hoped that other Summit participants could ?see how things are possible, celebrate success stories, share those success stories so that they can be built upon, and gain exposure to the political circumstances, social circumstances, geographic circumstances? that other communities faced. With Tagaban?s extensive experience with telecom regulation, he was hopeful that indigenous communities could develop their own effective and informed means of regulation. ?In my work with the Navajo Nation, I was privileged to travel the world, learning other regulatory regimes, exploring the concept of sovereignty. Sovereignty is more than a designation, it is a responsibility. When I was on an international stage, I realized that our nation, the Navajo Nation, is young. We?re infants in this game.? ?With a diligent effort, an honest effort, an effort that is conducive to your neighbors, you can have a regulatory regime that can meet the needs of your community.? Closing the digital divide is a matter of global responsibility. We all must work together to bridge the digital divide and to foster an inclusive digital society. We must work together to #SwitchItOn https://www.internetsociety.org/shapetomorrow/switchiton/ . --------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org --------------------------------------------------------------- From rl at 1st-mile.org Thu May 17 19:41:52 2018 From: rl at 1st-mile.org (Richard Lowenberg) Date: Thu, 17 May 2018 20:41:52 -0600 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] FCC: A Summer Blockbuster Open Meeting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8b6917a078423669169126aece3d2948@1st-mile.org> I thought that some of you might enjoy reading/browsing this posting from FCC Chairman Pai. https://www.fcc.gov/news-events/blog/2018/05/16/summer-blockbuster-open-meeting A SUMMER BLOCKBUSTER OPEN MEETING May 16, 2018 - 1:33 pm By Ajit Pai | FCC Chairman In the spirit of the summer blockbuster season, the Commission?s June 7 meeting is going to be our own version of ?Avengers: Infinity War.? We?re taking familiar headliners?freeing up spectrum, removing barriers to infrastructure buildout, expanding satellite services, modernizing outdated rules, eliminating waste, improving accessibility, protecting consumers?and rolling them into one, super-sized meeting. Fittingly, our featured order is a sequel of its own. For the past few years, one of the agency?s highest priorities has been repurposing high-band spectrum for next-generation wireless services like 5G. In 2016, the FCC unanimously adopted the _Spectrum Frontiers Order_, which established rules for wireless broadband operations in frequencies at or above 24 GHz. Last year, we approved the _Second Report and Order, _which modified the 2016 rules and made available an additional 1,700 megahertz of wireless spectrum for flexible use in the 24 GHz and 47 GHz bands. Today, I?m circulating a _Third Report and Order_ _and_ _Further Notice_ that takes the next steps necessary to promote U.S. leadership in 5G and to deliver advanced wireless services to American consumers. My plan contains multiple proposals for multiple bands, so I?ll tick through them quickly. First, it would establish performance requirements for IoT networks, revise our mobile spectrum holdings rules, and resolve pending sharing and operability issues in the 24 GHz band. Second, for the lower 37 GHz band, we would resolve pending petitions for reconsideration and establish a band plan. Third, the _Further Notice_ asks further questions about the sharing framework for federal and non-federal use in the 37 GHz band. Fourth, it also proposes making spectrum in both the 26 GHz and 42 GHz bands available for flexible wireless use. There?s a lot to digest here, but the big takeaway is that the FCC is taking action to unleash spectrum for the next-generation wireless services that will help grow our economy, boost our nation?s competitiveness, and improve our quality of life. As I said at the outset, our June meeting features the Commission?s greatest hits. Removing regulatory barriers to encourage the deployment of next-generation networks and close the digital divide certainly fits that bill. That?s something that consumers strongly support; as I?ve traveled from the Mountain West to the Gulf Coast, I?ve heard many of them say that they want to benefit from modern, more resilient technologies like optical fiber instead of limping along with slower services like DSL provided over old, often-degraded copper. To respond to that desire, I?ve shared an order with my colleagues that would make it easier for companies to discontinue outdated, legacy services and transition to the networks of the future. These reforms would enable the private sector to stop spending scarce dollars propping up fading technologies of the past and promote investment in technologies of the future. They will also make it easier to restore service in the aftermath of natural disasters and other catastrophic and unforeseen events. Another key to closing the digital divide is lowering the cost of broadband services for consumers. Unfortunately, the FCC?s current rules impose disparate financial burdens on certain rural broadband providers, and their customers literally wind up paying the price. Bear with me on this: The FCC has consistently declined to impose Universal Service Fund (USF) contributions obligations on broadband Internet access service. In English, that essentially means we don?t tax broadband. But rural carriers that offer certain broadband transmission services are uniquely required to contribute to the USF on the revenues from those offerings. Again in English, this essentially means rural companies (hence their customers) have to pay broadband taxes that others don?t have to pay. On June 7, we?ll vote on an order that would relieve small, rural carriers from having to pay these broadband taxes, thereby reducing the cost of broadband services for their customers. Since 2017, the FCC has placed greater emphasis on enabling new satellite technologies to help close the digital divide. In particular, we?ve looked to the skies and have approved the first non-geostationary satellite orbit satellites that would enable high-speed Internet access comparable to Earth-bound offerings. Our June agenda includes two items that would allow satellite companies to offer new services in the United States. The first would expand the U.S. market access of O3b Limited, allowing it to use 26 additional satellites to supply broadband to American customers. The second authorizes Audacy Corporation, a California-based startup, to deploy a middle-Earth-orbit satellite constellation that enables satellite systems to ?talk? to each other. Our _Modernization of Media Regulation Initiative_ has been a consistent source of content for Commission meetings, and our June meeting will be no different. This time, we tackle the FCC?s leased access rules. These rules require cable operators to set aside channel capacity for commercial use by unaffiliated video programmers. The glaring problem with our leased access rules is that they?ve been in legal limbo for a decade. The Commission updated them in 2008, but the Office of Management and Budget never approved them and a federal court halted them. All this means that the 2008 update never went into effect and businesses are still operating under rules adopted nearly 25 years ago. I?ve proposed to vacate the 2008 Order and start over with a clean slate regarding our leased access rules?including an examination of how to modernize them to fit the modern marketplace. We?ll also be reviewing our rules to root out waste, fraud, and abuse. Historically, our intercarrier compensation system has in many cases enabled arbitrage as a business model. In 2011, the FCC adopted reforms to the ICC system that curbed some abuses. But there are still too many loopholes that allow bad actors to game the system. This June, the Commission will consider two items that eye further reform of the intercarrier compensation system. The first is an _Notice of Proposed Rulemaking _looking at how to eliminate incentives to artificially inflate call volumes and to inefficiently route calls. The second focuses on getting rid of incentives for bad actors to abuse the toll-free system (known as 8YY), such as by flooding 8YY numbers with robocalls for the purpose of racking up originating access charges. Speaking of toll-free numbers, we?ll also consider in June how to make sure that the texting capabilities of toll-free numbers aren?t hijacked by unauthorized parties. Toll-free numbers are a popular tool used by businesses and government to be more open and accessible to the public. And increasingly, these toll-free numbers are used by businesses for text communications. This can be a valuable and innovative use of toll-free numbers. But to make sure third parties that don?t abuse the system by ?text-enabling? a toll-free number they don?t own, we want to set rules of the road for activating this function. Another valuable and innovative service that we?ll be addressing at our June meeting is Internet Protocol Captioned Telephone Service (IP CTS). This is a telecommunications service (technically, a telecommunications relay service, or TRS) that allows individuals with hearing loss to both read captions and use their residual hearing to understand a telephone conversation. Use of IP CTS is paid for entirely through the FCC?s TRS Fund, and it?s grown exponentially in recent years. Today, this service represents almost 80% of the total minutes compensated out of the Commission TRS Fund?at a cost of nearly one billion dollars. At the same time, the contribution base for the TRS Fund is shrinking. We simply have to take action to preserve the viability of IP CTS for those people with hearing loss who need it. That?s why we?ll be voting on moving IP CTS compensation rates closer to actual provider costs, on measures to limit unnecessary IP CTS use, and on exploring ways to expand the TRS Fund contribution base. The order would also allow service providers to use fully-automated speech recognition to generate captions and bring the benefits of this innovation to IP CTS users. We not only want to expand access to technologies and services that help consumers, we want to shield them from illegal and harmful practices. Two longstanding and continuing problems for consumers are slamming and cramming. Slamming is the unauthorized change of a consumer?s preferred telecommunications provider. Cramming is the placement of unauthorized charges on a consumer?s telephone bill. The FCC has taken enforcement actions against slamming and cramming for several years, but the rules against these types of fraud need to be strengthened. That?s why I?m proposing new rules that include a clear ban on misrepresentations made during sales calls and a clean prohibition against placing unauthorized charges on consumers? phone bills. My proposal would also put additional teeth into our anti-slamming rules by clarifying that carriers who abuse our third-party verification process will be suspended from using that system for two years. Rounding out our June meeting will be an enforcement item, which I can?t currently disclose. Think of it as the surprise teaser at the conclusion of every Marvel movie. Like ?Infinity War,? our June meeting will have a running time that many may find excessive. But it also stands to unleash billions in economic activity and include multiple crowd-pleasers that I hope will leave the audience wanting more. --------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org --------------------------------------------------------------- From granoff at zianet.com Sun May 27 08:50:45 2018 From: granoff at zianet.com (Marianne Granoff) Date: Sun, 27 May 2018 09:50:45 -0600 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] Malware on routers Message-ID: <20180527155036.4C86726FD@velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us> I hope all of you are aware of the issues in this article: https://mobile.nytimes.com/2018/05/27/technology/router-fbi-reboot-malware.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur I have not seen any discussion regarding this issue on this list or any other list. Marianne Granoff Albuquerque, NM Retired --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com From editorsteve at gmail.com Sun May 27 09:36:13 2018 From: editorsteve at gmail.com (Steve Ross) Date: Sun, 27 May 2018 12:36:13 -0400 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] Fwd: TA18-145A: Cyber Actors Target Home and Office Routers and Networked Devices Worldwide In-Reply-To: <17188139.225209@ncas.us-cert.gov> References: <17188139.225209@ncas.us-cert.gov> Message-ID: Fyi on routers ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: US-CERT Date: Fri, May 25, 2018, 5:14 PM Subject: TA18-145A: Cyber Actors Target Home and Office Routers and Networked Devices Worldwide To: [image: U.S. Department of Homeland Security US-CERT] National Cyber Awareness System: TA18-145A: Cyber Actors Target Home and Office Routers and Networked Devices Worldwide 05/25/2018 02:22 PM EDT Original release date: May 25, 2018 Systems Affected - Small office/home office (SOHO) routers - Networked devices - Network-attached storage (NAS) devices Overview Cybersecurity researchers have identified that foreign cyber actors have compromised hundreds of thousands of home and office routers and other networked devices worldwide [1] [2] . The actors used VPNFilter malware to target small office/home office (SOHO) routers. VPNFilter malware uses modular functionality to collect intelligence, exploit local area network (LAN) devices, and block actor-configurable network traffic. Specific characteristics of VPNFilter have only been observed in the BlackEnergy malware, specifically BlackEnergy versions 2 and 3. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) recommend that owners of SOHO routers power cycle (reboot) SOHO routers and networked devices to temporarily disrupt the malware. DHS and FBI encourage SOHO router owners to report information concerning suspicious or criminal activity to their local FBI field office or the FBI?s 24/7 Cyber Watch (CyWatch). Field office contacts can be identified at www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field. CyWatch can be contacted by phone at 855-292-3937 or by email at CyWatch at fbi.gov. Each submitted report should include as much informaiton as possible, specifically the date, time, location, type of activity, number of people, the type of equipment used for the activity, the name of the submitting company or organization, and a designated point of contact. Description The size and scope of this infrastructure impacted by VPNFilter malware is significant. The persistent VPNFilter malware linked to this infrastructure targets a variety of SOHO routers and network-attached storage devices. The initial exploit vector for this malware is currently unknown. The malware uses a modular functionality on SOHO routers to collect intelligence, exploit LAN devices, and block actor-configurable network traffic. The malware can render a device inoperable, and has destructive functionality across routers, network-attached storage devices, and central processing unit (CPU) architectures running embedded Linux. The command and control mechanism implemented by the malware uses a combination of secure sockets layer (SSL) with client-side certificates for authentication and TOR protocols, complicating network traffic detection and analysis. Impact Negative consequences of VPNFilter malware infection include: - temporary or permanent loss of sensitive or proprietary information, - disruption to regular operations, - financial losses incurred to restore systems and files, and - potential harm to an organization?s reputation. Solution DHS and FBI recommend that all SOHO router owners power cycle (reboot) their devices to temporarily disrupt the malware. Network device management interfaces?such as Telnet, SSH, Winbox, and HTTP?should be turned off for wide-area network (WAN) interfaces, and, when enabled, secured with strong passwords and encryption. Network devices should be upgraded to the latest available versions of firmware, which often contain patches for vulnerabilities. Rebooting affected devices will cause non-persistent portions of the malware to be removed from the system. Network defenders should ensure that first-stage malware is removed from the devices, and appropriate network-level blocking is in place prior to rebooting affected devices. This will ensure that second stage malware is not downloaded again after reboot. While the paths at each stage of the malware can vary across device platforms, processes running with the name "vpnfilter" are almost certainly instances of the second stage malware. Terminating these processes and removing associated processes and persistent files that execute the second stage malware would likely remove this malware from targeted devices. References - [1] New VPNFilter malware targets at least 500K networking devices worldwide - [2] Justice Department Announces Actions to Disrupt Advanced Persistent Threat 28 Botnet of Infected Routers and Network Storage Revision History - May 25, 2018: Initial Version ------------------------------ This product is provided subject to this Notification and this Privacy & Use policy. ------------------------------ A copy of this publication is available at www.us-cert.gov. If you need help or have questions, please send an email to info at us-cert.gov. Do not reply to this message since this email was sent from a notification-only address that is not monitored. To ensure you receive future US-CERT products, please add US-CERT at ncas.us-cert.gov to your address book. OTHER RESOURCES: Contact Us | Security Publications | Alerts and Tips | Related Resources STAY CONNECTED: [image: Sign up for email updates] SUBSCRIBER SERVICES: Manage Preferences | Unsubscribe | Help ------------------------------ This email was sent to editorsteve at gmail.com using GovDelivery Communications Cloud on behalf of: United States Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT) ? 245 Murray Lane SW Bldg 410 ? Washington, DC 20598 ? (888) 282-0870 [image: GovDelivery logo] -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From doug.orr at gmail.com Sun May 27 10:13:11 2018 From: doug.orr at gmail.com (Doug Orr) Date: Sun, 27 May 2018 11:13:11 -0600 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] Fwd: TA18-145A: Cyber Actors Target Home and Office Routers and Networked Devices Worldwide In-Reply-To: References: <17188139.225209@ncas.us-cert.gov> Message-ID: Yeah, you may not have a choice but you're generally a sucker if you run anything on popular hardware. That's the big thing that kept mac's safe(r) for so long. I love my chromebook, I have an AMD pfsense box I am just deploying... Which leads us, of course, to the issues around connected cars... Doug On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 10:36 AM Steve Ross wrote: > Fyi on routers > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > From: US-CERT > Date: Fri, May 25, 2018, 5:14 PM > Subject: TA18-145A: Cyber Actors Target Home and Office Routers and > Networked Devices Worldwide > To: > > > [image: U.S. Department of Homeland Security US-CERT] > > National Cyber Awareness System: > > > TA18-145A: Cyber Actors Target Home and Office Routers and Networked > Devices Worldwide > 05/25/2018 02:22 PM EDT > > Original release date: May 25, 2018 > Systems Affected > > - Small office/home office (SOHO) routers > - Networked devices > - Network-attached storage (NAS) devices > > Overview > > Cybersecurity researchers have identified that foreign cyber actors have > compromised hundreds of thousands of home and office routers and other > networked devices worldwide [1] > [2] > . > The actors used VPNFilter malware to target small office/home office (SOHO) > routers. VPNFilter malware uses modular functionality to collect > intelligence, exploit local area network (LAN) devices, and block > actor-configurable network traffic. Specific characteristics of VPNFilter > have only been observed in the BlackEnergy malware, specifically > BlackEnergy versions 2 and 3. > > The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Federal Bureau of > Investigation (FBI) recommend that owners of SOHO routers power cycle > (reboot) SOHO routers and networked devices to temporarily disrupt the > malware. > > DHS and FBI encourage SOHO router owners to report information concerning > suspicious or criminal activity to their local FBI field office or the > FBI?s 24/7 Cyber Watch (CyWatch). Field office contacts can be identified > at www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field. CyWatch can be contacted by phone at > 855-292-3937 <(855)%20292-3937> or by email at CyWatch at fbi.gov. Each > submitted report should include as much informaiton as possible, > specifically the date, time, location, type of activity, number of people, > the type of equipment used for the activity, the name of the submitting > company or organization, and a designated point of contact. > Description > > The size and scope of this infrastructure impacted by VPNFilter malware is > significant. The persistent VPNFilter malware linked to this infrastructure > targets a variety of SOHO routers and network-attached storage devices. The > initial exploit vector for this malware is currently unknown. > > The malware uses a modular functionality on SOHO routers to collect > intelligence, exploit LAN devices, and block actor-configurable network > traffic. The malware can render a device inoperable, and has destructive > functionality across routers, network-attached storage devices, and central > processing unit (CPU) architectures running embedded Linux. The command and > control mechanism implemented by the malware uses a combination of secure > sockets layer (SSL) with client-side certificates for authentication and > TOR protocols, complicating network traffic detection and analysis. > Impact > > Negative consequences of VPNFilter malware infection include: > > - temporary or permanent loss of sensitive or proprietary information, > - disruption to regular operations, > - financial losses incurred to restore systems and files, and > - potential harm to an organization?s reputation. > > Solution > > DHS and FBI recommend that all SOHO router owners power cycle (reboot) > their devices to temporarily disrupt the malware. > > Network device management interfaces?such as Telnet, SSH, Winbox, and > HTTP?should be turned off for wide-area network (WAN) interfaces, and, when > enabled, secured with strong passwords and encryption. Network devices > should be upgraded to the latest available versions of firmware, which > often contain patches for vulnerabilities. > > Rebooting affected devices will cause non-persistent portions of the > malware to be removed from the system. Network defenders should ensure that > first-stage malware is removed from the devices, and appropriate > network-level blocking is in place prior to rebooting affected devices. > This will ensure that second stage malware is not downloaded again after > reboot. > > While the paths at each stage of the malware can vary across device > platforms, processes running with the name "vpnfilter" are almost certainly > instances of the second stage malware. Terminating these processes and > removing associated processes and persistent files that execute the second > stage malware would likely remove this malware from targeted devices. > References > > - [1] New VPNFilter malware targets at least 500K networking devices > worldwide > - [2] Justice Department Announces Actions to Disrupt Advanced > Persistent Threat 28 Botnet of Infected Routers and Network Storage > > > Revision History > > - May 25, 2018: Initial Version > > ------------------------------ > > This product is provided subject to this Notification > and this Privacy & Use > policy. > ------------------------------ > A copy of this publication is available at www.us-cert.gov. If you need > help or have questions, please send an email to info at us-cert.gov. Do not > reply to this message since this email was sent from a notification-only > address that is not monitored. To ensure you receive future US-CERT > products, please add US-CERT at ncas.us-cert.gov to your address book. > OTHER RESOURCES: > Contact Us | Security Publications > | Alerts and Tips > | Related Resources > > STAY CONNECTED: > [image: Sign up for email updates] > > > SUBSCRIBER SERVICES: > Manage Preferences > > | Unsubscribe > > | Help > ------------------------------ > This email was sent to editorsteve at gmail.com using GovDelivery > Communications Cloud on behalf of: United States Computer Emergency > Readiness Team (US-CERT) ? 245 Murray Lane SW Bldg 410 ? Washington, DC > 20598 ? (888) 282-0870 [image: GovDelivery logo] > > _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From editorsteve at gmail.com Sun May 27 10:29:29 2018 From: editorsteve at gmail.com (Steve Ross) Date: Sun, 27 May 2018 13:29:29 -0400 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] Fwd: TA18-145A: Cyber Actors Target Home and Office Routers and Networked Devices Worldwide In-Reply-To: References: <17188139.225209@ncas.us-cert.gov> Message-ID: Yeah, we may hav ed to buy the rare mercedes On Sun, May 27, 2018, 1:13 PM Doug Orr wrote: > Yeah, you may not have a choice but you're generally a sucker if you run > anything on popular hardware. That's the big thing that kept mac's safe(r) > for so long. I love my chromebook, I have an AMD pfsense box I am just > deploying... > > Which leads us, of course, to the issues around connected cars... > > Doug > > On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 10:36 AM Steve Ross wrote: > >> Fyi on routers >> >> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >> From: US-CERT >> Date: Fri, May 25, 2018, 5:14 PM >> Subject: TA18-145A: Cyber Actors Target Home and Office Routers and >> Networked Devices Worldwide >> To: >> >> >> [image: U.S. Department of Homeland Security US-CERT] >> >> National Cyber Awareness System: >> >> >> TA18-145A: Cyber Actors Target Home and Office Routers and Networked >> Devices Worldwide >> 05/25/2018 02:22 PM EDT >> >> Original release date: May 25, 2018 >> Systems Affected >> >> - Small office/home office (SOHO) routers >> - Networked devices >> - Network-attached storage (NAS) devices >> >> Overview >> >> Cybersecurity researchers have identified that foreign cyber actors have >> compromised hundreds of thousands of home and office routers and other >> networked devices worldwide [1] >> [2] >> . >> The actors used VPNFilter malware to target small office/home office (SOHO) >> routers. VPNFilter malware uses modular functionality to collect >> intelligence, exploit local area network (LAN) devices, and block >> actor-configurable network traffic. Specific characteristics of VPNFilter >> have only been observed in the BlackEnergy malware, specifically >> BlackEnergy versions 2 and 3. >> >> The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Federal Bureau of >> Investigation (FBI) recommend that owners of SOHO routers power cycle >> (reboot) SOHO routers and networked devices to temporarily disrupt the >> malware. >> >> DHS and FBI encourage SOHO router owners to report information concerning >> suspicious or criminal activity to their local FBI field office or the >> FBI?s 24/7 Cyber Watch (CyWatch). Field office contacts can be identified >> at www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field. CyWatch can be contacted by phone at >> 855-292-3937 <(855)%20292-3937> or by email at CyWatch at fbi.gov. Each >> submitted report should include as much informaiton as possible, >> specifically the date, time, location, type of activity, number of people, >> the type of equipment used for the activity, the name of the submitting >> company or organization, and a designated point of contact. >> Description >> >> The size and scope of this infrastructure impacted by VPNFilter malware >> is significant. The persistent VPNFilter malware linked to this >> infrastructure targets a variety of SOHO routers and network-attached >> storage devices. The initial exploit vector for this malware is currently >> unknown. >> >> The malware uses a modular functionality on SOHO routers to collect >> intelligence, exploit LAN devices, and block actor-configurable network >> traffic. The malware can render a device inoperable, and has destructive >> functionality across routers, network-attached storage devices, and central >> processing unit (CPU) architectures running embedded Linux. The command and >> control mechanism implemented by the malware uses a combination of secure >> sockets layer (SSL) with client-side certificates for authentication and >> TOR protocols, complicating network traffic detection and analysis. >> Impact >> >> Negative consequences of VPNFilter malware infection include: >> >> - temporary or permanent loss of sensitive or proprietary information, >> - disruption to regular operations, >> - financial losses incurred to restore systems and files, and >> - potential harm to an organization?s reputation. >> >> Solution >> >> DHS and FBI recommend that all SOHO router owners power cycle (reboot) >> their devices to temporarily disrupt the malware. >> >> Network device management interfaces?such as Telnet, SSH, Winbox, and >> HTTP?should be turned off for wide-area network (WAN) interfaces, and, when >> enabled, secured with strong passwords and encryption. Network devices >> should be upgraded to the latest available versions of firmware, which >> often contain patches for vulnerabilities. >> >> Rebooting affected devices will cause non-persistent portions of the >> malware to be removed from the system. Network defenders should ensure that >> first-stage malware is removed from the devices, and appropriate >> network-level blocking is in place prior to rebooting affected devices. >> This will ensure that second stage malware is not downloaded again after >> reboot. >> >> While the paths at each stage of the malware can vary across device >> platforms, processes running with the name "vpnfilter" are almost certainly >> instances of the second stage malware. Terminating these processes and >> removing associated processes and persistent files that execute the second >> stage malware would likely remove this malware from targeted devices. >> References >> >> - [1] New VPNFilter malware targets at least 500K networking devices >> worldwide >> - [2] Justice Department Announces Actions to Disrupt Advanced >> Persistent Threat 28 Botnet of Infected Routers and Network Storage >> >> >> Revision History >> >> - May 25, 2018: Initial Version >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> This product is provided subject to this Notification >> and this Privacy & Use >> policy. >> ------------------------------ >> A copy of this publication is available at www.us-cert.gov. If you need >> help or have questions, please send an email to info at us-cert.gov. Do not >> reply to this message since this email was sent from a notification-only >> address that is not monitored. To ensure you receive future US-CERT >> products, please add US-CERT at ncas.us-cert.gov to your address book. >> OTHER RESOURCES: >> Contact Us | Security Publications >> | Alerts and Tips >> | Related Resources >> >> STAY CONNECTED: >> [image: Sign up for email updates] >> >> >> SUBSCRIBER SERVICES: >> Manage Preferences >> >> | Unsubscribe >> >> | Help >> ------------------------------ >> This email was sent to editorsteve at gmail.com using GovDelivery >> Communications Cloud on behalf of: United States Computer Emergency >> Readiness Team (US-CERT) ? 245 Murray Lane SW Bldg 410 ? Washington, DC >> 20598 ? (888) 282-0870 [image: GovDelivery logo] >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 1st-mile-nm mailing list >> 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org >> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From doug.orr at gmail.com Sun May 27 10:43:59 2018 From: doug.orr at gmail.com (Doug Orr) Date: Sun, 27 May 2018 11:43:59 -0600 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] Fwd: TA18-145A: Cyber Actors Target Home and Office Routers and Networked Devices Worldwide In-Reply-To: References: <17188139.225209@ncas.us-cert.gov> Message-ID: There's a reason they call it "bleeding edge" :) On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 11:29 AM Steve Ross wrote: > Yeah, we may hav ed to buy the rare mercedes > > On Sun, May 27, 2018, 1:13 PM Doug Orr wrote: > >> Yeah, you may not have a choice but you're generally a sucker if you run >> anything on popular hardware. That's the big thing that kept mac's safe(r) >> for so long. I love my chromebook, I have an AMD pfsense box I am just >> deploying... >> >> Which leads us, of course, to the issues around connected cars... >> >> Doug >> >> On Sun, May 27, 2018 at 10:36 AM Steve Ross >> wrote: >> >>> Fyi on routers >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >>> From: US-CERT >>> Date: Fri, May 25, 2018, 5:14 PM >>> Subject: TA18-145A: Cyber Actors Target Home and Office Routers and >>> Networked Devices Worldwide >>> To: >>> >>> >>> [image: U.S. Department of Homeland Security US-CERT] >>> >>> National Cyber Awareness System: >>> >>> >>> TA18-145A: Cyber Actors Target Home and Office Routers and Networked >>> Devices Worldwide >>> 05/25/2018 02:22 PM EDT >>> >>> Original release date: May 25, 2018 >>> Systems Affected >>> >>> - Small office/home office (SOHO) routers >>> - Networked devices >>> - Network-attached storage (NAS) devices >>> >>> Overview >>> >>> Cybersecurity researchers have identified that foreign cyber actors have >>> compromised hundreds of thousands of home and office routers and other >>> networked devices worldwide [1] >>> [2] >>> . >>> The actors used VPNFilter malware to target small office/home office (SOHO) >>> routers. VPNFilter malware uses modular functionality to collect >>> intelligence, exploit local area network (LAN) devices, and block >>> actor-configurable network traffic. Specific characteristics of VPNFilter >>> have only been observed in the BlackEnergy malware, specifically >>> BlackEnergy versions 2 and 3. >>> >>> The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Federal Bureau of >>> Investigation (FBI) recommend that owners of SOHO routers power cycle >>> (reboot) SOHO routers and networked devices to temporarily disrupt the >>> malware. >>> >>> DHS and FBI encourage SOHO router owners to report information >>> concerning suspicious or criminal activity to their local FBI field office >>> or the FBI?s 24/7 Cyber Watch (CyWatch). Field office contacts can be >>> identified at www.fbi.gov/contact-us/field. CyWatch can be contacted by >>> phone at 855-292-3937 <(855)%20292-3937> or by email at CyWatch at fbi.gov. >>> Each submitted report should include as much informaiton as possible, >>> specifically the date, time, location, type of activity, number of people, >>> the type of equipment used for the activity, the name of the submitting >>> company or organization, and a designated point of contact. >>> Description >>> >>> The size and scope of this infrastructure impacted by VPNFilter malware >>> is significant. The persistent VPNFilter malware linked to this >>> infrastructure targets a variety of SOHO routers and network-attached >>> storage devices. The initial exploit vector for this malware is currently >>> unknown. >>> >>> The malware uses a modular functionality on SOHO routers to collect >>> intelligence, exploit LAN devices, and block actor-configurable network >>> traffic. The malware can render a device inoperable, and has destructive >>> functionality across routers, network-attached storage devices, and central >>> processing unit (CPU) architectures running embedded Linux. The command and >>> control mechanism implemented by the malware uses a combination of secure >>> sockets layer (SSL) with client-side certificates for authentication and >>> TOR protocols, complicating network traffic detection and analysis. >>> Impact >>> >>> Negative consequences of VPNFilter malware infection include: >>> >>> - temporary or permanent loss of sensitive or proprietary >>> information, >>> - disruption to regular operations, >>> - financial losses incurred to restore systems and files, and >>> - potential harm to an organization?s reputation. >>> >>> Solution >>> >>> DHS and FBI recommend that all SOHO router owners power cycle (reboot) >>> their devices to temporarily disrupt the malware. >>> >>> Network device management interfaces?such as Telnet, SSH, Winbox, and >>> HTTP?should be turned off for wide-area network (WAN) interfaces, and, when >>> enabled, secured with strong passwords and encryption. Network devices >>> should be upgraded to the latest available versions of firmware, which >>> often contain patches for vulnerabilities. >>> >>> Rebooting affected devices will cause non-persistent portions of the >>> malware to be removed from the system. Network defenders should ensure that >>> first-stage malware is removed from the devices, and appropriate >>> network-level blocking is in place prior to rebooting affected devices. >>> This will ensure that second stage malware is not downloaded again after >>> reboot. >>> >>> While the paths at each stage of the malware can vary across device >>> platforms, processes running with the name "vpnfilter" are almost certainly >>> instances of the second stage malware. Terminating these processes and >>> removing associated processes and persistent files that execute the second >>> stage malware would likely remove this malware from targeted devices. >>> References >>> >>> - [1] New VPNFilter malware targets at least 500K networking devices >>> worldwide >>> - [2] Justice Department Announces Actions to Disrupt Advanced >>> Persistent Threat 28 Botnet of Infected Routers and Network Storage >>> >>> >>> Revision History >>> >>> - May 25, 2018: Initial Version >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> This product is provided subject to this Notification >>> and this Privacy & Use >>> policy. >>> ------------------------------ >>> A copy of this publication is available at www.us-cert.gov. If you need >>> help or have questions, please send an email to info at us-cert.gov. Do >>> not reply to this message since this email was sent from a >>> notification-only address that is not monitored. To ensure you receive >>> future US-CERT products, please add US-CERT at ncas.us-cert.gov to your >>> address book. >>> OTHER RESOURCES: >>> Contact Us | Security Publications >>> | Alerts and Tips >>> | Related Resources >>> >>> STAY CONNECTED: >>> [image: Sign up for email updates] >>> >>> >>> SUBSCRIBER SERVICES: >>> Manage Preferences >>> >>> | Unsubscribe >>> >>> | Help >>> ------------------------------ >>> This email was sent to editorsteve at gmail.com using GovDelivery >>> Communications Cloud on behalf of: United States Computer Emergency >>> Readiness Team (US-CERT) ? 245 Murray Lane SW Bldg 410 ? Washington, DC >>> >>> 20598 ? (888) 282-0870 [image: GovDelivery logo] >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 1st-mile-nm mailing list >>> 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org >>> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm >>> >> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rl at 1st-mile.org Mon May 28 08:29:32 2018 From: rl at 1st-mile.org (Richard Lowenberg) Date: Mon, 28 May 2018 09:29:32 -0600 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] Cortez reveals results of fiber project feasibility study Message-ID: Cortez reveals results of fiber project feasibility study Sales tax increase could fund city-wide internet By Stephanie Alderton Journal Staff Writer Thursday, May 24, 2018 https://durangoherald.com/articles/225275 Consultants hired to do a fiber-to-the-home feasibility study in Cortez estimated the cheapest method to provide fiber to residential areas in the city would be for the city to become a direct internet service provider and to fund the fiber installation with a temporary sales tax increase. This week, Doug Dawson of CCG Consulting and Chris Konechne of Finley Engineering shared the collection of data from their months-long study, which was designed o study whether the city could deliver high-speed internet to all Cortez residents without losing taxpayer money. Dawson and Konechne said their survey showed Cortez?s need for broadband, and the unusual obstacles that stand in the way of bringing it there. Dawson said a speed test and survey of residents? internet bills showed that few people in Cortez get the internet speeds they are paying for, and the fees they are paying are inconsistent, with some people paying the advertised price for service from companies like CenturyLink and TDS, and others getting significant discounts. ?We couldn?t find two people who paid the same price,? Dawson said. The study?s goal, he said, was to come up with a network model that would pay for itself and give Cortez residents faster internet at a consistent price. Konechne said the biggest obstacle to affordable internet in Cortez is the accessibility of telephone poles. Normally, installing fiber on existing poles is cheaper than burying it, he said, but because many of Cortez?s poles are old and don?t meet current fiber standards, it would cost about as much to make them ready for aerial fiber as it would to install a buried network. He proposed a hybrid design that would include both buried and aerial fiber, in addition to connecting with fiber the city has already installed. Dawson estimated the fiber project would cost between $10 and $14 million. He added that the usual method of paying for city-wide broadband?applying for bonds also wouldn?t be practical in Cortez because of the high price of installing fiber. In a scenario where the city was awarded a bond to cover the installation cost, he estimated it would end up losing as much as $19.6 million over the next 25 years. ?This scenario does not work,? Dawson said. He also dismissed an open access fiber model, in which the city would install fiber and charge other ISPs to use it, as impractical. The city wouldn?t be able to charge ISPs like TDS enough to pay for the network, he said. Instead, Dawson and Konechne proposed a system in which the city would install fiber throughout Cortez, using funds from a temporary sales tax increase of about 1 percent, and connect residents with the network for a competitive price. This model, he said, would pay for itself and even turn a profit for the city over 25 years. But the consultants said becoming an ISP would be risky for the town. Other communities have been sued by existing ISPs for providing their own internet services. Providing fiber to the home would also force the city government to get involved with a highly technical industry in which its members have little experience. Dawson recommended the town start by conducting a scientific survey to determine how badly Cortez residents want broadband, and whether they would be willing to raise sales tax rates in order to get it. He also recommended the government conduct more engineering work to determine the precise cost of installing fiber. If the sales tax increase gets on a ballot and is approved, he said the fastest the fiber project could be completed would be in three to four years. --------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org --------------------------------------------------------------- From rl at 1st-mile.org Tue May 29 10:04:04 2018 From: rl at 1st-mile.org (Richard Lowenberg) Date: Tue, 29 May 2018 11:04:04 -0600 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] Udall, Gardner Introduce Bill to Put Wi-Fi on School Buses Message-ID: <18ed03aae9f4a07f0a6e2a41b66073a8@1st-mile.org> MAY 24, 2018 Udall, Gardner Introduce Bill to Put Wi-Fi on School Buses https://www.tomudall.senate.gov/news/press-releases/udall-gardner-introduce-bill-to-put-wi-fi-on-school-buses Bipartisan bill aims to close "homework gap" that disadvantages low-income and rural students without internet access at home WASHINGTON ? Today, U.S. Senator Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and U.S. Senator Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) introduced a bill to put wireless internet on school buses in order to help students without broadband access at home get online to study and do homework. The legislation would allow the Federal Communications Commission?s (FCC) E-Rate program to reimburse schools that place wi-fi technology on school buses carrying students to school or school related extracurricular activities. ?Every New Mexico kid should have every opportunity to succeed ? no matter where they live. But nearly one-third of kids in New Mexico are at risk of falling behind simply because they can?t get on the internet at home,? Udall said. ?It?s time to end the homework gap. Our legislation will help give all students the ability to get online to study and do homework assignments while they?re on the bus ? a common sense, 21st century solution. By boosting federal investment in broadband and internet infrastructure, we?ll help close the digital divide that hurts too many rural New Mexico communities, Tribes, and low-income families.? ?Many students in rural school districts across Colorado and the country spend hours on the bus each day commuting to and from school and traveling to sporting events,? said Gardner. ?These students should have the opportunity to use their time more effectively and installing Wi-Fi on school buses will allow them to finish homework assignments and bring the classroom to the road. Senator Udall and I are introducing this bipartisan legislation that will allow school districts to invest in their students and use federal dollars to outfit their school buses with WiFi. This will help rural students and especially low-income students who may not otherwise have access to mobile Internet. I?m excited about this new opportunity and look forward to seeing students in Colorado benefit from this initiative.? "I applaud Senator Udall and Senator Gardner for their forward thinking to increase access and opportunity in order to bridge the divide that exists for many children in this country," added Dr. Veronica C. Garcia, superintendent of Santa Fe Public School. Udall and Gardner?s legislation was inspired by Jonah Madrid, a New Mexico student athlete. During a roundtable on the homework gap at Hatch Valley High School, Madrid told Udall and FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel about the great lengths he would go to find wi-fi signal after school was over. Madrid shared that, after traveling hours on the bus to football games, he would sit in the school parking lot late at night to do his homework because that was the only place he could access a wireless internet signal. Madrid proposed putting wireless technology on his school bus in order to let him and his teammates make use of their long bus rides. Earlier this month, Udall joined Santa Fe Public Schools and Google to roll out their Rolling Study Halls initiative, which has equipped six Santa Fe area school buses with wi-fi technology to help students with long commutes access the internet. The legislation has received widespread support from stakeholders, including the School Superintendents Association, a professional organization representing thousands of educational leaders through America and the world, the Competitive Carriers Association, an advocacy organization for rural, regional and nationwide wireless telecommunications, and NTUA Wireless, a Navajo owned communications company. Tribal communities in New Mexico are particularly disadvantaged by the digital divide, with nearly 80 percent of Tribal members living in rural New Mexico unable to access the internet at home. ?When we think about efficiencies in federal policies, and common sense solutions that allow education system leaders to make small changes with big impacts: that is the type of policy we can support," said Daniel A. Domenech, Executive Director of the School Superintendents Association. "AASA applauds Mr. Gardner and Mr. Udall for their continued leadership on the issue of expanding access to internet for our students, and AASA is pleased to support their bill that would require the Federal Communications Commission to include Wi-Fi access on school buses an eligible use of the E-Rate program. AASA has long supported the E-Rate program, responsible for transforming internet access in classrooms across the nation over the last two decades, and this legislation is another step forward in ensuring that today?s 24-hour students have 24-hour access.? ?Making Wi-Fi services available for students on school buses eligible for E-rate support is a win-win for everyone, and I thank Senators Udall and Gardner for introducing this legislation," said Steven K. Berry, President and CEO of the Competitive Carriers Association. "Access to educational resources is just one of the many benefits that robust mobile broadband services provides, and this bill will be especially beneficial for students in rural areas with long drive-times to and from school. ?Connected buses? should be available to all students, no matter where they live, and CCA supports this legislation moving forward.? ?I am pleased to support the expanded use of E-Rate funds to include wireless internet service on school buses," said Clyde Casciato, NTUA Wireless General Manager. "Living and working on the Navajo nation, I know firsthand the challenges facing our educators and students due to lack of internet access. For many people, internet access is not available at home or in their community, making it nearly impossible for students to complete homework assignments and research projects. In the past year, NTUAW has partnered with Kayenta Unified School District to trial this service on three different school bus routes. Not only has the technology worked successfully, it has been used regularly by students to complete assignments. By deploying wireless internet access on school buses, students are able to take advantage of what would otherwise be lost hours on the school bus each day to continue their education. Unfortunately, without E-Rate funds to support this initiative, it will never become a reality for most schools as they cannot afford to take on the expense of this additional service. Without a doubt, expanding E-Rate funds to include internet access on school buses will impact the quality of education received by so many students on the Navajo Nation. On behalf of NTUAW, I want to thank you for advocating to fund this service, and look forward to the opportunity to partner with schools to get it deployed on school buses throughout the Navajo Nation.? A copy of the legislation is available HERE. https://www.tomudall.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Final%20Bill%20for%20Introduction.pdf --------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org --------------------------------------------------------------- From jeff at mountainconnect.org Tue May 29 16:19:52 2018 From: jeff at mountainconnect.org (Jeff) Date: Tue, 29 May 2018 23:19:52 +0000 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] Udall, Gardner Introduce Bill to Put Wi-Fi on School Buses In-Reply-To: <18ed03aae9f4a07f0a6e2a41b66073a8@1st-mile.org> References: <18ed03aae9f4a07f0a6e2a41b66073a8@1st-mile.org> Message-ID: <6213CD84-36F8-4711-9A7D-C40E71225EAA@mountainconnect.org> This is a very nice gesture but implementing it is another discussion. I recently looked in to the feasibility of this for a Denver-area school district and the per user cost, content concerns, privacy, etc., all have made this, as of now, untenable and cost prohibitive. Deployment models, along with licensing construct, have yet to be defined and there are not enough active deployments to model after. I hope they can find a way to make this work as it may solve homework issues for many rural students but I also wonder what impact this may have on the funding of other E-Rate networks, etc.? Jeff ?On 5/29/18, 11:05 AM, "1st-mile-nm on behalf of Richard Lowenberg" <1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org on behalf of rl at 1st-mile.org> wrote: MAY 24, 2018 Udall, Gardner Introduce Bill to Put Wi-Fi on School Buses https://www.tomudall.senate.gov/news/press-releases/udall-gardner-introduce-bill-to-put-wi-fi-on-school-buses Bipartisan bill aims to close "homework gap" that disadvantages low-income and rural students without internet access at home WASHINGTON ? Today, U.S. Senator Tom Udall (D-N.M.) and U.S. Senator Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) introduced a bill to put wireless internet on school buses in order to help students without broadband access at home get online to study and do homework. The legislation would allow the Federal Communications Commission?s (FCC) E-Rate program to reimburse schools that place wi-fi technology on school buses carrying students to school or school related extracurricular activities. ?Every New Mexico kid should have every opportunity to succeed ? no matter where they live. But nearly one-third of kids in New Mexico are at risk of falling behind simply because they can?t get on the internet at home,? Udall said. ?It?s time to end the homework gap. Our legislation will help give all students the ability to get online to study and do homework assignments while they?re on the bus ? a common sense, 21st century solution. By boosting federal investment in broadband and internet infrastructure, we?ll help close the digital divide that hurts too many rural New Mexico communities, Tribes, and low-income families.? ?Many students in rural school districts across Colorado and the country spend hours on the bus each day commuting to and from school and traveling to sporting events,? said Gardner. ?These students should have the opportunity to use their time more effectively and installing Wi-Fi on school buses will allow them to finish homework assignments and bring the classroom to the road. Senator Udall and I are introducing this bipartisan legislation that will allow school districts to invest in their students and use federal dollars to outfit their school buses with WiFi. This will help rural students and especially low-income students who may not otherwise have access to mobile Internet. I?m excited about this new opportunity and look forward to seeing students in Colorado benefit from this initiative.? "I applaud Senator Udall and Senator Gardner for their forward thinking to increase access and opportunity in order to bridge the divide that exists for many children in this country," added Dr. Veronica C. Garcia, superintendent of Santa Fe Public School. Udall and Gardner?s legislation was inspired by Jonah Madrid, a New Mexico student athlete. During a roundtable on the homework gap at Hatch Valley High School, Madrid told Udall and FCC Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel about the great lengths he would go to find wi-fi signal after school was over. Madrid shared that, after traveling hours on the bus to football games, he would sit in the school parking lot late at night to do his homework because that was the only place he could access a wireless internet signal. Madrid proposed putting wireless technology on his school bus in order to let him and his teammates make use of their long bus rides. Earlier this month, Udall joined Santa Fe Public Schools and Google to roll out their Rolling Study Halls initiative, which has equipped six Santa Fe area school buses with wi-fi technology to help students with long commutes access the internet. The legislation has received widespread support from stakeholders, including the School Superintendents Association, a professional organization representing thousands of educational leaders through America and the world, the Competitive Carriers Association, an advocacy organization for rural, regional and nationwide wireless telecommunications, and NTUA Wireless, a Navajo owned communications company. Tribal communities in New Mexico are particularly disadvantaged by the digital divide, with nearly 80 percent of Tribal members living in rural New Mexico unable to access the internet at home. ?When we think about efficiencies in federal policies, and common sense solutions that allow education system leaders to make small changes with big impacts: that is the type of policy we can support," said Daniel A. Domenech, Executive Director of the School Superintendents Association. "AASA applauds Mr. Gardner and Mr. Udall for their continued leadership on the issue of expanding access to internet for our students, and AASA is pleased to support their bill that would require the Federal Communications Commission to include Wi-Fi access on school buses an eligible use of the E-Rate program. AASA has long supported the E-Rate program, responsible for transforming internet access in classrooms across the nation over the last two decades, and this legislation is another step forward in ensuring that today?s 24-hour students have 24-hour access.? ?Making Wi-Fi services available for students on school buses eligible for E-rate support is a win-win for everyone, and I thank Senators Udall and Gardner for introducing this legislation," said Steven K. Berry, President and CEO of the Competitive Carriers Association. "Access to educational resources is just one of the many benefits that robust mobile broadband services provides, and this bill will be especially beneficial for students in rural areas with long drive-times to and from school. ?Connected buses? should be available to all students, no matter where they live, and CCA supports this legislation moving forward.? ?I am pleased to support the expanded use of E-Rate funds to include wireless internet service on school buses," said Clyde Casciato, NTUA Wireless General Manager. "Living and working on the Navajo nation, I know firsthand the challenges facing our educators and students due to lack of internet access. For many people, internet access is not available at home or in their community, making it nearly impossible for students to complete homework assignments and research projects. In the past year, NTUAW has partnered with Kayenta Unified School District to trial this service on three different school bus routes. Not only has the technology worked successfully, it has been used regularly by students to complete assignments. By deploying wireless internet access on school buses, students are able to take advantage of what would otherwise be lost hours on the school bus each day to continue their education. Unfortunately, without E-Rate funds to support this initiative, it will never become a reality for most schools as they cannot afford to take on the expense of this additional service. Without a doubt, expanding E-Rate funds to include internet access on school buses will impact the quality of education received by so many students on the Navajo Nation. On behalf of NTUAW, I want to thank you for advocating to fund this service, and look forward to the opportunity to partner with schools to get it deployed on school buses throughout the Navajo Nation.? A copy of the legislation is available HERE. https://www.tomudall.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Final%20Bill%20for%20Introduction.pdf --------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org --------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ 1st-mile-nm mailing list 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm From rl at 1st-mile.org Thu May 31 19:13:35 2018 From: rl at 1st-mile.org (Richard Lowenberg) Date: Thu, 31 May 2018 20:13:35 -0600 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] Fwd: Follow Up to the I-40 Regional Broadband Events In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9566baf59e8a0630b6e369aab1b2a238@1st-mile.org> This initiative, and the presentation on Google Drive, linked below, should be of interest to some on this list. RL -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Follow Up to the I40 Regional Broadband Event Date: 2018-05-31 14:46 From: Michael Sherman Thank you for your interest in the ?I40 Initiative: A Vision for a Multi-State Regional Approach to Improving Broadband Connectivity in the Southwest?. In particular, we thank those that attended our May 17th event in Flagstaff. It was a remarkable gathering of about 100 stakeholders representing four states (Arizona, California, Nevada and New Mexico), and diverse interests, organizations and institutions including federal, state, local, and tribal governments, , K-12 schools, health care organizations, community colleges, private sector service providers and vendors of all sizes, commercial enterprises, trade groups, higher education institutions, and tribal colleges, among others. As requested, we are sharing the presentation from that event. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gDqCQ1RC0eDoksPXroXw4ceiqDup9alA/view?usp=sharing The response to the work presented - throughout the day and in our Wrap Up and Discussion session ? was energetic and positive overall. The higher education leaders there clearly heard that a ?coalition of the willing? wished to continue the work and that the diverse stakeholder interests represented be involved in helping to guide the next steps. Moving forward will need funding and it is likely that members of an advisory group will be asked to make a reasonable contribution. We will refine the specifics in the near future. Please consider whether your organization is interested in participating and if so, please express your willingness in an e-mail to me. Also, if your organization is supportive, we ask that your express that support in the form of a Letter of Interest/Support. We appreciate the many organizations that have done so already, both before and after the event. As you can see from the list below, we can tell policy makers and others with confidence that there is diverse support towards solving the problem. A Letter of Interest template is attached. Please e-mail as an attachment or an e-mail to me. ? Arizona Commerce Authority ? Arizona State University ? CableOne ? CellularOne ? CENIC ? Coconino Community College ? Cox Business Services ? Frontier Communications ? Internet2 ? Navajo Technical University ? Northern Arizona University ? New Mexico Technology Council ? Plateau Telecommunications ? Sacred Wind Communications ? Southwest Indian Polytechnic Institute ? University of Arizona ? U.S. Representative Tom O?Halleran ? World Wide Technology ? Zayo Group Again, thank you for your interest. If you do not want to receive future communications, please e-mail your request to be removed from the mailing list. And please share any thoughts or comments you may have on any aspect of this work. Regards. MICHAEL C. SHERMAN Executive Director Sun Corridor Network mcsherman at email.arizona.edu 480-340-3800 http://suncorridornet.org/ --------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org --------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: I-40 Initiative Letter of Intent - Sample.docx Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document Size: 12739 bytes Desc: not available URL: From editorsteve at gmail.com Thu May 31 19:19:22 2018 From: editorsteve at gmail.com (Steve Ross) Date: Thu, 31 May 2018 22:19:22 -0400 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] Fwd: Follow Up to the I-40 Regional Broadband Events In-Reply-To: <9566baf59e8a0630b6e369aab1b2a238@1st-mile.org> References: <9566baf59e8a0630b6e369aab1b2a238@1st-mile.org> Message-ID: Lev got a great response when he mentioned this in a talk at our Broadband Summit in Austin. Steve Ross Editor-at-Large, Broadband Communities Magazine (www.bbcmag.com) 201-456-5933 mobile 707-WOW-SSR3 (707-969-7773) Google Voice editorsteve (Facebook, LinkedIn) editorsteve1 (Twitter) steve at bbcmag.com editorsteve at gmail.com On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 10:13 PM, Richard Lowenberg wrote: > This initiative, and the presentation on Google Drive, linked below, > should be of interest to some on this list. > RL > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Follow Up to the I40 Regional Broadband Event > Date: 2018-05-31 14:46 > From: Michael Sherman > > Thank you for your interest in the ?I40 Initiative: A Vision for a > Multi-State Regional Approach to Improving Broadband Connectivity in the > Southwest?. > > In particular, we thank those that attended our May 17th event in > Flagstaff. It was a remarkable gathering of about 100 stakeholders > representing four states (Arizona, California, Nevada and New Mexico), > and diverse interests, organizations and institutions including federal, > state, local, and tribal governments, , K-12 schools, health care > organizations, community colleges, private sector service providers and > vendors of all sizes, commercial enterprises, trade groups, higher > education institutions, and tribal colleges, among others. > > As requested, we are sharing the presentation from that event. > https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gDqCQ1RC0eDoksPXroXw4ceiqDu > p9alA/view?usp=sharing > > The response to the work presented - throughout the day and in our Wrap > Up and Discussion session ? was energetic and positive overall. The > higher education leaders there clearly heard that a ?coalition of the > willing? wished to continue the work and that the diverse stakeholder > interests represented be involved in helping to guide the next steps. > Moving forward will need funding and it is likely that members of an > advisory group will be asked to make a reasonable contribution. We will > refine the specifics in the near future. Please consider whether your > organization is interested in participating and if so, please express > your willingness in an e-mail to me. > > Also, if your organization is supportive, we ask that your express that > support in the form of a Letter of Interest/Support. We appreciate the > many organizations that have done so already, both before and after the > event. As you can see from the list below, we can tell policy makers > and others with confidence that there is diverse support towards solving > the problem. A Letter of Interest template is attached. Please e-mail > as an attachment or an e-mail to me. > > ? Arizona Commerce Authority > > ? Arizona State University > > ? CableOne > > ? CellularOne > > ? CENIC > > ? Coconino Community College > > ? Cox Business Services > > ? Frontier Communications > > ? Internet2 > > ? Navajo Technical University > > ? Northern Arizona University > > ? New Mexico Technology Council > > ? Plateau Telecommunications > > ? Sacred Wind Communications > > ? Southwest Indian Polytechnic Institute > > ? University of Arizona > > ? U.S. Representative Tom O?Halleran > > ? World Wide Technology > > ? Zayo Group > > Again, thank you for your interest. If you do not want to receive > future communications, please e-mail your request to be removed from the > mailing list. > > And please share any thoughts or comments you may have on any aspect of > this work. > > Regards. > > MICHAEL C. SHERMAN > Executive Director > Sun Corridor Network > mcsherman at email.arizona.edu > 480-340-3800 > http://suncorridornet.org/ > > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director > 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 > Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, > rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org > --------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rl at 1st-mile.org Mon Jun 4 11:01:53 2018 From: rl at 1st-mile.org (Richard Lowenberg) Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2018 12:01:53 -0600 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] =?utf-8?q?Local_innovation_=E2=80=94_powered_by_tec?= =?utf-8?q?h?= Message-ID: Local innovation ? powered by tech By Molly Timmins and Jennifer Nevarez Jun 2, 2018 http://www.santafenewmexican.com/opinion/my_view/local-innovation-powered-by-tech/article_00b0d8e3-c1e9-5b8d-8801-40af3571cb1d.html Tech is one of the fastest growing industries in the country. In Santa Fe, 231 IT jobs are waiting to be filled, according to research by Burning Glass Technologies. Moreover, code.org reports the average salary for a computing occupation in New Mexico is $77,287 (significantly higher than the average annual salary of $43,170). To spread awareness of Santa Fe?s growing tech industry, TechHire Santa Fe, a collaborative working group supported by Opportunity Santa Fe and lead by New Mexico TechWorks, spearheaded the addition of a Tech Corridor to the recent 2018 Business Expo and Job Fair at the Santa Fe Community Convention Center hosted by the Santa Fe Chamber of Commerce on April 5. The Tech Corridor gave our local tech companies and internationally acclaimed Santa Fe-based innovators, like Flow Science, Open Eye Scientific, Descartes Labs and Meow Wolf, an opportunity to connect with our community and educate the public while sharing information on products and services, as well as employment and internship possibilities. Stagecoach Foundation, the local nonprofit founded by George R.R. Martin to support tech and film education for area youth, offered free headshot photography for attendees eager for a professional, high-quality photo for their LinkedIn profile. Jennifer Nevarez, director of New Mexico TechWorks, facilitated two lively afternoon discussion panels with local professionals from both the tech and film industries. Opportunity Santa Fe?s AmeriCorps VISTA Louise Majorey was inspired to have youth participate and worked with Nevarez and teachers at Capital and Santa Fe high schools to organize field trips to the Business Expo and Job Fair. Many students who attended were in computer science classes and interested in entering the tech industry. Students met local tech professionals and learned about local tech companies that they could work with someday. Meanwhile at the Santa Fe Community Foundation table (an expo corporate sponsor), AmeriCorps VISTA leader Molly Timmins recruited graduating teens for an exciting summer opportunity to work with TechHire Santa Fe through partnership with Opportunity Santa Fe, hiring three AmeriCorps VISTA summer associates for 10 weeks this summer to assist with tech summer programs, workshops and other tech education initiatives. (For information on applying to these and other summer associate positions, visit opportunitysantafe.org/americorps-vista.) TechHire Santa Fe and Opportunity Santa Fe are grateful for their partnership with the Santa Fe Chamber of Commerce and for the opportunity to launch the Tech Corridor at the 2018 Business Expo and Job Fair. Many local tech companies find they must recruit from outside Santa Fe to fill their advanced tech positions. Opportunity Santa Fe and TechHire Santa Fe are working to change that trend by supporting the growth of our innovation economy and working collectively to strengthen tech education in our community. Since ?computing is used all around us and in virtually every field? and with computing occupations noted as ?the number one source of all new wages in the U.S.? by code.org, we encourage community members of all ages to get involved. Enroll in a workshop or class, browse an online education platform, register your kids and grandkids for tech courses, camps and clubs, request computer science after-school programs, courses and electives for your children at school, and encourage legislators, civic leaders and employers to support tech education and workforce training. To learn more about our tech ecosystem, visit www.nmtechworks.com and sign up for the mailing list for updates on upcoming tech events, programs, highlights and opportunities. Molly Timmins is the AmeriCorps VISTA leader with Opportunity Santa Fe, and Jennifer Nevarez is the director and lead educator at New Mexico TechWorks and leads the TechHire collaborative working group. --------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org --------------------------------------------------------------- From granoff at zianet.com Fri Jun 8 13:17:11 2018 From: granoff at zianet.com (Marianne Granoff) Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2018 14:17:11 -0600 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] Fwd: Malware on routers Message-ID: <20180608201948.6FE5C26C8@velocipede.dcn.davis.ca.us> >From: Mark Costlow >To: Marianne Granoff >Cc: nmisp at nmisp.net >Subject: Re: [nmisp] Malware on routers > >New devices added to the vulnerability list this week: > >https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/06/07/vpnfilter_is_much_worse_than_everyone_thought/ > >Mark > --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. https://www.avg.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From doug.orr at gmail.com Wed Jun 27 15:50:47 2018 From: doug.orr at gmail.com (Doug Orr) Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2018 16:50:47 -0600 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] Charter gig Message-ID: Some guys have all the luck... -rod https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/06/charters-gigabit-cable-with-no-data-caps-is-ready-for-27-million-homes/ The comments are very interesting. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rl at 1st-mile.org Thu Jun 28 10:36:51 2018 From: rl at 1st-mile.org (Richard Lowenberg) Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2018 11:36:51 -0600 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] COMMISSIONER ROSENWORCEL ANNOUNCES AVAILABILITY OF MODEL AGREEMENTS FOR SMALL CELL DEPLOYMENT Message-ID: I am posting the following FCC notice, as Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel will be meeting with Congressman Luj?n and others in Santa Fe tomorrow (Fri.). RL ------- https://www.fcc.gov/document/rosenworcel-announces-availability-small-cell-model-agreements COMMISSIONER JESSICA ROSENWORCEL ANNOUNCES AVAILABILITY OF MODEL AGREEMENTS FOR SMALL CELL DEPLOYMENT WASHINGTON, June 27th, 2018: ?Right now, policymakers across the country are focused on strengthening American infrastructure. That effort includes roads, bridges, and broadband networks that support 5G wireless services. That?s vital?because to be first to a 5G future, we need to focus as much on the ground as on the skies. But figuring out how to deploy 5G infrastructure?which puts a premium on small cells?is a big task. It means acknowledging that we have a legal tradition of local control in this country but also recognizing that more streamlined and uniform practices can help speed deployment. Our cities are important partners in this effort. That?s why today I am making available model agreements for small cell and 5G deployment negotiated by the City of San Jose and approved last night by the San Jose City Council. Through these agreements, carriers will benefit from streamlined access to thousands of city-owned poles for their small cell deployments. In turn, carriers will fund a decade long effort to help close the digital divide in San Jose, where more than 95,000 residents still lack access to broadband Internet service at home. I thank Mayor Sam Liccardo for his leadership, and I share his hope that these agreements can inform the work of cities and towns nationwide to support universal broadband deployment and expand the civic and commercial opportunities of the digital age.? Attachments: MODEL 1 Document A: Master Non-Exclusive Installation and Property Use Agreement Document B: Funding and Reimbursement Agreement Document C: First Amendment to Master Non-Exclusive Installation and Property Use Agreement Document D: Staff Memorandum re: Approval of Actions Related to an Amendment and a Funding and Reimbursement Agreement Related to the Permitting of Small Cells on City Owned Assets in the Public Right of Way MODEL 2 Document E: First Amendment to Master Non-Exclusive Installation and Property Use Agreement Document F: Funding and Reimbursement Agreement Document G: Staff Memorandum re: Approval of Actions Related to an Amendment and a Funding and Reimbursement Agreement Related to the Permitting of Small Cells on City Owned Assets in the Public Right of Way --------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org --------------------------------------------------------------- From rl at 1st-mile.org Sun Jul 1 11:40:27 2018 From: rl at 1st-mile.org (Richard Lowenberg) Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2018 12:40:27 -0600 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] =?utf-8?q?Fwd=3A_Comcast_Sneaks_in_Another_Billing_?= =?utf-8?q?Line_Item_and_=E2=80=9CEarns=E2=80=9D_an_Additional_=241_Billio?= =?utf-8?q?n?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <989ccb3438defe08b649c5764c3672b4@1st-mile.org> I recently noticed newly increased charges on my AT&T Mobility bill, for (monthly) one-time charges, government fees and taxes, plus surcharges and other fees. AT&T support staff could not or would not explain what these unspecified charges actually were, when I called, other than saying that they were more government fees. Following is a posting from Joly MacFie, with the Internet Society in NYC, regarding new Comcast charges. Not personally having Comcast service, I wonder if 1st-Mile subscribers having Comcast service, have been similarly billed? RL -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Comcast Sneaks in Another Billing Line Item and ?Earns? an Additional $1 Billion Date: 2018-07-01 12:15 From: Joly MacFie COMCAST SNEAKS IN ANOTHER BILLING LINE ITEM AND ?EARNS? AN ADDITIONAL $1 BILLION My Comcast bill arrived today with a sneaky new $2.68 charge, $2.50 for leasing one (and only one) set top box and $0.18 for the remote. This new billing line item, like the many others Comcast has introduced, adds to its bottom line with no additional capital expenditure. It shows how resisting the obligation to return to accepting set top box free, ?cable ready? sets was a smart strategy. Now Comcast can charge for a device rental that it used to provide free of charge (for the first one), because consumers cannot access its service without one. Remarkably, the FCC never got around to replacing its CableCard ?solution? with a viable, consumer-friendly update. For their part, cable operators never followed through on a ?commitment? to offering ?true two-way? consumer access using increasingly versatile and intelligent television sets to handle rather simple upstream commands to the cable operators? Headends. Of course, Comcast subscribers now can use their own set top boxes, such as a Roku, but the company has a perfect, profit maximizing strategy for that as well: charge $9.50 a month and rebate $2.50 for ?subscriber supplied equipment.? Brilliant and incredibly greedy at the same time. I am well overdue for a return to Over the Air Reception (?OTAR?) of broadcast television even in my quite rural locale, centrally located in the middle of nowhere: State College, PA. Comcast all but wants me to do this, so it can concentrate on its transition to being a vertically integrated broadband venture combining its owned content and conduit. Besides, broadband has far greater profit margins, none of which have to be shared with content providers through retransmission consent. Actually, revenues flow the other way as when Netflix agreed to compensate Comcast for content carriage. Subscribers of Comcast should revolt, but I suspect few will even notice the increase. What?s a few dollars more, especially after Comcast?s now $8.00 ?Broadcast TV Fee,? some of which flows to the company?s NBC stations? Comcast also has a ?technology fee? that most high definition television subscribers have to pay. I guess the company can justify this recurring line item as helping it recoup the costs for upgrading networks to handle high definition signals. You really should examine the line items in cable television bills. Few companies can quantify and foist onto customers their estimate of having to comply with government regulations and pay local governments franchise fees. But my bills has line items entitled Franchise Fee and FCC Regulatory Fee. I call these costs overhead, but Comcast frames them as ?fees? that they can pass through to customers. Finally, I have reached the tipping point where gouging nudges?makes that pushes?me to old school technology. I expect Neighborhood Homeowners Association opposition to my outdoor antenna. Maybe I can assert a First Amendment right. --------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org --------------------------------------------------------------- From rl at 1st-mile.org Thu Jul 5 10:58:38 2018 From: rl at 1st-mile.org (Richard Lowenberg) Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2018 11:58:38 -0600 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] (Telluride) Mountain Village, CO: Broadband Planning RFP Message-ID: <5a6839e77725fafa81ffd8f7fc94dd1b@1st-mile.org> The Town of Mountain Village, CO, above Telluride, has released an RFP for a Broadband Assessment and Feasibility Study. https://muninetworks.org/content/town-mountain-village-colorado-issues-rfp-responses-due-august-18 Thanks to MuniNetworks for this posting, and so many others. I've been watching this call closely, as San Miguel County, Town of Telluride and neighboring small communities are considering paths towards a viable broadband networked future, along with many other cities and towns in CO. I was one of the small planning team that initially designed the Mountain Village beginning in the late 1970s, when we recommended fiber conduit throughout, while constructing all other new village infrastructure from the ground up; a bit too early though. Of note, however, by 1992 the Telluride Institute's InfoZone project made this community the site of the first rural Internet PoP in the world. One hundred years earlier (1891), this place was also the site of the first deployment and demonstration of long distance AC power transmission in the world. It may be time to make history again. I hope that some of the firms subscribing to this list will consider submitting proposals. Please keep me posted. RL --------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org --------------------------------------------------------------- From rl at 1st-mile.org Mon Jul 9 08:13:53 2018 From: rl at 1st-mile.org (Richard Lowenberg) Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2018 09:13:53 -0600 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] FCC denies petition to restore $25 Lifeline subsidy for Tribal residents. Message-ID: <02b942fdf5842bcd8e17bd58485134e9@1st-mile.org> FCC stands by decision to raise broadband prices on American Indians FCC denies petition to restore $25 Lifeline subsidy for Tribal residents. JON BRODKIN - 7/6/2018 https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2018/07/fcc-stands-by-decision-to-raise-broadband-prices-on-american-indians The Federal Communications Commission is refusing to reverse a decision that will take a broadband subsidy away from many American Indians. Under Chairman Ajit Pai's leadership, the FCC voted 3-2 in November 2017 to make it much harder for Tribal residents to obtain a $25-per-month Lifeline subsidy that reduces the cost of Internet or phone service. The changes could take effect as early as October 2018, depending on when they are approved by the US Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Small wireless carriers and Tribal organizations sued the FCC in the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. They also filed a petition asking the FCC to stay its decision pending the outcome of the appeal. But the FCC denied the stay petition in a decision released yesterday. "Petitioners have not shown that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims," the FCC said. "The 2017 Lifeline Order contains a comprehensive explanation of the basis for the Commission's decision to limit enhanced Tribal support to rural Tribal areas, and to target such support to facilities-based providers." $25 subsidy eliminated in urban areas Lifeline has more than 12 million subscribers, and an annual budget of $2.25 billion, indexed to inflation. Americans with incomes at or near federal poverty guidelines are eligible for Lifeline subsidies, but Pai has led several votes to limit the program's ability to help poor people buy broadband or phone service. Lifeline is paid for by Americans through fees imposed on phone bills. The FCC's November vote eliminated the $25 subsidy entirely for Tribal residents who live in urban areas, claiming that the subsidy isn't required to make service affordable in urban settings. (All Tribal residents are still eligible for a $9.25 monthly subsidy through Lifeline.) In rural areas, the FCC vote barred Tribal residents from using the $25 subsidy to buy telecom service from resellers. Most wireless phone users who get Lifeline subsidies buy their plans from resellers rather than from "facilities-based" telecoms that operate their own networks. The FCC vote would thus dramatically limit rural Tribal residents' options for purchasing subsidized service. The petition filed by tribes and small carriers explained that large, facilities-based providers have been phasing out Lifeline support, leaving resellers as the best option for consumers. "[A]pproximately two-thirds of eligible low-income consumers on Tribal lands have chosen non-facilities-based ETCs [eligible telecommunications carriers] as their Lifeline provider, demonstrating the overwhelming success of the model," the petition to the FCC said. "At the same time, facilities-based wireless carriers have retreated from the Lifeline program across the country, including in many states home to American Indian tribes like [petitioner] Crow Creek [in South Dakota]. In more than a dozen states, AT&T and Verizon relinquished their status as ETCs. AT&T and Verizon continue to apply for and receive permission to relinquish their ETC status in additional states, and stopped applying for ETC status in new states long ago." As for the other two major nationwide carriers, T-Mobile has "largely phased out Lifeline service, explaining that Lifeline was not a 'valuable or sustainable product for [its] base' of subscribers," the petition said. "Sprint is the only one that still participates meaningfully as a retail provider in the Lifeline program, but Sprint does not provide Lifeline service on Tribal lands." Separately, the FCC is considering a move that would kick resellers out of the Lifeline program nationwide, not just in tribal areas. FCC made changes illegally, petition says The petition to stop the Tribal changes was filed by Assist Wireless, Boomerang Wireless, Easy Telephone Services Company, the National Lifeline Association, the Crow Creek Sioux Tribe, and the Oceti Sakowin Tribal Utility Authority. The petitioners argued that the FCC "failed to comply with its Tribal consultation requirements as required by law." The FCC's decision to impose the changes without opening another proceeding violated federal notice-and-comment requirements and law requiring federal agencies to deal fairly with American Indian tribes, the petitioners argued. Besides that, petitioners argued that the new restrictions are illegal in part because the FCC's "claimed benefits are entirely speculative, contradict the record in this proceeding," and fail to account for "the relative efficiency of resellers that specialize in serving these difficult markets." Pai's decision also "reflect[s] an unreasonable departure from over a decade of Commission policy finding that requiring [telecoms] to have facilities would undermine the goals of the Lifeline program," the petitioners wrote. The FCC denied that it violated the process requirements or that it failed to properly justify its decision. "The Commission clearly articulated its belief that limiting the enhanced Tribal benefit to facilities-based providers would better incentivize those providers to expand their networks in underserved areas," the commission wrote in its denial of the petition. Pai hasn't found much public support in his quest to remove resellers from the Lifeline program. As we've previously reported, even broadband industry lobbyists and conservative think tanks have spoken out against restrictions on resellers, saying that it would deprive poor people of broadband choices without achieving Pai's stated goal of expanding network construction. The petitioners' court case against the FCC is ongoing, with final briefs from both sides due by August 27. --------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org --------------------------------------------------------------- From doug.orr at gmail.com Tue Jul 17 15:05:38 2018 From: doug.orr at gmail.com (Doug Orr) Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2018 16:05:38 -0600 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] a couple of 5g articles Message-ID: General stuff from Brookings . Steamrolling update from rt51. China and S. Korea are getting ahead! (I'll keep further comparisons to Japan's 5th Gen AI to myself...) Doug -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rl at 1st-mile.org Sun Jul 29 10:37:20 2018 From: rl at 1st-mile.org (Richard Lowenberg) Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2018 11:37:20 -0600 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] Daily Yonder: BROADBAND SPEED: FCC MAP VS. EXPERIENCE ON THE GROUND Message-ID: BROADBAND SPEED: FCC MAP VS. EXPERIENCE ON THE GROUND By Brian Whitacre | Sharon Strover | Colin Rhinesmith July 25, 2018 http://www.dailyyonder.com/broadband-speed-fcc-map-vs-experience-ground/2018/07/25/26583/ To construct its current map of who has broadband, the FCC relies on the self-reported data of Internet service providers. Another set of data developed through an open-source speed test indicates that the typical Internet user has a much different online experience. --------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org --------------------------------------------------------------- From drew.einhorn at gmail.com Sat Aug 18 11:50:20 2018 From: drew.einhorn at gmail.com (Drew Einhorn) Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2018 12:50:20 -0600 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] Broadband Challenges in the East Mountains Message-ID: Tijeras, NM Sept 8 -- The sheeeep don't like it! Rockin' the catbox! Rock the catbox! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tom at jtjohnson.com Wed Aug 22 15:39:47 2018 From: tom at jtjohnson.com (Tom Johnson) Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2018 16:39:47 -0600 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] Fwd: let's connect In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: fyi ============================================ Tom Johnson Institute for Analytic Journalism -- Santa Fe, NM USA 505.577.6482(c) 505.473.9646(h) *NM Foundation for Open Government* *Check out It's The People's Data * http://www.jtjohnson.com tom at jtjohnson.com ============================================ ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Xochitl Torres Small Date: Wed, Aug 22, 2018 at 4:16 PM Subject: let's connect To: John Johnson Rural broadband is the gateway not only to better politics, but access to a whole world of opportunities for advancement in southern New Mexico. John, I nearly jumped when I saw this op-ed in the *Albuquerque Journal*, because I?m always thrilled to see this important issue getting attention. The headline speaks for itself: *?Rural broadband is the gateway to better politics.?* Rural broadband is the gateway not only to better politics, but access to a whole world of opportunities for advancement in southern New Mexico. *That?s why I?m calling on Congress to find solutions that connect our rural communities to broadband. Add your name here >> * *Support rural broadband expansion * The article notes that, *?19 percent of households in New Mexico... lack access to high-speed internet service.?* *John, this is unacceptable.* Connecting to broadband has implications beyond basic communication. It?s vital to our kids? access to educational opportunities, and it?s used in hospitals to bring better care to communities that are already underserved. *In southern New Mexico, we?re proud of our way of life and our rural communities. We don?t want to change it -- we just want to update it.* That means building infrastructure and making adjustments to better serve rural residents, not encouraging people to give up their traditions and way of life. *Sign on to support Congressional initiatives to expand rural broadband. Let?s bring our rural communities into the twenty-first century. Let?s connect.* Thanks for everything you do, Xochitl *DONATE * Paid for by Xochitl for New Mexico Xochitl for New Mexico P.O. Box 2250 Las Cruces, NM 88004 United States If you believe you received this message in error or wish to no longer receive email from us, please unsubscribe . -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From doug.orr at gmail.com Thu Aug 23 19:41:59 2018 From: doug.orr at gmail.com (Doug Orr) Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2018 20:41:59 -0600 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] Market forces Message-ID: https://yro.slashdot.org/story/18/08/23/2253256/comcastcharter-lobby-asks-ftc-to-preempt-state-broadband-regulations?utm_source=rss1.0mainlinkanon&utm_medium=feed -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From karad50 at hotmail.com Thu Aug 23 20:08:50 2018 From: karad50 at hotmail.com (Kieth Radcliffe) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2018 03:08:50 +0000 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] Market forces In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hello All, I have a question about broadband issuess pertaining to transferring patient health care data, from electronic medical records, and how that it interlaced within the broadband networks you are focussing on? With HIPAA patient privact and protection laws, there has to be built in extra security of data. In rural places like New Mexico, this poses addtional challenges. Does anyone have special knowledge of this issue? Thanks ________________________________ From: 1st-mile-nm <1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org> on behalf of Doug Orr Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2018 8:41 PM To: 1st-Mile-NM Subject: [1st-mile-nm] Market forces https://yro.slashdot.org/story/18/08/23/2253256/comcastcharter-lobby-asks-ftc-to-preempt-state-broadband-regulations?utm_source=rss1.0mainlinkanon&utm_medium=feed [https://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/business_64.png] Comcast/Charter Lobby Asks FTC To Preempt State Broadband Regulations - Slashdot yro.slashdot.org Lobby groups on behalf of Comcast and Charter are asking the FTC to preempt state and local broadband regulations. "In comments filed this week, cable industry lobby group NCTA told the FTC that 'there is plainly no reasonable basis in today's marketplace for singling out ISPs for unique regulatory ... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From DAlverson at salud.unm.edu Fri Aug 24 08:35:20 2018 From: DAlverson at salud.unm.edu (Dale C Alverson) Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2018 15:35:20 +0000 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] Market forces In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Our systems for transfer and sharing of protected health information via the state-wide Health information exchange (HIE), New Mexico Health Information Collaborative (NMHIC), and use of telemedicine is encrypted at rest and in transit and adheres to state and federal laws; HIPAA and HITECH. Security meets industry standards such as SSAE16 (auditing), ISO 27001 and EHNAC.---Dale Dale C. Alverson, MD, FAAP, FATA Strategic Telehealth Consultant UNM Center for Telehealth 933 Bradbury Dr. SE Suite 2209 Albuquerque, NM 87106 (505) 272-8633 (505) 263-4993 (cell) dalverson at salud.unm.edu [Telehealth_Logo_150dpi_1 5in_tall] CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE THIS ELECTRONIC MAIL TRANSMISSION MAY INCLUDE INFORMATION GENERALLY AND/OR PROTECTED, INDIVIDUALLY IDENTIFIABLE HEALTHCARE INFORMATION THAT IS CONFIDENTIAL AND PRIVILEGED BY STATE AND/OR FEDERAL LAWS, RULES AND/OR REGULATIONS INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, THE HIPAA PRIVACY STANDARD, AND/OR THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT OR ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGE. IT IS THE POLICY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO HEALTH SCIENCES CENTER THAT THE SENDER DID NOT INTEND THIS TRANSMISSION TO BE SENT TO OR RECEIVED BY ANY UNAUTHORIZED PERSONS AND IS NOT WAIVING THE CONFIDENTIALITY OR PRIVILEGED NATURE OF SUCH INFORMATION. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT OF THIS ELECTRONIC MAIL TRANSMISSION AND THEREBY RECEIVED THIS ELECTRONIC MAIL TRANSMISSION IN ERROR, PLEASE IMMEDIATELY DELETE IT FROM YOUR COMPUTER SYSTEM WITHOUT COPYING IT. IN ADDITION, PLEASE NOTIFY THE SENDER BY REPLY E-MAIL OR BY CALLING THE SENDER AT (505) 272-8633. THIS WAY, WE CAN CORRECT OUR ADDRESS FOR THE INTENDED RECIPIENT. From: 1st-mile-nm <1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org> On Behalf Of Kieth Radcliffe Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2018 9:09 PM To: Doug Orr ; 1st-Mile-NM <1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org> Subject: Re: [1st-mile-nm] Market forces [[-- External - This message has been sent from outside the University --]] Hello All, I have a question about broadband issuess pertaining to transferring patient health care data, from electronic medical records, and how that it interlaced within the broadband networks you are focussing on? With HIPAA patient privact and protection laws, there has to be built in extra security of data. In rural places like New Mexico, this poses addtional challenges. Does anyone have special knowledge of this issue? Thanks ________________________________ From: 1st-mile-nm <1st-mile-nm-bounces at mailman.dcn.org> on behalf of Doug Orr > Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2018 8:41 PM To: 1st-Mile-NM Subject: [1st-mile-nm] Market forces https://yro.slashdot.org/story/18/08/23/2253256/comcastcharter-lobby-asks-ftc-to-preempt-state-broadband-regulations?utm_source=rss1.0mainlinkanon&utm_medium=feed [https://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/business_64.png] Comcast/Charter Lobby Asks FTC To Preempt State Broadband Regulations - Slashdot yro.slashdot.org Lobby groups on behalf of Comcast and Charter are asking the FTC to preempt state and local broadband regulations. "In comments filed this week, cable industry lobby group NCTA told the FTC that 'there is plainly no reasonable basis in today's marketplace for singling out ISPs for unique regulatory ... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 16102 bytes Desc: image001.png URL: From dlc at lampinc.com Sun Aug 26 10:35:38 2018 From: dlc at lampinc.com (Dale Carstensen) Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2018 10:35:38 -0700 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] Matt Dunne of Vermont and his Center on Rural Innovation (WIRED story) Message-ID: <20180826173537.4BF3B454@lacn.los-alamos.net> This is about US towns (population around 10,000) with gigabit fiber. https://www.wired.com/story/opinion-small-towns-gigabit-broadband-success From rl at 1st-mile.org Tue Aug 28 14:12:38 2018 From: rl at 1st-mile.org (Richard Lowenberg) Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2018 15:12:38 -0600 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] NLC and NATOA release model small cell ordinance for municipalities Message-ID: <7d7a8d1cc2179d4f4104973f2dd8aa82@1st-mile.org> Model Code for Municipalities August 27, 2018 https://www.nlc.org/resource/model-code-for-municipalities-0 (see the article for links to the model code .pdf) On January 31, 2017, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai established a Broadband Deployment Advisory Committee (BDAC), which he tasked with making recommendations to the FCC on ways to accelerate the deployment of broadband by reducing or removing regulatory barriers to infrastructure investment. Among other tasks, Chairman Pai asked the BDAC to draft a model code for municipalities that could assist local governments in enacting ordinances authorizing wireless and wireline broadband deployment in the public rights of way. In the summer of 2018, the BDAC voted to recommend its model code for municipalities to the FCC. The BDAC model states that it recognizes the ?enormous diversity [among local governments] based on geography, size, resources, aesthetics, existing infrastructure, regulatory and legal framework, history, culture, and community priorities? and states its intent to create a ?non-binding, flexible guideline.? While we agree with these statements and appreciate the hard work of the BDAC members, we believe local governments could benefit from an alternative model code that reflects the range of legal and policy options open to municipalities. There is no single model code that will work for every jurisdiction. As such, NLC and NATOA?s model code is intended as a roadmap to assist local governments in adopting their own ordinances governing use of the rights of way by communications providers. While example language is included in some sections, we do not intend to suggest these examples could work for every jurisdiction. To learn more, read our guide, "Small Cell Wireless Technology in Cities." --------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org --------------------------------------------------------------- From doug.orr at gmail.com Tue Sep 4 15:26:24 2018 From: doug.orr at gmail.com (Doug Orr) Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2018 16:26:24 -0600 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] 5g legislation streamlining Message-ID: https://www.routefifty.com/infrastructure/2018/09/fcc-streamlining-5g-deployment/151005/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tom at jtjohnson.com Wed Sep 5 10:33:40 2018 From: tom at jtjohnson.com (Tom Johnson) Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2018 11:33:40 -0600 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] National League of Cities Releases Small Cell Guide for Local Government Message-ID: http://www.govtech.com/network/National-League-of-Cities-Releases-Small-Cell-Guide-for-Local-Government.html?utm_term=National%20League%20of%20Cities%20Releases%20Small%20Cell%20Guide%20for%20Local%20Government&utm_campaign=California%20Blockchain%20Bills%20Would%20Enable%20New%20Understanding%2C%20Private-Sector%20Trial&utm_content=email&utm_source=Act-On+Software&utm_medium=email -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rl at 1st-mile.org Fri Sep 7 08:33:17 2018 From: rl at 1st-mile.org (Richard Lowenberg) Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2018 09:33:17 -0600 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] Rural Broadband News Message-ID: Today?s CCG Blog focuses on rural broadband, and cites the trade groups, USTelecom and NTCA, and The Rural Broadband Association?s sponsored whitepaper titled, Rural Broadband Economics: A Review of Rural Subsidies. https://potsandpansbyccg.com/2018/09/07/subsidizing-rural-broadband/ https://www.ustelecom.org/sites/default/files/documents/Rural%20Broadband%20Economics-A%20Review%20of%20Rural%20Subsidies%20%5B1%5D.pdf Also, Public Knowledge, Benton Foundation, 16+ other organizations (1st-Mile has joined) have launched the Broadband Connects America Coalition "to end rural digital divide". Their Core Principles For Closing the Rural Gap: ? Principle 1: Funding should be simple and allocated directly to infrastructure needs, not directly to last-mile carriers. ? Principle 2: Closing the rural digital divide will require a combination approach that reflects the complexity of the challenges of deploying broadband to rural America. ? Principle 3: Deployment should be focused on achieving tangible universal service to all rural Americans rather than allocated based on profit per population density. ? Principle 4: Restoring net neutrality is essential to closing the rural digital divide. ? Principle 5: Rural Broadband should meet the same adequacy standards as its urban counterpart. http://www.broadbandconnectsamerica.com RL --------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org --------------------------------------------------------------- From stephan at stephanhelgesen.com Sat Sep 8 12:57:51 2018 From: stephan at stephanhelgesen.com (Stephan Helgesen) Date: Sat, 08 Sep 2018 13:57:51 -0600 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] How do I love thee oh Internet Message-ID: <20180908195751.6099026.45360.11671@stephanhelgesen.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ARTICLE How do I love thee oh Internet.doc Type: application/msword Size: 36864 bytes Desc: not available URL: From lpascual at asoundlook.com Sat Sep 8 16:54:14 2018 From: lpascual at asoundlook.com (Leonard Pascual) Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2018 17:54:14 -0600 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] How do I love thee oh Internet In-Reply-To: <20180908195751.6099026.45360.11671@stephanhelgesen.com> References: <20180908195751.6099026.45360.11671@stephanhelgesen.com> Message-ID: Stephan Just for your information, we have won a contract for land based fiber feed and then being distributed via wireless. Here is one of the articles http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/business/santa-fe-firm-wins-contract-to-provide-internet-service-in/article_5d899823-a253-5d20-9209-dd1706fe91ce.html On Sat, Sep 8, 2018 at 2:46 PM Stephan Helgesen wrote: > See if this passes muster, Richard, and thanks for your help! > Best, > Stephan > > Sent from my mobile phone > _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm > -- Leonard Pascual A Sound Look 502 Cerrillos Road Santa Fe, NM 87501 505.983.5509 ext 201 *Office* lpascual at asoundlook.com leonard.pascual *SKYPE* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rl at 1st-mile.org Mon Sep 10 10:45:24 2018 From: rl at 1st-mile.org (Richard Lowenberg) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2018 11:45:24 -0600 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] FCC's Data Overstate Access on Tribal Lands Message-ID: From the Benton list: FCC's Data Overstate Access on Tribal Lands Mark Goldstein | Research | Government Accountability Office The Government Accountability Office was asked to review the Federal Communications Commission's efforts to collect broadband data for tribal lands. This report examines the extent to which: (1) FCC's approach to collecting broadband data accurately captures broadband access on tribal lands and (2) FCC obtains tribal input on the data. The FCC collects data on broadband availability; these data capture where providers may have broadband infrastructure. However, FCC considers broadband to be ?available? for an entire census block if the provider could serve at least one location in the census block. This leads to overstatements of service for specific locations like tribal lands. FCC, tribal stakeholders, and providers have noted that this approach leads to overstatements of broadband availability. Because FCC uses these data to measure broadband access, it also overstates broadband access?the ability to obtain service?on tribal lands. Additionally, FCC does not collect information on several factors?such as affordability, quality, and denials of service?that FCC and tribal stakeholders stated can affect the extent to which Americans living on tribal lands can access broadband services. FCC provides broadband funding for unserved areas based on its broadband data. Overstatements of access lim it FCC?s and tribal stakeholders? abilities to target broadband funding to such areas. GAO is making three recommendations to FCC, to which the agency agreed: The Chairman of the FCC should develop and implement methods--such as a targeted data collection--for collecting and reporting accurate and complete data on broadband access specific to tribal lands. The Chairman of the FCC should develop a formal process to obtain tribal input on the accuracy of provider-submitted broadband data that includes outreach and technical assistance to help tribes participate in the process. The Chairman of the FCC should obtain feedback from tribal stakeholders and providers on the effectiveness of FCC's 2012 statement to providers on how to fulfill their tribal engagement requirements to determine whether FCC needs to clarify the agency's tribal engagement statement. --------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org --------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: GAO-694386.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 8029852 bytes Desc: not available URL: From doug.orr at gmail.com Mon Sep 10 10:56:41 2018 From: doug.orr at gmail.com (Doug Orr) Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2018 11:56:41 -0600 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] more on google fiber, 5g Message-ID: HBR has an article that looks like part of the general 5g fluffing, extolling Google Fiber's disruption. (Axios summary here .) Webpass and Starry both use millimeter band frequencies and seem to be likely to have more customer density than 5g mobile (and seem more oriented towards urban deployments). In any case, all they're solving is the last 100 yard problem, which is, presumably, more acute in high density environments. But...*everyone* still needs to put in a fiber backhaul to support more high speed customers. So, I don't see how anyone's avoided the Google Fiber problem HBR is citing? Going to one device for mobile and home (and one bill) seems like a significant change. Simplifying last 100' deployment doesn't. I guess if you're dedicated to putting in fiber backhaul and that's constant expense and maybe saving 10-20% per install is significant, if you're expecting massive new installation numbers? Or maybe the economics are only sensible in dense deployments and the whole 5g/Starry-to-smaller-market thing is a fiction? Curious to see how this all works out. Doug -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rl at 1st-mile.org Mon Sep 17 08:25:19 2018 From: rl at 1st-mile.org (Richard Lowenberg) Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2018 09:25:19 -0600 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] Satellite Service is Not Broadband Message-ID: <1548694bf0b714df8c1116ecb53dbd15@1st-mile.org> Attached is a two page .pdf from the ILSR. RL --------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org --------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: fact-sheet-satellite-not-broadband.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 2238532 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rl at 1st-mile.org Sat Sep 22 00:28:17 2018 From: rl at 1st-mile.org (Richard Lowenberg) Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2018 01:28:17 -0600 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] NM Smart Grid: NSF Funding Message-ID: <68fcea4b289ebcc0607bb52a3b1b8acc@1st-mile.org> $24 MILLION FOR NM SMART GRID CENTER New Mexico Research Institutions Win Major NSF Award http://microgridsystemslab.com/2018/09/18/24-million-for-nm-smart-grid-center/ MSL joins universities and national labs for microgrid focus The National Science Foundation has awarded $20 million to a consortium of research institutions to develop the New Mexico SMART Grid Center. With local cost-share, total funding for the five-year program is $24 million. The consortium, comprised of the University of New Mexico, New Mexico State University, and New Mexico Tech, with Sandia National Laboratories, Los Alamos National Laboratory, and the Microgrid Systems Laboratory, will work toward modernizing the nation?s electric grid to become SMART (Sustainable, Modular, Adaptive, Resilient, and Transactive). More than 40 researchers (including new hires) will be involved across all institutions and activities. The research will focus on decentralized architectures, featuring microgrids at the utility distribution feeder level; associated networking, communications, data analytics and decision support; and economics and consumer behavior. In addition, MSL Member Santa Fe Community College will create related workforce training programs (LANL, SNL, and UNM are also MSL consortium Members), and will hire a full-time faculty in this area. Industry and utility partners include Siemens and Public Service Company of NM (PNM). New Mexico EPSCoR led the successful proposal effort, and will act as Project Director. MSL, which made significant contributions to developing the NM SMART Grid Center vision and approach, serves on the project?s Management Team, on two research teams (Systems Architecture, and Testing and Deployment), as an advisor on technology commercialization and innovation, and as coordinator of the SFCC workforce program. As stated in the project?s Strategic Plan, ?MSL is a key collaborator that is a hub of microgrid collaborative activity with industry.? The Center is envisioned as continuing beyond the five-year grant period, and will be a focus of MSL?s research program within its full RIDE scope (Research, Innovation, Demonstration, and Education). --------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org --------------------------------------------------------------- From rl at 1st-mile.org Thu Sep 27 17:55:16 2018 From: rl at 1st-mile.org (Richard Lowenberg) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2018 18:55:16 -0600 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] FCC 5G Ruling Message-ID: There are many articles and points of view on yesterday?s FCC ruling on next gen. 5G infrastructure. Below are links to the FCC ruling, and to a municipalities-oriented article from MuniNetworks. First, a very good page of 5G resources from Next Century Cities. https://nextcenturycities.org/next-century-cities-5g-resources/ --------- FCC Facilitates Deployment Of Wireless Infrastructure For 5G Connectivity https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-streamlines-deployment-next-generation-wireless-infrastructure --------- FCC Stomps on Local Control in Latest Small Cell Decision Thu, September 27, 2018 | Posted by Lisa Gonzalez https://muninetworks.org/content/fcc-stomps-local-control-latest-small-cell-decision On September 26th, Republican FCC Commissioners adopted an Order that usurps local control and, in keeping with this administration?s prior policy decisions, strengthens the power of the largest companies, obtaining nothing in return. At issue are local governments? ability to determine the amount of fees to charge mobile carriers that want to place 5G equipment in rights-of-way. In addition to establishing fees, the Order sets strict timelines in which cities and towns must respond to carrier applications. The FCC decision eliminates local communities? ability to negotiate in order to protect their own rights-of-way and the poles, traffic lights, and other potential structures in them. To back up their decision to adopt the new policy, the Republican controlled FCC relied on the incorrect claims that application and attachment fees in larger communities are so excessive that they create a burden which prevents carriers from investing in rural communities. (snip) The FCC does not require mobile carriers to commit to expanded coverage in smaller communities within the Order. (snip) In addition to the limits on fees, the Order interferes in the public safety and aesthetic requirements communities can require for small cells, imposing a reasonableness requirement. The Order sheds little light on the ?reasonable? standard. For towns that highly value aesthetic architectural qualities ? as in the case of historic downtown districts ? the FCC waves away the unique needs of individual communities. (snip) --------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org --------------------------------------------------------------- From doug.orr at gmail.com Thu Sep 27 18:31:13 2018 From: doug.orr at gmail.com (Doug Orr) Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2018 19:31:13 -0600 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] FCC 5G Ruling In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: And... 2 years old, but an article more or less what I've been saying: https://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/chickens-and-eggs-problem-5g-use-case Filling a much needed gap... I'll have to look up the reference but other analysts are showing up with the surprising notion that this is all about challenging cable for consumer video. (And, my personal twist, getting the public to pay for the buildout via scary stories about China and global competitiveness.) I agree that the morass of local regulations are a total impediment to uniform buildouts. But the overreach isn't a great precedent and I don't for a second believe that the carriers are going to keep the aesthetic or safety or consumer needs of local communities as significant considerations. Or the underserved. On the other hand, living in a relatively well to do community, I'd be pretty happy with $70/mo 300Mbps service. Doug On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 6:55 PM Richard Lowenberg wrote: > > There are many articles and points of view on yesterday?s FCC ruling on > next gen. 5G infrastructure. > Below are links to the FCC ruling, and to a municipalities-oriented > article from MuniNetworks. > > First, a very good page of 5G resources from Next Century Cities. > > https://nextcenturycities.org/next-century-cities-5g-resources/ > > --------- > > FCC Facilitates Deployment Of Wireless Infrastructure For 5G > Connectivity > > > https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-streamlines-deployment-next-generation-wireless-infrastructure > > --------- > > FCC Stomps on Local Control in Latest Small Cell Decision > > Thu, September 27, 2018 | Posted by Lisa Gonzalez > > https://muninetworks.org/content/fcc-stomps-local-control-latest-small-cell-decision > > On September 26th, Republican FCC Commissioners adopted an Order that > usurps local control and, in keeping with this administration?s prior > policy decisions, strengthens the power of the largest companies, > obtaining nothing in return. > > At issue are local governments? ability to determine the amount of fees > to charge mobile carriers that want to place 5G equipment in > rights-of-way. In addition to establishing fees, the Order sets strict > timelines in which cities and towns must respond to carrier > applications. The FCC decision eliminates local communities? ability to > negotiate in order to protect their own rights-of-way and the poles, > traffic lights, and other potential structures in them. > > To back up their decision to adopt the new policy, the Republican > controlled FCC relied on the incorrect claims that application and > attachment fees in larger communities are so excessive that they create > a burden which prevents carriers from investing in rural communities. > > (snip) > > The FCC does not require mobile carriers to commit to expanded coverage > in smaller communities within the Order. > > (snip) > > In addition to the limits on fees, the Order interferes in the public > safety and aesthetic requirements communities can require for small > cells, imposing a reasonableness requirement. The Order sheds little > light on the ?reasonable? standard. For towns that highly value > aesthetic architectural qualities ? as in the case of historic downtown > districts ? the FCC waves away the unique needs of individual > communities. > > (snip) > > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director > 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 <(505)%20603-5200> > Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, > rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org > --------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rl at 1st-mile.org Wed Oct 3 11:01:20 2018 From: rl at 1st-mile.org (Richard Lowenberg) Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2018 12:01:20 -0600 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] EducationSuperHighway-2018-State of the States Report Message-ID: Education Superhighway, contracted by the State of New Mexico, has just posted its annual report on nationwide schools networking upgrade initiatives. https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/esh-sots-pdfs/2018%20State%20of%20the%20States.pdf The New Mexico Report is online at: http://stateofthestates.educationsuperhighway.org/?postalCd=NM#future Here are some exerpts from the NM report: 99% of school districts can access the Internet at speeds of 100 kbps/student. 10,579 students still need 620 schools have fiber infrastructure 13 schools still need scalable broadband Of the 13, 71% are Rural and 29% are Urban 13 schools without fiber can get connected with the support of E-rate and state matching funds. Since 2015, the cost of broadband in New Mexico has decreased by 66%. This compares to a 72% decrease nationally. Since 2015, schools in New Mexico have utilized $23M in federal Wi-Fi funding to upgrade Wi-Fi and their internal networks. This year $5.3M in Wi-Fi funding must be accessed by 19 school districts or it will expire. --------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org --------------------------------------------------------------- From rl at 1st-mile.org Wed Oct 3 11:05:31 2018 From: rl at 1st-mile.org (Richard Lowenberg) Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2018 12:05:31 -0600 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] Center for Digital Government's Digital States Survey 2018: Raising the Bar Message-ID: <87e5006e32c682aa6aaad6bce9caccf4@1st-mile.org> The Center for Digital Government's Digital States Survey 2018: Raising the Bar, has been published in Government Technology. http://www.govtech.com/Digital-States-2018.html Here's their New Mexico report: 2018 Grade: B 2016 Grade: B- CIO: Maria Sanchez (acting) Despite a statewide budget shortfall, New Mexico has done a lot in the past two years to become a state with a strong IT presence. One of the southwestern state?s main areas of focus has been the development and rollout of its ERP system, known as the Statewide Human Resources Accounting and Reporting (SHARE) system. The initiative, which involved more than 120 agencies, took 22 months to complete, cost $20 million, and achieved numerous measurable outcomes including the elimination of payroll overpayments and a reduction in more than 500,000 hard-copy documents that were previously delivered to the finance department every year. SHARE provides offices in remote locations across New Mexico with "geographic equity" to those in more populated areas, and the state feels the system is truly an investment that will continue to provide ongoing returns. Another priority has been expanding broadband connections, including the creation of the Office of Broadband and Geospatial Initiatives (OBGI), which encompasses, among other things, the governor?s Broadband for Education program. This has helped public schools across the state upgrade their connections, and as of the 2017-18 school year, 99 percent of schools had high-speed Internet. To strengthen their position of "doing more with less," OBGI prioritizes broadband projects that will affect more than one area to optimize costs. New Mexico, one of the first five states to opt in to FirstNet, has also continued its place as a leader in public safety communications and has a plan to achieve P25 standards that will lay the groundwork for current and future coverage to rural, urban and tribal areas. Going forward, the state anticipates executive leadership changes following the November 2018 election, but DoIT has created a technical environment ready to support New Mexico?s future. --------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org --------------------------------------------------------------- From rl at 1st-mile.org Thu Oct 11 08:27:55 2018 From: rl at 1st-mile.org (Richard Lowenberg) Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2018 09:27:55 -0600 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] Fwd: Indigenous Connectivity Summit 2018 - Today/Tomorrow - Livesteam available In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Short Notice. This year's Internet Society sponsored Indigenous Connectivity Summit is being held today and tomorrow in Inuvik, Northwest Territories, CA. Log on to the lifestream link below to watch and listen. RL -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Indigenous Connectivity Summit 2018 - Today/Tomorrow - Livesteam available Date: 2018-10-11 09:07 From: Rob McMahon To: FIRSTMILE at LISTSERV.UNB.CA Hello everyone, You may be interested in this event focused on Indigenous-led technology development and community networking taking place in Inuvik, NWT today and tomorrow (Oct 11 & 12). Great to have FMCC members here and presenting about their work! LIVESTREAM: https://livestream.com/internetsociety/indigenet2018 [1] AGENDA: https://www.internetsociety.org/events/indigenous-connectivity-summit/2018/agenda/ [2] Including Indigenous voices in the decisions and solutions that shape the Internet is a critical part of closing the connectivity gap in rural and remote communities throughout North America. _The Indigenous Connectivity Summit is a unique event that focuses on ensuring Indigenous communities can connect themselves to fast, affordable and sustainable Internet. Themed on connecting the last 1,000 miles, this year?s event in Inuvik, Northwest Territories will highlight unique northern connectivity challenges and showcase success stories of Community Networks around the globe to help inspire solutions to improve Internet access for all. We?ll also explore themes including community development and sustainability in a two-day series of panels, presentations and discussions._ _The 2018 Indigenous Connectivity Summit is an initiative of the Internet Society, University of Alberta, First Mile Connectivity Consortium, the Town of Inuvik, and Inuvialuit Regional Corporation._ Best, Rob -- Assistant Professor Communications and Technology Graduate Program University of Alberta Faculty of Extension Phone: 780-248-1110 Email: rob.mcmahon at ualberta.ca http://firstmile.ca The University of Alberta is located on Treaty 6 territory, traditional lands of First Nations and M?tis people. Links: ------ [1] https://livestream.com/internetsociety/indigenet2018 [2] https://www.internetsociety.org/events/indigenous-connectivity-summit/2018/agenda/ --------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org --------------------------------------------------------------- From rl at 1st-mile.org Wed Oct 17 11:32:09 2018 From: rl at 1st-mile.org (Richard Lowenberg) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2018 12:32:09 -0600 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] Fwd: A New Way to Finance Fiber In-Reply-To: <49312101.7026.0@wordpress.com> References: <49312101.7026.0@wordpress.com> Message-ID: <49ec7c2b8b9a6242878245d6ae9b3ef4@1st-mile.org> A New Way to Finance Fiber by Doug Dawson, CCGConsulting https://potsandpansbyccg.com/2018/10/17/a-new-way-to-finance-fiber/ I recently was part of a team that brought the financing to build fiber in Dallas, Oregon. The new fiber business is operating under the name Willamette Valley Fiber. Dallas is a community of over 15,000 located near to the state capital of Salem. As the title of this blog suggests, this project was funded in what I am sure is a new way for the industry. The funding uses what might best be described as private activity bonds. This are municipal-like bonds that are distributed in the public bond market. In this case the bonds, and the network, are owned by a non-profit corporation. The primary benefit to this financing structure is that the City doesn?t have to go onto the hook for the new debt ? something that many cities are reluctant or unable to do. Building fiber networks is expensive and many cities are unable to tackle the size of the needed debt. In this case, the City of Dallas, while thrilled to be getting the fiber network, is not associated with or a party to the bond financing. If there is any one hurdle to the financing structure it?s that these are pure revenue bonds ? meaning that they only are supported by the revenues of the project. There are no backdrop guarantees by a City or anybody else to support the bonds if the project doesn?t perform as expected. That means that any business plan funded this way must be solid and conservative to make sure that revenues will cover costs. That leads to a few key characteristics for a project to be funding in this way: Bond financing generally will have higher up-front costs than other kinds of financing, but they are usually offset by lower interest rates. The high up-front costs mean this kind of financing is only cost effective for projects the size of Dallas or larger. It?s essential that there are no cost overruns from construction because there is no party, like an underlying City, that can step in to make up for any cash shortfalls. This means that engineering must be done before funding, and that a design-builder must be found that?s willing to build the network for a guaranteed price. This means tying down not only fiber costs, but the costs of drops and electronics. It?s also mandatory to understand the community, and that means doing surveys and other market research to make sure that the community is receptive to buying from a new fiber network. It?s easy to just assume that fiber sells, but one of our products at CCG Consulting is doing surveys and we?ve seen major differences from market to market, sometimes even within the same region. It?s also mandatory to have a cost structure that minimizes expenses. The best way to do that is to find an ISP operator who?s already successfully operating a fiber business. There are significant expense saving when an ISP opens an additional market. The fiber business is largely an economy of scale business and there are huge benefits to an operator for spreading joint and common costs across an additional market. This means that the best structure for this kind of financing is to find an existing ISP willing to tackle operating the new market. That operator will benefit financially by allocating costs to the new market, and the new venture benefits by lower costs. As an example, if an ISP opens up a new market that doubles their size, the cost for something like the salary of their CFO effectively is halved for the original business as half of the CFO?s cost is allocated to the new market. The new market benefits by getting a CFO for half of the cost compared to hiring one. In Dallas the operator is MINET, a municipal ISP that is owned jointly by the nearby cities of Monmouth and Independence Oregon. MINET has been effective as an ISP with a market penetration in their own markets of nearly 85%. The Dallas expansion offers the opportunity to double their customer base, meaning that they can allocate a high percentage of existing costs to the Dallas venture ? a win-win for both parties. Our team is interested in developing more fiber ventures that meet the above criteria. I?d like to hear from communities that want fiber and that already know of a nearby quality ISP that would be interested in operating the business. I?m also interested in hearing from existing ISPs that can meet our criteria. We?re only interested in ISPs with a track record of success. An ISP can benefit two ways from such a venture ? they can gain economy of scale and allocate a lot of existing expenses away from their current business. An ISP-operator also can benefit from profit sharing if the new venture is successful. You can contact me at blackbean2 at ccg.comm if you think you have a project that can benefit from this kind of financing. --------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org --------------------------------------------------------------- From doug.orr at gmail.com Wed Oct 17 12:54:12 2018 From: doug.orr at gmail.com (Doug Orr) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2018 13:54:12 -0600 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] FCC 5G Ruling In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Oh, and I don't think I forwarded this recent one from Ars where Verizon admits it is intending to use 5g to compete against existing cable companies . No autonomous vehicles, no IOT, no telemedicine. Video entertainment. For those already served by cable. Here's a fun article on 5g from Marketplace with the money quote:* "But all this raises the question: If 5G is such a big deal, economically and in terms of security, should the federal government pay for it?" *Great question, Marketplace! I smell bonuses all around for the Verizon marketing department! Wag the Dog, wireless operator edition. Doug p.s. Of course Comcast also doesn't like net neutrality (Ars yesterday ), it will make less money! This whole charade boils down to two things: (a) saturated cable market, and (b) saturated mobile market. Oh, plus cord cutting and the inability of mobile operators to serve video at scale. On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 7:31 PM Doug Orr wrote: > And... 2 years old, but an article more or less what I've been saying: > > > https://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/chickens-and-eggs-problem-5g-use-case > > Filling a much needed gap... > > I'll have to look up the reference but other analysts are showing up with > the surprising notion that this is all about challenging cable for consumer > video. (And, my personal twist, getting the public to pay for the buildout > via scary stories about China and global competitiveness.) > > I agree that the morass of local regulations are a total impediment to > uniform buildouts. But the overreach isn't a great precedent and I don't > for a second believe that the carriers are going to keep the aesthetic or > safety or consumer needs of local communities as significant > considerations. Or the underserved. > > On the other hand, living in a relatively well to do community, I'd be > pretty happy with $70/mo 300Mbps service. > > Doug > > On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 6:55 PM Richard Lowenberg wrote: > >> >> There are many articles and points of view on yesterday?s FCC ruling on >> next gen. 5G infrastructure. >> Below are links to the FCC ruling, and to a municipalities-oriented >> article from MuniNetworks. >> >> First, a very good page of 5G resources from Next Century Cities. >> >> https://nextcenturycities.org/next-century-cities-5g-resources/ >> >> --------- >> >> FCC Facilitates Deployment Of Wireless Infrastructure For 5G >> Connectivity >> >> >> https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-streamlines-deployment-next-generation-wireless-infrastructure >> >> --------- >> >> FCC Stomps on Local Control in Latest Small Cell Decision >> >> Thu, September 27, 2018 | Posted by Lisa Gonzalez >> >> https://muninetworks.org/content/fcc-stomps-local-control-latest-small-cell-decision >> >> On September 26th, Republican FCC Commissioners adopted an Order that >> usurps local control and, in keeping with this administration?s prior >> policy decisions, strengthens the power of the largest companies, >> obtaining nothing in return. >> >> At issue are local governments? ability to determine the amount of fees >> to charge mobile carriers that want to place 5G equipment in >> rights-of-way. In addition to establishing fees, the Order sets strict >> timelines in which cities and towns must respond to carrier >> applications. The FCC decision eliminates local communities? ability to >> negotiate in order to protect their own rights-of-way and the poles, >> traffic lights, and other potential structures in them. >> >> To back up their decision to adopt the new policy, the Republican >> controlled FCC relied on the incorrect claims that application and >> attachment fees in larger communities are so excessive that they create >> a burden which prevents carriers from investing in rural communities. >> >> (snip) >> >> The FCC does not require mobile carriers to commit to expanded coverage >> in smaller communities within the Order. >> >> (snip) >> >> In addition to the limits on fees, the Order interferes in the public >> safety and aesthetic requirements communities can require for small >> cells, imposing a reasonableness requirement. The Order sheds little >> light on the ?reasonable? standard. For towns that highly value >> aesthetic architectural qualities ? as in the case of historic downtown >> districts ? the FCC waves away the unique needs of individual >> communities. >> >> (snip) >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------- >> Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director >> 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 <(505)%20603-5200> >> Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, >> rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org >> --------------------------------------------------------------- >> _______________________________________________ >> 1st-mile-nm mailing list >> 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org >> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From christopher at ilsr.org Wed Oct 17 12:57:25 2018 From: christopher at ilsr.org (Christopher Mitchell) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2018 14:57:25 -0500 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] FCC 5G Ruling In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I think Harold Feld's reality check on 5G is worth remembering here: http://www.wetmachine.com/tales-of-the-sausage-factory/so-what-the-heck-does-5g-actually-do-and-is-it-worth-what-the-carriers-are-demanding/ Christopher Mitchell Director, Community Broadband Networks Institute for Local Self-Reliance MuniNetworks.org @communitynets 612-545-5185 On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 2:55 PM Doug Orr wrote: > Oh, and I don't think I forwarded this recent one from Ars where Verizon > admits it is intending to use 5g to compete against existing cable companies > . > No autonomous vehicles, no IOT, no telemedicine. Video entertainment. For > those already served by cable. > > Here's a fun article on 5g > > from Marketplace with the money quote:* "But all this raises the > question: If 5G is such a big deal, economically and in terms of security, > should the federal government pay for it?" *Great question, Marketplace! > I smell bonuses all around for the Verizon marketing department! Wag the > Dog, wireless operator edition. > > Doug > > p.s. Of course Comcast also doesn't like net neutrality (Ars yesterday > ), > it will make less money! This whole charade boils down to two things: (a) > saturated cable market, and (b) saturated mobile market. Oh, plus cord > cutting and the inability of mobile operators to serve video at scale. > > On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 7:31 PM Doug Orr wrote: > >> And... 2 years old, but an article more or less what I've been saying: >> >> >> https://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/chickens-and-eggs-problem-5g-use-case >> >> Filling a much needed gap... >> >> I'll have to look up the reference but other analysts are showing up with >> the surprising notion that this is all about challenging cable for consumer >> video. (And, my personal twist, getting the public to pay for the buildout >> via scary stories about China and global competitiveness.) >> >> I agree that the morass of local regulations are a total impediment to >> uniform buildouts. But the overreach isn't a great precedent and I don't >> for a second believe that the carriers are going to keep the aesthetic or >> safety or consumer needs of local communities as significant >> considerations. Or the underserved. >> >> On the other hand, living in a relatively well to do community, I'd be >> pretty happy with $70/mo 300Mbps service. >> >> Doug >> >> On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 6:55 PM Richard Lowenberg >> wrote: >> >>> >>> There are many articles and points of view on yesterday?s FCC ruling on >>> next gen. 5G infrastructure. >>> Below are links to the FCC ruling, and to a municipalities-oriented >>> article from MuniNetworks. >>> >>> First, a very good page of 5G resources from Next Century Cities. >>> >>> https://nextcenturycities.org/next-century-cities-5g-resources/ >>> >>> --------- >>> >>> FCC Facilitates Deployment Of Wireless Infrastructure For 5G >>> Connectivity >>> >>> >>> https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-streamlines-deployment-next-generation-wireless-infrastructure >>> >>> --------- >>> >>> FCC Stomps on Local Control in Latest Small Cell Decision >>> >>> Thu, September 27, 2018 | Posted by Lisa Gonzalez >>> >>> https://muninetworks.org/content/fcc-stomps-local-control-latest-small-cell-decision >>> >>> On September 26th, Republican FCC Commissioners adopted an Order that >>> usurps local control and, in keeping with this administration?s prior >>> policy decisions, strengthens the power of the largest companies, >>> obtaining nothing in return. >>> >>> At issue are local governments? ability to determine the amount of fees >>> to charge mobile carriers that want to place 5G equipment in >>> rights-of-way. In addition to establishing fees, the Order sets strict >>> timelines in which cities and towns must respond to carrier >>> applications. The FCC decision eliminates local communities? ability to >>> negotiate in order to protect their own rights-of-way and the poles, >>> traffic lights, and other potential structures in them. >>> >>> To back up their decision to adopt the new policy, the Republican >>> controlled FCC relied on the incorrect claims that application and >>> attachment fees in larger communities are so excessive that they create >>> a burden which prevents carriers from investing in rural communities. >>> >>> (snip) >>> >>> The FCC does not require mobile carriers to commit to expanded coverage >>> in smaller communities within the Order. >>> >>> (snip) >>> >>> In addition to the limits on fees, the Order interferes in the public >>> safety and aesthetic requirements communities can require for small >>> cells, imposing a reasonableness requirement. The Order sheds little >>> light on the ?reasonable? standard. For towns that highly value >>> aesthetic architectural qualities ? as in the case of historic downtown >>> districts ? the FCC waves away the unique needs of individual >>> communities. >>> >>> (snip) >>> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------- >>> Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director >>> 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 <(505)%20603-5200> >>> Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, >>> rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org >>> --------------------------------------------------------------- >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 1st-mile-nm mailing list >>> 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org >>> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm >>> >> _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From doug.orr at gmail.com Wed Oct 17 13:28:54 2018 From: doug.orr at gmail.com (Doug Orr) Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2018 14:28:54 -0600 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] FCC 5G Ruling In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Freakin' awesome. He didn't hilight the unsuitability of mimo for standard network protocols, but otherwise...outstanding! Can't wait to read this: === One does not have to conclude, as Fred Goldstein does, that 5G is ?a spectrum eating monster that destroys competition? to argue that 5G is being way oversold by carriers as a means of pushing for policy goodies. === On Wed, Oct 17, 2018, 1:58 PM Christopher Mitchell wrote: > I think Harold Feld's reality check on 5G is worth remembering here: > > > http://www.wetmachine.com/tales-of-the-sausage-factory/so-what-the-heck-does-5g-actually-do-and-is-it-worth-what-the-carriers-are-demanding/ > > > Christopher Mitchell > Director, Community Broadband Networks > Institute for Local Self-Reliance > > MuniNetworks.org > @communitynets > 612-545-5185 > > > On Wed, Oct 17, 2018 at 2:55 PM Doug Orr wrote: > >> Oh, and I don't think I forwarded this recent one from Ars where Verizon >> admits it is intending to use 5g to compete against existing cable companies >> . >> No autonomous vehicles, no IOT, no telemedicine. Video entertainment. For >> those already served by cable. >> >> Here's a fun article on 5g >> >> from Marketplace with the money quote:* "But all this raises the >> question: If 5G is such a big deal, economically and in terms of security, >> should the federal government pay for it?" *Great question, Marketplace! >> I smell bonuses all around for the Verizon marketing department! Wag the >> Dog, wireless operator edition. >> >> Doug >> >> p.s. Of course Comcast also doesn't like net neutrality (Ars yesterday >> ), >> it will make less money! This whole charade boils down to two things: (a) >> saturated cable market, and (b) saturated mobile market. Oh, plus cord >> cutting and the inability of mobile operators to serve video at scale. >> >> On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 7:31 PM Doug Orr wrote: >> >>> And... 2 years old, but an article more or less what I've been saying: >>> >>> >>> https://www.fiercewireless.com/wireless/chickens-and-eggs-problem-5g-use-case >>> >>> Filling a much needed gap... >>> >>> I'll have to look up the reference but other analysts are showing up >>> with the surprising notion that this is all about challenging cable for >>> consumer video. (And, my personal twist, getting the public to pay for the >>> buildout via scary stories about China and global competitiveness.) >>> >>> I agree that the morass of local regulations are a total impediment to >>> uniform buildouts. But the overreach isn't a great precedent and I don't >>> for a second believe that the carriers are going to keep the aesthetic or >>> safety or consumer needs of local communities as significant >>> considerations. Or the underserved. >>> >>> On the other hand, living in a relatively well to do community, I'd be >>> pretty happy with $70/mo 300Mbps service. >>> >>> Doug >>> >>> On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 6:55 PM Richard Lowenberg >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> There are many articles and points of view on yesterday?s FCC ruling on >>>> next gen. 5G infrastructure. >>>> Below are links to the FCC ruling, and to a municipalities-oriented >>>> article from MuniNetworks. >>>> >>>> First, a very good page of 5G resources from Next Century Cities. >>>> >>>> https://nextcenturycities.org/next-century-cities-5g-resources/ >>>> >>>> --------- >>>> >>>> FCC Facilitates Deployment Of Wireless Infrastructure For 5G >>>> Connectivity >>>> >>>> >>>> https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-streamlines-deployment-next-generation-wireless-infrastructure >>>> >>>> --------- >>>> >>>> FCC Stomps on Local Control in Latest Small Cell Decision >>>> >>>> Thu, September 27, 2018 | Posted by Lisa Gonzalez >>>> >>>> https://muninetworks.org/content/fcc-stomps-local-control-latest-small-cell-decision >>>> >>>> On September 26th, Republican FCC Commissioners adopted an Order that >>>> usurps local control and, in keeping with this administration?s prior >>>> policy decisions, strengthens the power of the largest companies, >>>> obtaining nothing in return. >>>> >>>> At issue are local governments? ability to determine the amount of fees >>>> to charge mobile carriers that want to place 5G equipment in >>>> rights-of-way. In addition to establishing fees, the Order sets strict >>>> timelines in which cities and towns must respond to carrier >>>> applications. The FCC decision eliminates local communities? ability to >>>> negotiate in order to protect their own rights-of-way and the poles, >>>> traffic lights, and other potential structures in them. >>>> >>>> To back up their decision to adopt the new policy, the Republican >>>> controlled FCC relied on the incorrect claims that application and >>>> attachment fees in larger communities are so excessive that they create >>>> a burden which prevents carriers from investing in rural communities. >>>> >>>> (snip) >>>> >>>> The FCC does not require mobile carriers to commit to expanded coverage >>>> in smaller communities within the Order. >>>> >>>> (snip) >>>> >>>> In addition to the limits on fees, the Order interferes in the public >>>> safety and aesthetic requirements communities can require for small >>>> cells, imposing a reasonableness requirement. The Order sheds little >>>> light on the ?reasonable? standard. For towns that highly value >>>> aesthetic architectural qualities ? as in the case of historic downtown >>>> districts ? the FCC waves away the unique needs of individual >>>> communities. >>>> >>>> (snip) >>>> >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director >>>> 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 <(505)%20603-5200> >>>> Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, >>>> rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 1st-mile-nm mailing list >>>> 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org >>>> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >> 1st-mile-nm mailing list >> 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org >> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm >> > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rl at 1st-mile.org Fri Oct 19 10:56:16 2018 From: rl at 1st-mile.org (Richard Lowenberg) Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2018 11:56:16 -0600 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] Fwd: Updates and meeting notice In-Reply-To: <91bb4e679be849d895e3e0c94a3db0e0@nmpsfa.org> References: <91bb4e679be849d895e3e0c94a3db0e0@nmpsfa.org> Message-ID: Forwarded message, of interest to some on this list. RL -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Updates and meeting notice Date: 2018-10-19 11:24 From: Ovidiu Viorica We invited all the Service Providers we know about to our annual meeting - next week in Albuquerque. See the invite message below. Feel free to attend - if you can - and/or share (or follow up) with anyone you think would like to have this information. Thanks for your help. Have a great weekend. Best Regards, Ovidiu Dear New Mexico Service Providers and Carriers, This is your invitation to attend our annual Service Provider meeting, at the UNM Science and Technology Park's Rotunda meeting room, on Tuesday, October 23rd, from 10 to 12 (MST). As part of the conversation, we would like to present updates and receive your feedback about ways to improve the program. Please put this important meeting on your calendar as we look forward to seeing you again. We will be sending you another reminder email closer to the date, and we will include an agenda at that time as well. We appreciate the support you provide to our New Mexico schools and to the broadband program. It is good to see the progress that has been made so far. Please RSVP to Ruth Bingham at PSFA, on behalf of the BDCP, for information for free parking during the meeting. She can be reached at rbingham at nmpsfa.org. Sincerely, The BDCP team. Ovidiu Viorica Broadband & Technology Program Manager New Mexico Public School Facilities Authority Office: 505-843-6272 ext. 1027 Direct: 505-468-0264 Cell: 505-270-1355 Email: oviorica at nmpsfa.org Web: www.nmpsfa.org [1] Links: ------ [1] http://www.nmpsfa.org/ --------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org --------------------------------------------------------------- From tom at jtjohnson.com Wed Oct 24 06:50:41 2018 From: tom at jtjohnson.com (Tom Johnson) Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2018 09:50:41 -0400 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] Why rural areas can't catch a break on speedy broadband Message-ID: https://www.cnet.com/news/why-rural-areas-cant-catch-a-break-on-speedy-broadband/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rl at 1st-mile.org Thu Oct 25 10:39:22 2018 From: rl at 1st-mile.org (Richard Lowenberg) Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 11:39:22 -0600 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] FCC Renews Native Nations Communications Task Force Message-ID: Chairman Pai Announces 19 Tribal Members and 8 FCC Members to the Renewed Native Nations Communications Task Force. https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-18-1083A1.pdf --------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org --------------------------------------------------------------- From rl at 1st-mile.org Mon Nov 5 09:22:12 2018 From: rl at 1st-mile.org (Richard Lowenberg) Date: Mon, 05 Nov 2018 10:22:12 -0700 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] Money NM Member of Congress Got from Big Telecom Message-ID: Map Shows You How Much Money Every Member of Congress Got from Big Telecom https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/9k7e43/before-you-vote-check-out-this-map-of-how-much-big-telecom-gave-your-congress-members Heinrich, Martin: D - NM Position on Net Neutrality: For Money Received from ISPs: $166,929 Udall, Tom: D - NM Net Neutrality: For ISP Campaign Donations: $350,767 (Not sure of accuracy. RL) --------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org --------------------------------------------------------------- From rl at 1st-mile.org Thu Nov 15 11:08:52 2018 From: rl at 1st-mile.org (Richard Lowenberg) Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2018 12:08:52 -0700 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] USDA Rural Broadband Investment Message-ID: <059e1b87a73a446d364b3b65756c7e07@1st-mile.org> USDA Partners with Communities to Bring High-Speed Broadband e-Connectivity Infrastructure to Rural Areas More than 27,000 Businesses and Residents to Get Improved e-Connectivity https://www.usda.gov/media/press-releases/2018/11/13/usda-partners-communities-bring-high-speed-broadband-e-connectivity WASHINGTON, Nov. 13, 2018 ? Assistant to the Secretary for Rural Development Anne Hazlett today announced that USDA is investing in infrastructure projects in a dozen states to improve e-Connectivity in rural communities. (snip) In New Mexico, the Tularosa Basin Telephone Company Inc. will use an $11.8 million loan to improve telecommunications for nearly 10,000 customers in the Carrizozo, Cloudcroft and Tularosa exchanges. Tularosa will build 176 miles of fiber-optic facilities, construct new fiber-to-the-premises (FTTP) facilities, and upgrade digital subscriber line (DSL) and FTTP electronics. The improvements will enhance the company?s services and provide subscribers voice and higher broadband speeds. (snip) --------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org --------------------------------------------------------------- From ycompanys at gmail.com Sun Nov 18 19:13:44 2018 From: ycompanys at gmail.com (Yosem Companys) Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2018 19:13:44 -0800 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] =?utf-8?q?University_of_Washington=E2=80=99s_Allen_?= =?utf-8?q?School_Seeking_New_PhD_Students_for_Research_in_Universa?= =?utf-8?q?l_Internet_Access_and_Community_Networking?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: From: Kurtis Heimerl Apologies for the wide posting but I feel like these lists have the kind of people we're looking for! Feel free to forward on if there are other communities that could be interested. ***** The ICTD Research Group at the University of Washington?s Allen School of Computer Science and Engineering (http://ictd.cs.washington.edu/) is seeking qualified students, both from the US and abroad, with an interest in universal internet access and community networking to apply to the PhD program in computer networking. The ICTD group, led by Professors Kurtis Heimerl and Richard Anderson, has long worked on the problems of Universal Internet Access internationally, with deployments and projects in both the rural Philippines (in partnership with the University of the Philippines) and Indonesia (in partnership with Ob Anggen). As our research shifts to wide-area LTE networks and the infrastructure of repair, we want to find more motivated and passionate students with interest and capacity in the space. There is a particular interest in students with personal experience with hard connectivity problems. If interested, please visit the UWCSE admissions page (https://www.cs.washington.edu/academics/phd). All students admitted to the Allen School Ph.D. program are guaranteed funding for 3 years in the form of a research assistantship, teaching assistantship or fellowship. All or most of the cost of tuition is covered by the assistantship or fellowship. If you have any questions, please direct them to Professor Kurtis Heimerl . A little about the University of Washington?s Allen School of Computer Science and Engineering: Consistently ranked among the top computer science programs in the world, the Paul G. Allen School of Computer Science & Engineering educates tomorrow's innovators and engages in research that advances core and emerging areas of the field. We also lead a broad range of multi-disciplinary initiatives that demonstrate the transformative power of computing and are nationally recognized for our success in promoting diversity. We are located in the spectacular Paul G. Allen Center for Computer Science & Engineering at the heart of the University of Washington campus in Seattle ? a center of innovation in software, life sciences, global health, aerospace, and many other fields ? where Allen School faculty, students, and alumni are making an impact and changing the world. -- Public Key: https://flowcrypt.com/pub/kheimerl at cs.washington.edu From rl at 1st-mile.org Mon Dec 3 10:16:19 2018 From: rl at 1st-mile.org (Richard Lowenberg) Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2018 11:16:19 -0700 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] Bank Financing for Rural Broadband Initiatives Message-ID: <8762b15e1d72c81d3b0be873ab21db2b@1st-mile.org> Of interest: From the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, U.S. Treasury Dept. "Expanding Internet Access: Bank Financing for Rural Broadband Initiatives". https://occ.gov/publications/publications-by-type/other-publications-reports/cdi-newsletter/rural-broadband-nov-2018/rural-broadband-table-of-contents.html --------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org --------------------------------------------------------------- From rl at 1st-mile.org Thu Dec 6 14:49:19 2018 From: rl at 1st-mile.org (Richard Lowenberg) Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2018 15:49:19 -0700 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] NMTechWorks Video Message-ID: <7a36ae639018bba9a2b7a55fceac8d9b@1st-mile.org> A shout out to NM TechWorks. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLrt6dxF9AE&feature=share&fbclid=IwAR1m3riewRQg9W10_-RJ45hnTRwmjHLZsEmYnLMLfMTbex_ry3hGY_a-vAE --------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org --------------------------------------------------------------- From rl at 1st-mile.org Fri Dec 7 16:21:16 2018 From: rl at 1st-mile.org (Richard Lowenberg) Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2018 17:21:16 -0700 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] Unlocking the Value of Broadband for Electric Cooperative Consumer Members Message-ID: <563be12ba9c98cf3f185a7387192d906@1st-mile.org> A timely and helpful report. "Unlocking the Value of Broadband for Electric Cooperative Consumer Members" Prepared by the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association (NRECA). https://muninetworks.org/sites/www.muninetworks.org/files/2018-09-NRECA-Unlocking-the-Value-of-Broadband-for-Co-op-Consumer-Members.pdf --------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org --------------------------------------------------------------- From rl at 1st-mile.org Thu Dec 13 12:28:22 2018 From: rl at 1st-mile.org (Richard Lowenberg) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2018 13:28:22 -0700 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] Fwd: NTIA Congratulates USDA for Announcing its $600 million Broadband Program, ReConnect In-Reply-To: <4636F423-C2AE-4900-948D-4412B8C0E623@internet-is-infrastructure.org> References: <4636F423-C2AE-4900-948D-4412B8C0E623@internet-is-infrastructure.org> Message-ID: <738c157e096be6d9b098807147a19511@1st-mile.org> Here's the newly announced USDA Rural Broadband initiative. Stay tuned for more information on broadband funding programs, within the approved and about to be signed federal Farm Bill. RL -------- Original Message -------- > Begin forwarded message: > FROM: BroadbandUSA > > SUBJECT: NTIA CONGRATULATES USDA FOR ANNOUNCING ITS $600 MILLION > BROADBAND PROGRAM, RECONNECT > > DATE: December 13, 2018 at 2:48:51 PM EST > > Good Afternoon, > > Today, Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information and NTIA > Administrator David Redl issued the following statement on the U.S. > Department of Agriculture?s [1] announcement of a $600 million loan > and grant program [2] to assist with building rural broadband > infrastructure: > > ?The Administration is taking an important step to help close the > broadband coverage gap for the millions of rural Americans who lack > access to broadband connectivity with the launch of the U.S. > Department of Agriculture?s $600 million grant and loan program [3]. > NTIA looks forward to providing technical assistance to potential > applicants through its partnership with USDA?s Rural Utilities > Service (RUS). NTIA?s BroadbandUSA [4]team has extensive experience > working in the telecommunications industry, building broadband > networks and consulting with service providers and local governments. > Using this expertise, our team will be supporting educational > materials and workshops to help applicants with the grant and loan > process.? > > The statement is available here: > https://www.ntia.doc.gov/speechtestimony/2018/statement-assistant-secretary-redl-usda-loan-and-grant-program > [5] > > We have also attached USDA?s Fact Sheet about the program. > > Best regards, > BroadbandUSA Team -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org --------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ReConnect Program - Factsheet.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 128314 bytes Desc: not available URL: From rl at 1st-mile.org Thu Dec 13 13:33:58 2018 From: rl at 1st-mile.org (Richard Lowenberg) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2018 14:33:58 -0700 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] FCC RELEASES FORM 477 DATA ON BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2017 In-Reply-To: <34B98995-DD4D-4607-9DC8-6F12BC9E7BB3@hughes.net> References: <34B98995-DD4D-4607-9DC8-6F12BC9E7BB3@hughes.net> Message-ID: <947a333fd213c0531ec290122b24dd5c@1st-mile.org> The FCC has released updated Form 477 data on fixed broadband deployment and mobile voice and broadband deployment as of December 31, 2017. https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-18-1246A1.pdf The datasets are downloadable for the entire USA or by state. The visualizations (interactive maps) are not yet available. --------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org --------------------------------------------------------------- From rl at 1st-mile.org Tue Dec 25 09:04:03 2018 From: rl at 1st-mile.org (Richard Lowenberg) Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2018 10:04:03 -0700 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] Census-NM-Broadband-Report Message-ID: <082edfeb50427ad9a681219cb116c38e@1st-mile.org> Census: N.M. struggling for a good connection By Teya Vitu | tvitu at sfnewmexican.com Dec 24, 2018 http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/census-n-m-struggling-for-a-good-connection/article_7ef18278-008e-5396-8250-8c8c52847c4f.html New U.S. Census Bureau data released earlier this month says New Mexico is among the least connected states to broadband in the nation. New Mexico ranks No. 48, just ahead of Arkansas and Mississippi and one notch below West Virginia, with percentage of households with broadband Internet subscriptions in 2016. The Census determined 73.7 percent of New Mexico household had broadband connections; the U.S. average was 81.4 percent. Washington state led the nation at 87.4 percent. ?Low broadband internet subscription rates were found in many counties in the upper Plains, the Southwest and South,? the Census wrote in its report. The highspeedinternet.com website determined 91 percent of New Mexicans can get broadband internet. The broadbandnow.com website has 81 percent of New Mexico covered by broadband. The gap between broadband availability and customer subscriptions reflects other Census findings that singled out Deming and Gallup among the half-dozen or so U.S. micropolitan areas (fewer than 50,000 residents) with the lowest income and highest poverty, respectively. New Mexico?s issues with poverty and low income are evident throughout the state. Only Los Alamos County has less than 10 percent poverty. Otherwise, the state falls alongside Arizona, South Carolina and Delaware as the only states with no counties with less than 10 percent poverty. On the broadband front, only Bernalillo, Sandoval, Santa Fe and Eddy counties have 75 to 85 percent of households with broadband subscriptions. Counties with broadband rates below 55 percent include Do?a Ana, Socorro, Cibola, McKinley, Rio Arriba, Guadalupe, San Miguel, Mora and Harding ? most with poverty rates between 26 and 37 percent. ?Generally, we are slow adapters,? said Simon Brackley, CEO of the Santa Fe Chamber of Commerce, whose economic development committee focuses on broadband connectivity. ?It takes us a little longer to catch up. There is increased commitment by the state to increase Internet speed. I think some people who live in rural areas are not interested in broadband.? However, the Albuquerque-based child advocacy organization New Mexico Voices for Children does not believe low incomes and poverty are the reason for New Mexico?s low broadband subscription rate. ?That?s an excuse, not a reason,? said James Jimenez, the group?s executive director. ?One thing we have seen around the state, even in low-income communities, a lot of people still have a phone (despite the cost). Companies find a way of providing service people can afford.? Jimenez said Voices is seeking greater state investment in bringing broadband to rural areas, equating broadband as infrastructure that is no different from highways ? items a community may not be able to do alone. ?I would say there is a great opportunity with the state surplus to use those resources to invest in broadband infrastructure for rural communities,? Jimenez said. ?We have a hollowing out of rural communities. One of the reasons for that is the lack of economic opportunities. One of the things the state can and should do is provide basic infrastructure.? CenturyLink, among the largest Internet providers in New Mexico, did not talk specifics in the Census Bureau report but said the company ?is on track to have enabled more than 15,000 locations in FCC-designated, high-cost census blocks in New Mexico by the end of this year,? referring to where the cost of service is higher than can be supported a user rates alone. Earlier this month, Gov.-elect Michelle Lujan Grisham, an outgoing member of the U.S. House of Representatives, lauded the inclusion in the Farm Bill of $500 million for a Community Connects Program, a broadband grant program to support construction of broadband infrastructure in communities private companies may not deem economically viable. Lujan Grisham in a statement the program will help rural areas of New Mexico. ?Expanding broadband access will grow New Mexico?s economy, create jobs, boost wages, improve health outcomes, support small business growth, help our students learn, increase crop yields, and so much more,? she said. --------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org --------------------------------------------------------------- From doug.orr at gmail.com Tue Dec 25 11:30:48 2018 From: doug.orr at gmail.com (Doug Orr) Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2018 12:30:48 -0700 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] Census-NM-Broadband-Report In-Reply-To: <082edfeb50427ad9a681219cb116c38e@1st-mile.org> References: <082edfeb50427ad9a681219cb116c38e@1st-mile.org> Message-ID: Slow adopters??? That's not a likely reason why infrastructure improvements and distribution are lacking. On Tue, Dec 25, 2018, 10:04 AM Richard Lowenberg wrote: > Census: N.M. struggling for a good connection > > By Teya Vitu | tvitu at sfnewmexican.com Dec 24, 2018 > > > http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/census-n-m-struggling-for-a-good-connection/article_7ef18278-008e-5396-8250-8c8c52847c4f.html > > New U.S. Census Bureau data released earlier this month says New Mexico > is among the least connected states to broadband in the nation. > > New Mexico ranks No. 48, just ahead of Arkansas and Mississippi and one > notch below West Virginia, with percentage of households with broadband > Internet subscriptions in 2016. > > The Census determined 73.7 percent of New Mexico household had broadband > connections; the U.S. average was 81.4 percent. Washington state led the > nation at 87.4 percent. > > ?Low broadband internet subscription rates were found in many counties > in the upper Plains, the Southwest and South,? the Census wrote in its > report. > > The highspeedinternet.com website determined 91 percent of New Mexicans > can get broadband internet. The broadbandnow.com website has 81 percent > of New Mexico covered by broadband. > > The gap between broadband availability and customer subscriptions > reflects other Census findings that singled out Deming and Gallup among > the half-dozen or so U.S. micropolitan areas (fewer than 50,000 > residents) with the lowest income and highest poverty, respectively. > > New Mexico?s issues with poverty and low income are evident throughout > the state. Only Los Alamos County has less than 10 percent poverty. > Otherwise, the state falls alongside Arizona, South Carolina and > Delaware as the only states with no counties with less than 10 percent > poverty. > > On the broadband front, only Bernalillo, Sandoval, Santa Fe and Eddy > counties have 75 to 85 percent of households with broadband > subscriptions. Counties with broadband rates below 55 percent include > Do?a Ana, Socorro, Cibola, McKinley, Rio Arriba, Guadalupe, San Miguel, > Mora and Harding ? most with poverty rates between 26 and 37 percent. > > ?Generally, we are slow adapters,? said Simon Brackley, CEO of the Santa > Fe Chamber of Commerce, whose economic development committee focuses on > broadband connectivity. ?It takes us a little longer to catch up. There > is increased commitment by the state to increase Internet speed. I think > some people who live in rural areas are not interested in broadband.? > > However, the Albuquerque-based child advocacy organization New Mexico > Voices for Children does not believe low incomes and poverty are the > reason for New Mexico?s low broadband subscription rate. > > ?That?s an excuse, not a reason,? said James Jimenez, the group?s > executive director. ?One thing we have seen around the state, even in > low-income communities, a lot of people still have a phone (despite the > cost). Companies find a way of providing service people can afford.? > > Jimenez said Voices is seeking greater state investment in bringing > broadband to rural areas, equating broadband as infrastructure that is > no different from highways ? items a community may not be able to do > alone. > > ?I would say there is a great opportunity with the state surplus to use > those resources to invest in broadband infrastructure for rural > communities,? Jimenez said. ?We have a hollowing out of rural > communities. One of the reasons for that is the lack of economic > opportunities. One of the things the state can and should do is provide > basic infrastructure.? > > CenturyLink, among the largest Internet providers in New Mexico, did not > talk specifics in the Census Bureau report but said the company ?is on > track to have enabled more than 15,000 locations in FCC-designated, > high-cost census blocks in New Mexico by the end of this year,? > referring to where the cost of service is higher than can be supported a > user rates alone. > > Earlier this month, Gov.-elect Michelle Lujan Grisham, an outgoing > member of the U.S. House of Representatives, lauded the inclusion in the > Farm Bill of $500 million for a Community Connects Program, a broadband > grant program to support construction of broadband infrastructure in > communities private companies may not deem economically viable. > > Lujan Grisham in a statement the program will help rural areas of New > Mexico. > > ?Expanding broadband access will grow New Mexico?s economy, create jobs, > boost wages, improve health outcomes, support small business growth, > help our students learn, increase crop yields, and so much more,? she > said. > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director > 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 > Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, > rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org > --------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From christopher at ilsr.org Tue Dec 25 11:43:52 2018 From: christopher at ilsr.org (Christopher Mitchell) Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2018 13:43:52 -0600 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] Census-NM-Broadband-Report In-Reply-To: References: <082edfeb50427ad9a681219cb116c38e@1st-mile.org> Message-ID: The Santa Fe Chamber of Commerce is the one that made the remark about slow adopters. This is a necessary frame for them. Chambers of commerce are notoriously beholden to the largest members - which are often firms like Comcast and CenturyLink in the case here. The Chamber has to say something that will not make its members look bad so he blames poor access in the state on the people of the state rather than the big corporations that put food on this table. No shock there - this is how the game is played. Organizations - like chambers of commerce - that are corrupted by Comcast and CenturyLink money are extremely unlikely to support real solutions that reduce the monopoly power of the big chamber members ... even if that monopoly power is harming the vast majority of chamber members. Again... this is just how the game is played. Christopher Mitchell Director, Community Broadband Networks Institute for Local Self-Reliance MuniNetworks.org @communitynets 612-545-5185 On Tue, Dec 25, 2018 at 1:32 PM Doug Orr wrote: > Slow adopters??? That's not a likely reason why infrastructure > improvements and distribution are lacking. > > On Tue, Dec 25, 2018, 10:04 AM Richard Lowenberg wrote: > >> Census: N.M. struggling for a good connection >> >> By Teya Vitu | tvitu at sfnewmexican.com Dec 24, 2018 >> >> >> http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/census-n-m-struggling-for-a-good-connection/article_7ef18278-008e-5396-8250-8c8c52847c4f.html >> >> New U.S. Census Bureau data released earlier this month says New Mexico >> is among the least connected states to broadband in the nation. >> >> New Mexico ranks No. 48, just ahead of Arkansas and Mississippi and one >> notch below West Virginia, with percentage of households with broadband >> Internet subscriptions in 2016. >> >> The Census determined 73.7 percent of New Mexico household had broadband >> connections; the U.S. average was 81.4 percent. Washington state led the >> nation at 87.4 percent. >> >> ?Low broadband internet subscription rates were found in many counties >> in the upper Plains, the Southwest and South,? the Census wrote in its >> report. >> >> The highspeedinternet.com website determined 91 percent of New Mexicans >> can get broadband internet. The broadbandnow.com website has 81 percent >> of New Mexico covered by broadband. >> >> The gap between broadband availability and customer subscriptions >> reflects other Census findings that singled out Deming and Gallup among >> the half-dozen or so U.S. micropolitan areas (fewer than 50,000 >> residents) with the lowest income and highest poverty, respectively. >> >> New Mexico?s issues with poverty and low income are evident throughout >> the state. Only Los Alamos County has less than 10 percent poverty. >> Otherwise, the state falls alongside Arizona, South Carolina and >> Delaware as the only states with no counties with less than 10 percent >> poverty. >> >> On the broadband front, only Bernalillo, Sandoval, Santa Fe and Eddy >> counties have 75 to 85 percent of households with broadband >> subscriptions. Counties with broadband rates below 55 percent include >> Do?a Ana, Socorro, Cibola, McKinley, Rio Arriba, Guadalupe, San Miguel, >> Mora and Harding ? most with poverty rates between 26 and 37 percent. >> >> ?Generally, we are slow adapters,? said Simon Brackley, CEO of the Santa >> Fe Chamber of Commerce, whose economic development committee focuses on >> broadband connectivity. ?It takes us a little longer to catch up. There >> is increased commitment by the state to increase Internet speed. I think >> some people who live in rural areas are not interested in broadband.? >> >> However, the Albuquerque-based child advocacy organization New Mexico >> Voices for Children does not believe low incomes and poverty are the >> reason for New Mexico?s low broadband subscription rate. >> >> ?That?s an excuse, not a reason,? said James Jimenez, the group?s >> executive director. ?One thing we have seen around the state, even in >> low-income communities, a lot of people still have a phone (despite the >> cost). Companies find a way of providing service people can afford.? >> >> Jimenez said Voices is seeking greater state investment in bringing >> broadband to rural areas, equating broadband as infrastructure that is >> no different from highways ? items a community may not be able to do >> alone. >> >> ?I would say there is a great opportunity with the state surplus to use >> those resources to invest in broadband infrastructure for rural >> communities,? Jimenez said. ?We have a hollowing out of rural >> communities. One of the reasons for that is the lack of economic >> opportunities. One of the things the state can and should do is provide >> basic infrastructure.? >> >> CenturyLink, among the largest Internet providers in New Mexico, did not >> talk specifics in the Census Bureau report but said the company ?is on >> track to have enabled more than 15,000 locations in FCC-designated, >> high-cost census blocks in New Mexico by the end of this year,? >> referring to where the cost of service is higher than can be supported a >> user rates alone. >> >> Earlier this month, Gov.-elect Michelle Lujan Grisham, an outgoing >> member of the U.S. House of Representatives, lauded the inclusion in the >> Farm Bill of $500 million for a Community Connects Program, a broadband >> grant program to support construction of broadband infrastructure in >> communities private companies may not deem economically viable. >> >> Lujan Grisham in a statement the program will help rural areas of New >> Mexico. >> >> ?Expanding broadband access will grow New Mexico?s economy, create jobs, >> boost wages, improve health outcomes, support small business growth, >> help our students learn, increase crop yields, and so much more,? she >> said. >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------- >> Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director >> 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 >> Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, >> rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org >> --------------------------------------------------------------- >> _______________________________________________ >> 1st-mile-nm mailing list >> 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org >> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm >> > _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From john at citylinkfiber.com Tue Dec 25 13:33:29 2018 From: john at citylinkfiber.com (John Brown) Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2018 14:33:29 -0700 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] Census-NM-Broadband-Report In-Reply-To: References: <082edfeb50427ad9a681219cb116c38e@1st-mile.org> Message-ID: +1 to Christopher's comments. In addition you have local (eg City) and State regulations, or lack of regulation in some cases, that are barriers to entry. Yes sometimes we actually need regulation to create a level playing field, especially when it comes to using community resources like rights of way. For example: The City of Albuquerque see's no reason to be involved in helping with pole attachment rights. Even when those poles are located within the rights of way of the City. Rights of way that are "owned by the citizens" of Albuquerque. City leadership will spew that they want to see more broadband, but when it comes down to actively helping with deployment, they stop short. IMHO, The City should go back to pole owners and inform them that they are required to share the poles with all Broadband providers, or face serious issues with the City. City has no guts! Look at the millions wasted on the City's ART project. More than a year later the City still has not provided any access to the dark fiber that was built as part of that project. The City held out to its citizens that this would be a Open Access / Neutral dark fiber infra-structure along Route 66. Yet today, providers still can't connect. Citizens are frustrated. Another example: City of Albuquerque is going to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars, to millions of dollars to Comcast for the continued right to use dark fiber it has already paid for. The City is willing to spend citizen money with Comcast on a CLOSED fiber network instead of an Open Access fiber network project that was proposed several years ago. A project that would have been completed and paid for by now. At the State level. Our State is not willing to create a single stop shop for Rights of Way access, nor is our State willing to create a state level / state wide set of Pole Attachment rules. This allows for pole owners like CenturyLink, PNM and others to create high cost barriers to the poles, preventing further fiber or wireless adoption by local companies. Another example: City of Santa Fe. City of Santa Fe awarded a RFP to a Santa Fe company to build a fiber network. this fiber network was suppose to be open access. Yet a google search today for "Santa Fe Fiber" the name of the company didn't turn up any results on how a "qualified provider" could access this "wholesale" only network. Our leaders talk about wanting to get better broadband, but when the tire hits the pavement and they have to do things that go against the desires of the incumbents, they crater and it just becomes talk. I've found its far easier to build internet in other countries than it is here in New Mexico. New Mexico needs to seriously wake up and be willing to go against the money of the incumbents. Having built a multi-national ISP business, I find it is easier and lower cost to provide service in say London, UK than it is here in Albuquerque, NM! On Tue, Dec 25, 2018 at 12:44 PM Christopher Mitchell wrote: > > The Santa Fe Chamber of Commerce is the one that made the remark about slow adopters. This is a necessary frame for them. > > Chambers of commerce are notoriously beholden to the largest members - which are often firms like Comcast and CenturyLink in the case here. The Chamber has to say something that will not make its members look bad so he blames poor access in the state on the people of the state rather than the big corporations that put food on this table. No shock there - this is how the game is played. > > Organizations - like chambers of commerce - that are corrupted by Comcast and CenturyLink money are extremely unlikely to support real solutions that reduce the monopoly power of the big chamber members ... even if that monopoly power is harming the vast majority of chamber members. Again... this is just how the game is played. > > Christopher Mitchell > Director, Community Broadband Networks > Institute for Local Self-Reliance > > MuniNetworks.org > @communitynets > 612-545-5185 > > > On Tue, Dec 25, 2018 at 1:32 PM Doug Orr wrote: >> >> Slow adopters??? That's not a likely reason why infrastructure improvements and distribution are lacking. >> >> On Tue, Dec 25, 2018, 10:04 AM Richard Lowenberg wrote: >>> >>> Census: N.M. struggling for a good connection >>> >>> By Teya Vitu | tvitu at sfnewmexican.com Dec 24, 2018 >>> >>> http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/census-n-m-struggling-for-a-good-connection/article_7ef18278-008e-5396-8250-8c8c52847c4f.html >>> >>> New U.S. Census Bureau data released earlier this month says New Mexico >>> is among the least connected states to broadband in the nation. >>> >>> New Mexico ranks No. 48, just ahead of Arkansas and Mississippi and one >>> notch below West Virginia, with percentage of households with broadband >>> Internet subscriptions in 2016. >>> >>> The Census determined 73.7 percent of New Mexico household had broadband >>> connections; the U.S. average was 81.4 percent. Washington state led the >>> nation at 87.4 percent. >>> >>> ?Low broadband internet subscription rates were found in many counties >>> in the upper Plains, the Southwest and South,? the Census wrote in its >>> report. >>> >>> The highspeedinternet.com website determined 91 percent of New Mexicans >>> can get broadband internet. The broadbandnow.com website has 81 percent >>> of New Mexico covered by broadband. >>> >>> The gap between broadband availability and customer subscriptions >>> reflects other Census findings that singled out Deming and Gallup among >>> the half-dozen or so U.S. micropolitan areas (fewer than 50,000 >>> residents) with the lowest income and highest poverty, respectively. >>> >>> New Mexico?s issues with poverty and low income are evident throughout >>> the state. Only Los Alamos County has less than 10 percent poverty. >>> Otherwise, the state falls alongside Arizona, South Carolina and >>> Delaware as the only states with no counties with less than 10 percent >>> poverty. >>> >>> On the broadband front, only Bernalillo, Sandoval, Santa Fe and Eddy >>> counties have 75 to 85 percent of households with broadband >>> subscriptions. Counties with broadband rates below 55 percent include >>> Do?a Ana, Socorro, Cibola, McKinley, Rio Arriba, Guadalupe, San Miguel, >>> Mora and Harding ? most with poverty rates between 26 and 37 percent. >>> >>> ?Generally, we are slow adapters,? said Simon Brackley, CEO of the Santa >>> Fe Chamber of Commerce, whose economic development committee focuses on >>> broadband connectivity. ?It takes us a little longer to catch up. There >>> is increased commitment by the state to increase Internet speed. I think >>> some people who live in rural areas are not interested in broadband.? >>> >>> However, the Albuquerque-based child advocacy organization New Mexico >>> Voices for Children does not believe low incomes and poverty are the >>> reason for New Mexico?s low broadband subscription rate. >>> >>> ?That?s an excuse, not a reason,? said James Jimenez, the group?s >>> executive director. ?One thing we have seen around the state, even in >>> low-income communities, a lot of people still have a phone (despite the >>> cost). Companies find a way of providing service people can afford.? >>> >>> Jimenez said Voices is seeking greater state investment in bringing >>> broadband to rural areas, equating broadband as infrastructure that is >>> no different from highways ? items a community may not be able to do >>> alone. >>> >>> ?I would say there is a great opportunity with the state surplus to use >>> those resources to invest in broadband infrastructure for rural >>> communities,? Jimenez said. ?We have a hollowing out of rural >>> communities. One of the reasons for that is the lack of economic >>> opportunities. One of the things the state can and should do is provide >>> basic infrastructure.? >>> >>> CenturyLink, among the largest Internet providers in New Mexico, did not >>> talk specifics in the Census Bureau report but said the company ?is on >>> track to have enabled more than 15,000 locations in FCC-designated, >>> high-cost census blocks in New Mexico by the end of this year,? >>> referring to where the cost of service is higher than can be supported a >>> user rates alone. >>> >>> Earlier this month, Gov.-elect Michelle Lujan Grisham, an outgoing >>> member of the U.S. House of Representatives, lauded the inclusion in the >>> Farm Bill of $500 million for a Community Connects Program, a broadband >>> grant program to support construction of broadband infrastructure in >>> communities private companies may not deem economically viable. >>> >>> Lujan Grisham in a statement the program will help rural areas of New >>> Mexico. >>> >>> ?Expanding broadband access will grow New Mexico?s economy, create jobs, >>> boost wages, improve health outcomes, support small business growth, >>> help our students learn, increase crop yields, and so much more,? she >>> said. >>> >>> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------- >>> Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director >>> 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 >>> Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, >>> rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org >>> --------------------------------------------------------------- >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 1st-mile-nm mailing list >>> 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org >>> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 1st-mile-nm mailing list >> 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org >> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm > > _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm From doug.orr at gmail.com Tue Dec 25 13:50:36 2018 From: doug.orr at gmail.com (Doug Orr) Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2018 14:50:36 -0700 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] Census-NM-Broadband-Report In-Reply-To: References: <082edfeb50427ad9a681219cb116c38e@1st-mile.org> Message-ID: Fortunately, 5g is going to solve everything. (Kidding!) On Tue, Dec 25, 2018, 2:33 PM John Brown wrote: > +1 to Christopher's comments. > > In addition you have local (eg City) and State regulations, or lack of > regulation in some cases, that are barriers to entry. > Yes sometimes we actually need regulation to create a level playing > field, especially when it comes to using community > resources like rights of way. > > For example: The City of Albuquerque see's no reason to be involved > in helping with pole attachment rights. > Even when those poles are located within the rights of way of the > City. Rights of way that are "owned by the citizens" > of Albuquerque. City leadership will spew that they want to see more > broadband, but when it comes down to actively > helping with deployment, they stop short. IMHO, The City should go > back to pole owners and inform them that they are > required to share the poles with all Broadband providers, or face > serious issues with the City. City has no guts! > > Look at the millions wasted on the City's ART project. More than a > year later the City still has not provided any access > to the dark fiber that was built as part of that project. The City > held out to its citizens that this would be a Open Access / Neutral > dark fiber infra-structure along Route 66. Yet today, providers still > can't connect. Citizens are frustrated. > > Another example: City of Albuquerque is going to pay hundreds of > thousands of dollars, to millions of dollars to Comcast > for the continued right to use dark fiber it has already paid for. > The City is willing to spend citizen money with Comcast on > a CLOSED fiber network instead of an Open Access fiber network project > that was proposed several years ago. A project > that would have been completed and paid for by now. > > At the State level. Our State is not willing to create a single stop > shop for Rights of Way access, nor is our State willing > to create a state level / state wide set of Pole Attachment rules. > This allows for pole owners like CenturyLink, PNM and others to > create high cost barriers to the poles, preventing further fiber or > wireless adoption by local companies. > > Another example: City of Santa Fe. City of Santa Fe awarded a RFP to > a Santa Fe company to build a fiber network. > this fiber network was suppose to be open access. Yet a google search > today for "Santa Fe Fiber" the name of the > company didn't turn up any results on how a "qualified provider" could > access this "wholesale" only network. > > Our leaders talk about wanting to get better broadband, but when the > tire hits the pavement and they have to do things > that go against the desires of the incumbents, they crater and it just > becomes talk. > > I've found its far easier to build internet in other countries than it > is here in New Mexico. New Mexico needs to seriously > wake up and be willing to go against the money of the incumbents. > > Having built a multi-national ISP business, I find it is easier and > lower cost to provide service in say London, UK than > it is here in Albuquerque, NM! > > On Tue, Dec 25, 2018 at 12:44 PM Christopher Mitchell > wrote: > > > > The Santa Fe Chamber of Commerce is the one that made the remark about > slow adopters. This is a necessary frame for them. > > > > Chambers of commerce are notoriously beholden to the largest members - > which are often firms like Comcast and CenturyLink in the case here. The > Chamber has to say something that will not make its members look bad so he > blames poor access in the state on the people of the state rather than the > big corporations that put food on this table. No shock there - this is how > the game is played. > > > > Organizations - like chambers of commerce - that are corrupted by > Comcast and CenturyLink money are extremely unlikely to support real > solutions that reduce the monopoly power of the big chamber members ... > even if that monopoly power is harming the vast majority of chamber > members. Again... this is just how the game is played. > > > > Christopher Mitchell > > Director, Community Broadband Networks > > Institute for Local Self-Reliance > > > > MuniNetworks.org > > @communitynets > > 612-545-5185 > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 25, 2018 at 1:32 PM Doug Orr wrote: > >> > >> Slow adopters??? That's not a likely reason why infrastructure > improvements and distribution are lacking. > >> > >> On Tue, Dec 25, 2018, 10:04 AM Richard Lowenberg > wrote: > >>> > >>> Census: N.M. struggling for a good connection > >>> > >>> By Teya Vitu | tvitu at sfnewmexican.com Dec 24, 2018 > >>> > >>> > http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/census-n-m-struggling-for-a-good-connection/article_7ef18278-008e-5396-8250-8c8c52847c4f.html > >>> > >>> New U.S. Census Bureau data released earlier this month says New Mexico > >>> is among the least connected states to broadband in the nation. > >>> > >>> New Mexico ranks No. 48, just ahead of Arkansas and Mississippi and one > >>> notch below West Virginia, with percentage of households with broadband > >>> Internet subscriptions in 2016. > >>> > >>> The Census determined 73.7 percent of New Mexico household had > broadband > >>> connections; the U.S. average was 81.4 percent. Washington state led > the > >>> nation at 87.4 percent. > >>> > >>> ?Low broadband internet subscription rates were found in many counties > >>> in the upper Plains, the Southwest and South,? the Census wrote in its > >>> report. > >>> > >>> The highspeedinternet.com website determined 91 percent of New > Mexicans > >>> can get broadband internet. The broadbandnow.com website has 81 > percent > >>> of New Mexico covered by broadband. > >>> > >>> The gap between broadband availability and customer subscriptions > >>> reflects other Census findings that singled out Deming and Gallup among > >>> the half-dozen or so U.S. micropolitan areas (fewer than 50,000 > >>> residents) with the lowest income and highest poverty, respectively. > >>> > >>> New Mexico?s issues with poverty and low income are evident throughout > >>> the state. Only Los Alamos County has less than 10 percent poverty. > >>> Otherwise, the state falls alongside Arizona, South Carolina and > >>> Delaware as the only states with no counties with less than 10 percent > >>> poverty. > >>> > >>> On the broadband front, only Bernalillo, Sandoval, Santa Fe and Eddy > >>> counties have 75 to 85 percent of households with broadband > >>> subscriptions. Counties with broadband rates below 55 percent include > >>> Do?a Ana, Socorro, Cibola, McKinley, Rio Arriba, Guadalupe, San Miguel, > >>> Mora and Harding ? most with poverty rates between 26 and 37 percent. > >>> > >>> ?Generally, we are slow adapters,? said Simon Brackley, CEO of the > Santa > >>> Fe Chamber of Commerce, whose economic development committee focuses on > >>> broadband connectivity. ?It takes us a little longer to catch up. There > >>> is increased commitment by the state to increase Internet speed. I > think > >>> some people who live in rural areas are not interested in broadband.? > >>> > >>> However, the Albuquerque-based child advocacy organization New Mexico > >>> Voices for Children does not believe low incomes and poverty are the > >>> reason for New Mexico?s low broadband subscription rate. > >>> > >>> ?That?s an excuse, not a reason,? said James Jimenez, the group?s > >>> executive director. ?One thing we have seen around the state, even in > >>> low-income communities, a lot of people still have a phone (despite the > >>> cost). Companies find a way of providing service people can afford.? > >>> > >>> Jimenez said Voices is seeking greater state investment in bringing > >>> broadband to rural areas, equating broadband as infrastructure that is > >>> no different from highways ? items a community may not be able to do > >>> alone. > >>> > >>> ?I would say there is a great opportunity with the state surplus to use > >>> those resources to invest in broadband infrastructure for rural > >>> communities,? Jimenez said. ?We have a hollowing out of rural > >>> communities. One of the reasons for that is the lack of economic > >>> opportunities. One of the things the state can and should do is provide > >>> basic infrastructure.? > >>> > >>> CenturyLink, among the largest Internet providers in New Mexico, did > not > >>> talk specifics in the Census Bureau report but said the company ?is on > >>> track to have enabled more than 15,000 locations in FCC-designated, > >>> high-cost census blocks in New Mexico by the end of this year,? > >>> referring to where the cost of service is higher than can be supported > a > >>> user rates alone. > >>> > >>> Earlier this month, Gov.-elect Michelle Lujan Grisham, an outgoing > >>> member of the U.S. House of Representatives, lauded the inclusion in > the > >>> Farm Bill of $500 million for a Community Connects Program, a broadband > >>> grant program to support construction of broadband infrastructure in > >>> communities private companies may not deem economically viable. > >>> > >>> Lujan Grisham in a statement the program will help rural areas of New > >>> Mexico. > >>> > >>> ?Expanding broadband access will grow New Mexico?s economy, create > jobs, > >>> boost wages, improve health outcomes, support small business growth, > >>> help our students learn, increase crop yields, and so much more,? she > >>> said. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> --------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director > >>> 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 > >>> Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, > >>> rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org > >>> --------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> 1st-mile-nm mailing list > >>> 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > >>> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 1st-mile-nm mailing list > >> 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > >> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jeff at mountainconnect.org Wed Dec 26 08:54:25 2018 From: jeff at mountainconnect.org (Jeff) Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2018 16:54:25 +0000 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] Census-NM-Broadband-Report In-Reply-To: References: <082edfeb50427ad9a681219cb116c38e@1st-mile.org> , Message-ID: <6A52CB0D-CF3A-4F15-A497-5B5214B482EC@mountainconnect.org> Over the past few years, I have made overtures to the state government and larger cities to spark their interest in attending the Mountain Connect Conference in Colorado if for no other reason than the ability to connect with other State and municipal leaders from both CO and other western states. There has to be synergistic value in networking with those who have overcome same/similar obstacles. I live in Durango so I am fairly familiar with the challenges in NM. Incumbents, as Christopher can attest, don?t participate because the Agenda is reflective of those who need the help: Communties and Counties as a first priority. In general, NM, outside of one northern group, has not attended nor shows any interest. I am not suggesting, by the way, that attending this conference will solve all problems but a lack of continued interest demonstrates little or no desire to implement necessary change or at least to further their education. Change is only possible through action. It continues to be a disappointing endeavor... Jeffrey Gavlinski Mountain Connect 970 382-1799 On Dec 25, 2018, at 2:51 PM, Doug Orr > wrote: Fortunately, 5g is going to solve everything. (Kidding!) On Tue, Dec 25, 2018, 2:33 PM John Brown > wrote: +1 to Christopher's comments. In addition you have local (eg City) and State regulations, or lack of regulation in some cases, that are barriers to entry. Yes sometimes we actually need regulation to create a level playing field, especially when it comes to using community resources like rights of way. For example: The City of Albuquerque see's no reason to be involved in helping with pole attachment rights. Even when those poles are located within the rights of way of the City. Rights of way that are "owned by the citizens" of Albuquerque. City leadership will spew that they want to see more broadband, but when it comes down to actively helping with deployment, they stop short. IMHO, The City should go back to pole owners and inform them that they are required to share the poles with all Broadband providers, or face serious issues with the City. City has no guts! Look at the millions wasted on the City's ART project. More than a year later the City still has not provided any access to the dark fiber that was built as part of that project. The City held out to its citizens that this would be a Open Access / Neutral dark fiber infra-structure along Route 66. Yet today, providers still can't connect. Citizens are frustrated. Another example: City of Albuquerque is going to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars, to millions of dollars to Comcast for the continued right to use dark fiber it has already paid for. The City is willing to spend citizen money with Comcast on a CLOSED fiber network instead of an Open Access fiber network project that was proposed several years ago. A project that would have been completed and paid for by now. At the State level. Our State is not willing to create a single stop shop for Rights of Way access, nor is our State willing to create a state level / state wide set of Pole Attachment rules. This allows for pole owners like CenturyLink, PNM and others to create high cost barriers to the poles, preventing further fiber or wireless adoption by local companies. Another example: City of Santa Fe. City of Santa Fe awarded a RFP to a Santa Fe company to build a fiber network. this fiber network was suppose to be open access. Yet a google search today for "Santa Fe Fiber" the name of the company didn't turn up any results on how a "qualified provider" could access this "wholesale" only network. Our leaders talk about wanting to get better broadband, but when the tire hits the pavement and they have to do things that go against the desires of the incumbents, they crater and it just becomes talk. I've found its far easier to build internet in other countries than it is here in New Mexico. New Mexico needs to seriously wake up and be willing to go against the money of the incumbents. Having built a multi-national ISP business, I find it is easier and lower cost to provide service in say London, UK than it is here in Albuquerque, NM! On Tue, Dec 25, 2018 at 12:44 PM Christopher Mitchell > wrote: > > The Santa Fe Chamber of Commerce is the one that made the remark about slow adopters. This is a necessary frame for them. > > Chambers of commerce are notoriously beholden to the largest members - which are often firms like Comcast and CenturyLink in the case here. The Chamber has to say something that will not make its members look bad so he blames poor access in the state on the people of the state rather than the big corporations that put food on this table. No shock there - this is how the game is played. > > Organizations - like chambers of commerce - that are corrupted by Comcast and CenturyLink money are extremely unlikely to support real solutions that reduce the monopoly power of the big chamber members ... even if that monopoly power is harming the vast majority of chamber members. Again... this is just how the game is played. > > Christopher Mitchell > Director, Community Broadband Networks > Institute for Local Self-Reliance > > MuniNetworks.org > @communitynets > 612-545-5185 > > > On Tue, Dec 25, 2018 at 1:32 PM Doug Orr > wrote: >> >> Slow adopters??? That's not a likely reason why infrastructure improvements and distribution are lacking. >> >> On Tue, Dec 25, 2018, 10:04 AM Richard Lowenberg > wrote: >>> >>> Census: N.M. struggling for a good connection >>> >>> By Teya Vitu | tvitu at sfnewmexican.com Dec 24, 2018 >>> >>> http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/census-n-m-struggling-for-a-good-connection/article_7ef18278-008e-5396-8250-8c8c52847c4f.html >>> >>> New U.S. Census Bureau data released earlier this month says New Mexico >>> is among the least connected states to broadband in the nation. >>> >>> New Mexico ranks No. 48, just ahead of Arkansas and Mississippi and one >>> notch below West Virginia, with percentage of households with broadband >>> Internet subscriptions in 2016. >>> >>> The Census determined 73.7 percent of New Mexico household had broadband >>> connections; the U.S. average was 81.4 percent. Washington state led the >>> nation at 87.4 percent. >>> >>> ?Low broadband internet subscription rates were found in many counties >>> in the upper Plains, the Southwest and South,? the Census wrote in its >>> report. >>> >>> The highspeedinternet.com website determined 91 percent of New Mexicans >>> can get broadband internet. The broadbandnow.com website has 81 percent >>> of New Mexico covered by broadband. >>> >>> The gap between broadband availability and customer subscriptions >>> reflects other Census findings that singled out Deming and Gallup among >>> the half-dozen or so U.S. micropolitan areas (fewer than 50,000 >>> residents) with the lowest income and highest poverty, respectively. >>> >>> New Mexico?s issues with poverty and low income are evident throughout >>> the state. Only Los Alamos County has less than 10 percent poverty. >>> Otherwise, the state falls alongside Arizona, South Carolina and >>> Delaware as the only states with no counties with less than 10 percent >>> poverty. >>> >>> On the broadband front, only Bernalillo, Sandoval, Santa Fe and Eddy >>> counties have 75 to 85 percent of households with broadband >>> subscriptions. Counties with broadband rates below 55 percent include >>> Do?a Ana, Socorro, Cibola, McKinley, Rio Arriba, Guadalupe, San Miguel, >>> Mora and Harding ? most with poverty rates between 26 and 37 percent. >>> >>> ?Generally, we are slow adapters,? said Simon Brackley, CEO of the Santa >>> Fe Chamber of Commerce, whose economic development committee focuses on >>> broadband connectivity. ?It takes us a little longer to catch up. There >>> is increased commitment by the state to increase Internet speed. I think >>> some people who live in rural areas are not interested in broadband.? >>> >>> However, the Albuquerque-based child advocacy organization New Mexico >>> Voices for Children does not believe low incomes and poverty are the >>> reason for New Mexico?s low broadband subscription rate. >>> >>> ?That?s an excuse, not a reason,? said James Jimenez, the group?s >>> executive director. ?One thing we have seen around the state, even in >>> low-income communities, a lot of people still have a phone (despite the >>> cost). Companies find a way of providing service people can afford.? >>> >>> Jimenez said Voices is seeking greater state investment in bringing >>> broadband to rural areas, equating broadband as infrastructure that is >>> no different from highways ? items a community may not be able to do >>> alone. >>> >>> ?I would say there is a great opportunity with the state surplus to use >>> those resources to invest in broadband infrastructure for rural >>> communities,? Jimenez said. ?We have a hollowing out of rural >>> communities. One of the reasons for that is the lack of economic >>> opportunities. One of the things the state can and should do is provide >>> basic infrastructure.? >>> >>> CenturyLink, among the largest Internet providers in New Mexico, did not >>> talk specifics in the Census Bureau report but said the company ?is on >>> track to have enabled more than 15,000 locations in FCC-designated, >>> high-cost census blocks in New Mexico by the end of this year,? >>> referring to where the cost of service is higher than can be supported a >>> user rates alone. >>> >>> Earlier this month, Gov.-elect Michelle Lujan Grisham, an outgoing >>> member of the U.S. House of Representatives, lauded the inclusion in the >>> Farm Bill of $500 million for a Community Connects Program, a broadband >>> grant program to support construction of broadband infrastructure in >>> communities private companies may not deem economically viable. >>> >>> Lujan Grisham in a statement the program will help rural areas of New >>> Mexico. >>> >>> ?Expanding broadband access will grow New Mexico?s economy, create jobs, >>> boost wages, improve health outcomes, support small business growth, >>> help our students learn, increase crop yields, and so much more,? she >>> said. >>> >>> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------- >>> Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director >>> 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 >>> Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, >>> rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org >>> --------------------------------------------------------------- >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 1st-mile-nm mailing list >>> 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org >>> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 1st-mile-nm mailing list >> 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org >> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm > > _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm _______________________________________________ 1st-mile-nm mailing list 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From john at citylinkfiber.com Thu Dec 27 07:45:27 2018 From: john at citylinkfiber.com (John Brown) Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2018 08:45:27 -0700 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] centurylink is having a high level national outage Message-ID: centurylink is having an extensive national outage that is impacting everything from DSL to 10gig and 100gig optical waves its coast to coast this will seriously impact users in new mexico -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From john at citylinkfiber.com Thu Dec 27 10:57:18 2018 From: john at citylinkfiber.com (John Brown) Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2018 11:57:18 -0700 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] CenturyLink is DOWN, can't even create a ticket Message-ID: So part of the problem is that CenturyLink's own internal ticketing system is down. So techs can't even create a ticket or find out what the status of things are... From mharris at visgence.com Thu Dec 27 13:33:01 2018 From: mharris at visgence.com (Michael Harris) Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2018 14:33:01 -0700 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] CenturyLink is DOWN, can't even create a ticket In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > > So techs can't even create a ticket or find out what the status of things > are... Yes, I saw the message on Control Center this morning and thought "hmm, this isn't good..." KOB made some inquiries and has the only ETA (24-48 hrs) I have seen reported so far: https://www.kob.com/new-mexico-news/verizon-century-link-outages-affect-new-mexicans/5191901/?cat=500 I saw some tweets in the last few minutes about pockets of customers starting to come up in the midwest. For what it's worth, our links seem to be up, but can't ping gateways on CL side... Verizon LTE seems like it is showing some strain here in Las Cruces, as well... -Michael On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 11:57 AM John Brown wrote: > So part of the problem is that CenturyLink's own internal ticketing > system is down. > So techs can't even create a ticket or find out what the status of things > are... > _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm > -- Michael Harris -- President, Visgence Inc. www.visgence.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cortezdl at mac.com Thu Dec 27 13:35:09 2018 From: cortezdl at mac.com (David Cortez) Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2018 14:35:09 -0700 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] CenturyLink is DOWN, can't even create a ticket In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <047E9589-2E04-4668-9287-492D14C066C3@mac.com> What is the cause of the outage? On Dec 27, 2018, at 2:33 PM, Michael Harris wrote: >> So techs can't even create a ticket or find out what the status of things are... > > Yes, I saw the message on Control Center this morning and thought "hmm, this isn't good..." KOB made some inquiries and has the only ETA (24-48 hrs) I have seen reported so far: > > https://www.kob.com/new-mexico-news/verizon-century-link-outages-affect-new-mexicans/5191901/?cat=500 > > I saw some tweets in the last few minutes about pockets of customers starting to come up in the midwest. > > For what it's worth, our links seem to be up, but can't ping gateways on CL side... Verizon LTE seems like it is showing some strain here in Las Cruces, as well... > > -Michael > >> On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 11:57 AM John Brown wrote: >> So part of the problem is that CenturyLink's own internal ticketing >> system is down. >> So techs can't even create a ticket or find out what the status of things are... >> _______________________________________________ >> 1st-mile-nm mailing list >> 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org >> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm > > > -- > Michael Harris > -- > President, Visgence Inc. > www.visgence.com > _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mharris at visgence.com Thu Dec 27 13:38:55 2018 From: mharris at visgence.com (Michael Harris) Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2018 14:38:55 -0700 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] CenturyLink is DOWN, can't even create a ticket In-Reply-To: <047E9589-2E04-4668-9287-492D14C066C3@mac.com> References: <047E9589-2E04-4668-9287-492D14C066C3@mac.com> Message-ID: The outage started around 3am Eastern, which feels a lot like a maintenance window. My wild speculation is that some bad configs got pushed, en-masse, and now someone has to throw a console cable onto a thousand routers. -Michael On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 2:35 PM David Cortez wrote: > What is the cause of the outage? > > On Dec 27, 2018, at 2:33 PM, Michael Harris wrote: > > So techs can't even create a ticket or find out what the status of things >> are... > > > Yes, I saw the message on Control Center this morning and thought "hmm, > this isn't good..." KOB made some inquiries and has the only ETA (24-48 > hrs) I have seen reported so far: > > > https://www.kob.com/new-mexico-news/verizon-century-link-outages-affect-new-mexicans/5191901/?cat=500 > > I saw some tweets in the last few minutes about pockets of customers > starting to come up in the midwest. > > For what it's worth, our links seem to be up, but can't ping gateways on > CL side... Verizon LTE seems like it is showing some strain here in Las > Cruces, as well... > > -Michael > > On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 11:57 AM John Brown > wrote: > >> So part of the problem is that CenturyLink's own internal ticketing >> system is down. >> So techs can't even create a ticket or find out what the status of things >> are... >> _______________________________________________ >> 1st-mile-nm mailing list >> 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org >> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm >> > > > -- > Michael Harris > -- > President, Visgence Inc. > www.visgence.com > > _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm > > -- Michael Harris -- President, Visgence Inc. www.visgence.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From john at citylinkfiber.com Thu Dec 27 15:45:06 2018 From: john at citylinkfiber.com (John Brown) Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2018 16:45:06 -0700 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] CenturyLink is DOWN, can't even create a ticket In-Reply-To: References: <047E9589-2E04-4668-9287-492D14C066C3@mac.com> Message-ID: For their DWDM / Optical Transport network to break in this fashion limits the possible root causes. Of course when the DWDM Optical network craters, then there is an issue with the OSI Layer 3 IP Network side and their own internal networks. I don't expect this to get resolved for at least another 12 to 24 hours :( The SLA credits that will be written are going to be HUGE. Maybe they need the expense for this fiscal quarter :| Updates from one of our carrier partners QUOTE We are still chasing the partner and the update remains the same that the circuits are affected due to Nation wide outage. We would like to tell you that Tickets are being escalated and are promptly chased with our partner for updates , but unfortunately still the issue is yet to be isolated by our partner and the outage is affecting multiple customers. More updates to follow soon. END QUOTE On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 2:39 PM Michael Harris wrote: > > The outage started around 3am Eastern, which feels a lot like a maintenance window. My wild speculation is that some bad configs got pushed, en-masse, and now someone has to throw a console cable onto a thousand routers. > > -Michael > > On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 2:35 PM David Cortez wrote: >> >> What is the cause of the outage? >> >> On Dec 27, 2018, at 2:33 PM, Michael Harris wrote: >> >>> So techs can't even create a ticket or find out what the status of things are... >> >> >> Yes, I saw the message on Control Center this morning and thought "hmm, this isn't good..." KOB made some inquiries and has the only ETA (24-48 hrs) I have seen reported so far: >> >> https://www.kob.com/new-mexico-news/verizon-century-link-outages-affect-new-mexicans/5191901/?cat=500 >> >> I saw some tweets in the last few minutes about pockets of customers starting to come up in the midwest. >> >> For what it's worth, our links seem to be up, but can't ping gateways on CL side... Verizon LTE seems like it is showing some strain here in Las Cruces, as well... >> >> -Michael >> >> On Thu, Dec 27, 2018 at 11:57 AM John Brown wrote: >>> >>> So part of the problem is that CenturyLink's own internal ticketing >>> system is down. >>> So techs can't even create a ticket or find out what the status of things are... >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 1st-mile-nm mailing list >>> 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org >>> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm >> >> >> >> -- >> Michael Harris >> -- >> President, Visgence Inc. >> www.visgence.com >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 1st-mile-nm mailing list >> 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org >> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm > > > > -- > Michael Harris > -- > President, Visgence Inc. > www.visgence.com From vturner at ci.montrose.co.us Mon Dec 31 12:37:57 2018 From: vturner at ci.montrose.co.us (Virgil Turner) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2018 13:37:57 -0700 Subject: [1st-mile-nm] Census-NM-Broadband-Report In-Reply-To: <6A52CB0D-CF3A-4F15-A497-5B5214B482EC@mountainconnect.org> References: <082edfeb50427ad9a681219cb116c38e@1st-mile.org> <6A52CB0D-CF3A-4F15-A497-5B5214B482EC@mountainconnect.org> Message-ID: I would second Jeff's suggestion regarding attendance at Mountain Connect. This conference has been incredibly important to those of us working to bring broadband to underserved rural communities. While it may be hosted in Colorado it is equally applicable to New Mexico as well. Virgil Turner Director of Innovation and Citizen Engagement City of Montrose, Colorado Mobile: 970-596-1093 On Wed, Dec 26, 2018 at 9:55 AM Jeff wrote: > Over the past few years, I have made overtures to the state government and > larger cities to spark their interest in attending the Mountain Connect > Conference in Colorado if for no other reason than the ability to connect > with other State and municipal leaders from both CO and other western > states. There has to be synergistic value in networking with those who > have overcome same/similar obstacles. I live in Durango so I am fairly > familiar with the challenges in NM. > > Incumbents, as Christopher can attest, don?t participate because the > Agenda is reflective of those who need the help: Communties and Counties as > a first priority. In general, NM, outside of one northern group, has not > attended nor shows any interest. I am not suggesting, by the way, that > attending this conference will solve all problems but a lack of continued > interest demonstrates little or no desire to implement necessary change or > at least to further their education. Change is only possible through > action. It continues to be a disappointing endeavor... > > Jeffrey Gavlinski > Mountain Connect > 970 382-1799 > > On Dec 25, 2018, at 2:51 PM, Doug Orr wrote: > > Fortunately, 5g is going to solve everything. (Kidding!) > > On Tue, Dec 25, 2018, 2:33 PM John Brown wrote: > >> +1 to Christopher's comments. >> >> In addition you have local (eg City) and State regulations, or lack of >> regulation in some cases, that are barriers to entry. >> Yes sometimes we actually need regulation to create a level playing >> field, especially when it comes to using community >> resources like rights of way. >> >> For example: The City of Albuquerque see's no reason to be involved >> in helping with pole attachment rights. >> Even when those poles are located within the rights of way of the >> City. Rights of way that are "owned by the citizens" >> of Albuquerque. City leadership will spew that they want to see more >> broadband, but when it comes down to actively >> helping with deployment, they stop short. IMHO, The City should go >> back to pole owners and inform them that they are >> required to share the poles with all Broadband providers, or face >> serious issues with the City. City has no guts! >> >> Look at the millions wasted on the City's ART project. More than a >> year later the City still has not provided any access >> to the dark fiber that was built as part of that project. The City >> held out to its citizens that this would be a Open Access / Neutral >> dark fiber infra-structure along Route 66. Yet today, providers still >> can't connect. Citizens are frustrated. >> >> Another example: City of Albuquerque is going to pay hundreds of >> thousands of dollars, to millions of dollars to Comcast >> for the continued right to use dark fiber it has already paid for. >> The City is willing to spend citizen money with Comcast on >> a CLOSED fiber network instead of an Open Access fiber network project >> that was proposed several years ago. A project >> that would have been completed and paid for by now. >> >> At the State level. Our State is not willing to create a single stop >> shop for Rights of Way access, nor is our State willing >> to create a state level / state wide set of Pole Attachment rules. >> This allows for pole owners like CenturyLink, PNM and others to >> create high cost barriers to the poles, preventing further fiber or >> wireless adoption by local companies. >> >> Another example: City of Santa Fe. City of Santa Fe awarded a RFP to >> a Santa Fe company to build a fiber network. >> this fiber network was suppose to be open access. Yet a google search >> today for "Santa Fe Fiber" the name of the >> company didn't turn up any results on how a "qualified provider" could >> access this "wholesale" only network. >> >> Our leaders talk about wanting to get better broadband, but when the >> tire hits the pavement and they have to do things >> that go against the desires of the incumbents, they crater and it just >> becomes talk. >> >> I've found its far easier to build internet in other countries than it >> is here in New Mexico. New Mexico needs to seriously >> wake up and be willing to go against the money of the incumbents. >> >> Having built a multi-national ISP business, I find it is easier and >> lower cost to provide service in say London, UK than >> it is here in Albuquerque, NM! >> >> On Tue, Dec 25, 2018 at 12:44 PM Christopher Mitchell >> wrote: >> > >> > The Santa Fe Chamber of Commerce is the one that made the remark about >> slow adopters. This is a necessary frame for them. >> > >> > Chambers of commerce are notoriously beholden to the largest members - >> which are often firms like Comcast and CenturyLink in the case here. The >> Chamber has to say something that will not make its members look bad so he >> blames poor access in the state on the people of the state rather than the >> big corporations that put food on this table. No shock there - this is how >> the game is played. >> > >> > Organizations - like chambers of commerce - that are corrupted by >> Comcast and CenturyLink money are extremely unlikely to support real >> solutions that reduce the monopoly power of the big chamber members ... >> even if that monopoly power is harming the vast majority of chamber >> members. Again... this is just how the game is played. >> > >> > Christopher Mitchell >> > Director, Community Broadband Networks >> > Institute for Local Self-Reliance >> > >> > MuniNetworks.org >> > @communitynets >> > 612-545-5185 >> > >> > >> > On Tue, Dec 25, 2018 at 1:32 PM Doug Orr wrote: >> >> >> >> Slow adopters??? That's not a likely reason why infrastructure >> improvements and distribution are lacking. >> >> >> >> On Tue, Dec 25, 2018, 10:04 AM Richard Lowenberg >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> Census: N.M. struggling for a good connection >> >>> >> >>> By Teya Vitu | tvitu at sfnewmexican.com Dec 24, 2018 >> >>> >> >>> >> http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/census-n-m-struggling-for-a-good-connection/article_7ef18278-008e-5396-8250-8c8c52847c4f.html >> >>> >> >>> New U.S. Census Bureau data released earlier this month says New >> Mexico >> >>> is among the least connected states to broadband in the nation. >> >>> >> >>> New Mexico ranks No. 48, just ahead of Arkansas and Mississippi and >> one >> >>> notch below West Virginia, with percentage of households with >> broadband >> >>> Internet subscriptions in 2016. >> >>> >> >>> The Census determined 73.7 percent of New Mexico household had >> broadband >> >>> connections; the U.S. average was 81.4 percent. Washington state led >> the >> >>> nation at 87.4 percent. >> >>> >> >>> ?Low broadband internet subscription rates were found in many counties >> >>> in the upper Plains, the Southwest and South,? the Census wrote in its >> >>> report. >> >>> >> >>> The highspeedinternet.com website determined 91 percent of New >> Mexicans >> >>> can get broadband internet. The broadbandnow.com website has 81 >> percent >> >>> of New Mexico covered by broadband. >> >>> >> >>> The gap between broadband availability and customer subscriptions >> >>> reflects other Census findings that singled out Deming and Gallup >> among >> >>> the half-dozen or so U.S. micropolitan areas (fewer than 50,000 >> >>> residents) with the lowest income and highest poverty, respectively. >> >>> >> >>> New Mexico?s issues with poverty and low income are evident throughout >> >>> the state. Only Los Alamos County has less than 10 percent poverty. >> >>> Otherwise, the state falls alongside Arizona, South Carolina and >> >>> Delaware as the only states with no counties with less than 10 percent >> >>> poverty. >> >>> >> >>> On the broadband front, only Bernalillo, Sandoval, Santa Fe and Eddy >> >>> counties have 75 to 85 percent of households with broadband >> >>> subscriptions. Counties with broadband rates below 55 percent include >> >>> Do?a Ana, Socorro, Cibola, McKinley, Rio Arriba, Guadalupe, San >> Miguel, >> >>> Mora and Harding ? most with poverty rates between 26 and 37 percent. >> >>> >> >>> ?Generally, we are slow adapters,? said Simon Brackley, CEO of the >> Santa >> >>> Fe Chamber of Commerce, whose economic development committee focuses >> on >> >>> broadband connectivity. ?It takes us a little longer to catch up. >> There >> >>> is increased commitment by the state to increase Internet speed. I >> think >> >>> some people who live in rural areas are not interested in broadband.? >> >>> >> >>> However, the Albuquerque-based child advocacy organization New Mexico >> >>> Voices for Children does not believe low incomes and poverty are the >> >>> reason for New Mexico?s low broadband subscription rate. >> >>> >> >>> ?That?s an excuse, not a reason,? said James Jimenez, the group?s >> >>> executive director. ?One thing we have seen around the state, even in >> >>> low-income communities, a lot of people still have a phone (despite >> the >> >>> cost). Companies find a way of providing service people can afford.? >> >>> >> >>> Jimenez said Voices is seeking greater state investment in bringing >> >>> broadband to rural areas, equating broadband as infrastructure that is >> >>> no different from highways ? items a community may not be able to do >> >>> alone. >> >>> >> >>> ?I would say there is a great opportunity with the state surplus to >> use >> >>> those resources to invest in broadband infrastructure for rural >> >>> communities,? Jimenez said. ?We have a hollowing out of rural >> >>> communities. One of the reasons for that is the lack of economic >> >>> opportunities. One of the things the state can and should do is >> provide >> >>> basic infrastructure.? >> >>> >> >>> CenturyLink, among the largest Internet providers in New Mexico, did >> not >> >>> talk specifics in the Census Bureau report but said the company ?is on >> >>> track to have enabled more than 15,000 locations in FCC-designated, >> >>> high-cost census blocks in New Mexico by the end of this year,? >> >>> referring to where the cost of service is higher than can be >> supported a >> >>> user rates alone. >> >>> >> >>> Earlier this month, Gov.-elect Michelle Lujan Grisham, an outgoing >> >>> member of the U.S. House of Representatives, lauded the inclusion in >> the >> >>> Farm Bill of $500 million for a Community Connects Program, a >> broadband >> >>> grant program to support construction of broadband infrastructure in >> >>> communities private companies may not deem economically viable. >> >>> >> >>> Lujan Grisham in a statement the program will help rural areas of New >> >>> Mexico. >> >>> >> >>> ?Expanding broadband access will grow New Mexico?s economy, create >> jobs, >> >>> boost wages, improve health outcomes, support small business growth, >> >>> help our students learn, increase crop yields, and so much more,? she >> >>> said. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>> Richard Lowenberg, Executive Director >> >>> 1st-Mile Institute 505-603-5200 >> >>> Box 8001, Santa Fe, NM 87504, >> >>> rl at 1st-mile.org www.1st-mile.org >> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------- >> >>> _______________________________________________ >> >>> 1st-mile-nm mailing list >> >>> 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org >> >>> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> 1st-mile-nm mailing list >> >> 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org >> >> http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > 1st-mile-nm mailing list >> > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org >> > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm >> > _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm > > _______________________________________________ > 1st-mile-nm mailing list > 1st-mile-nm at mailman.dcn.org > http://www2.dcn.org/mailman/listinfo/1st-mile-nm > -- *VIRGIL TURNER* Innovation & Citizen Engagement Director of Innovation & Citizen Engagement 970.240.1471 O *|* 970.596.1093 M -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: