Unwiring the parks
Wim Lewis
I start thinking about this each year when the weather gets nicer.
One of the early stated goals (visions?) of SWN was to be able to
walk along the cafes of (e.g.) Pike/Pine with a laptop and have
connectivity. Well, we basically have that now, not through SWN but
because cafes and bars frequently offer wifi themselves... though I
think that groups like SWN provided advocacy which helped this
situation come about.
So, what about another place that it might be pleasant to hang about
with a laptop: the parks? City parks present an interesting set of
advantages and difficulties for community networking. One thing
that's both an advantage and a disadvantage is that, compared to
someone's house or Capitol Hill apartment, parks are pretty big. So a
single park would require multiple nodes to provide coverage. But the
advantage of that is that, for example, a mesh network ringing
Greenlake could probably absorb the occasional node failure without
falling apart. Such a network could also provide connectivity between
otherwise isolated nodes that would want to join SWN's network: nodes
at Gasworks, for example, could bounce packets between Capitol Hill,
South Lake Union, and the side of Queen Anne.
A big problem is that we don't actually live in the parks (well, I
don't) and so setting up a node there is more difficult than just
putting a router on your windowsill. Solar-powered guerilla nodes are
a possibility. :) It might be easier to get the cooperation of the
parks department, though --- the city seems vaguely amenable to the
idea of public wifi (e.g., the University Way wifi area) and might be
willing to have routers attached to, and powered by, park lamp posts.
Thoughts? This seems like an interesting idea to me. Or has the
availability of EVDO dongles and 802.16 service taken too much of the
motivation out of such projects?
Casey Halverson
issue (Politics) and sometimes a Layer 8 issue (Finances) ...
fortunately, with extremely good, cheap hardware, finances is pretty
much non-existent for the group. A good node used to cost perhaps
$500-$1000 ... now its between $30-$120 (!).
But lets go back to politics.
In 2004, the Seattle Broadband Task Force set out to research a
possible muni network rollout to provide connectivity to the city as a
utility. In May 2005, the organization disbanded because it
completed its assignment. The result was this gem: http://www.seattle.gov/btt/docs/SeaBTF.pdf
I really do not think the city is interested in supporting any
sort of wifi rollout at parks though...even though the Seattle
Broadband Task Force did dabble in this.
Some of seattle's most seediest parks featured wifi, with an unknown
level of usership. I haven't dared to take my laptop to any of these
places, but perhaps they are still online, perhaps not as funding was
likely cut. I always thought bringing a laptop to a park was a bad
idea, because I can barely see a laptop screen in the shade. YMMV.
Parks do have technical issues, but they can all be solved. Lamp
posts are usually around areas where people are--and you could mount
them there, a distribution network could be mesh based, upstream
connectivity could be passed onto SWN wirelessly, etc.
Again, assuming you could even convince a muni to let you install
these, i really do not think parks are a good place to start. There
are probably a thousand other locations where people live where these
could be much more of help. I actually worked on a (defunct) project
where we were going to bring in internet via p2p microwave to several
buildings and light up low income housing very cheaply. Your target
has got to be people who cannot (or should not) pay the $50-$100/mo
for internet access. This is the real "digital divide" and it puts a
lot of people at a major disadvantage. With computers being free, and
internet being the expensive commodity, it could do a whole lot of
good for a non-profit to step in and provide this.
The cost of entry for EVDO, UMTS, and mobile 802.16 is a bit high and
most have much higher latencies than local wifi...so i do not see
these technologies eliminating local wifi networks until carriers want
to stop making money.
Michael Mee
I concur that low income housing is a worthy, worthwhile and achievable
target. Most of the challenges there, per usual, are political not
technical. We have ~400 people/week in low income housing using our
networks (and another 1000 or so in a 'recovering' neighborhood).
If you can find the funding to provide the ongoing cost of the feed(s),
and the equipment, you'll generally have great success working with the
non-profits that manage the housing complexes (typically high density).
Getting funding from any traditional grant sources quickly gets you
mired in the whole non-profit funding game which typically is of little
interest to geeks. If funding is solved, then the biggest requirement is
time.
If someone is prepared to spend the time to make the calls to meet the
people to explain the proposition to organize the equipment purchase,
installation and followup, then there are relatively few obstacles and
you'll find many people willing to help. It is very rewarding on many
levels, not least of which is meeting the people who live in the housing
who will be benefiting.
I'd be happy to chat with anyone who'd like to try this in Seattle (or
anywhere else).
cheers, michael
www.socalfreenet.org
ma...@seattlewireless.net
Networking (IS4CWN) and I have to agree that much of the projects
nowadays involve lots of political types. The summit attendance was
mostly community organizers (ICT), political/policy people, human
rights and UN folks, with a small group of geek types. It seems to
me that if you're motivated to do non-profit type work, that outreach
to non-profit type organizations is what is needed unless you want to
go through the rather horrible motions of becoming one yourself. The
ICT folks are generally hip to the idea, but either do not have the
resources to devote to this sort of project (money) or do not have the
technical chops (geekery) to realize what they want done. This is
going away somewhat as the technology gets easier to use, but
personally, I'm a geek, and although I find that these projects
(unwiring low income, unwiring parks) are interesting, they're
extremely time consuming and it's frustrating for me to move at the
speed of government. There are some projects that started out with a
small core of geeks then moved into the more traditional 'community
organizer' space which are doing quite well, but I would say that the
projects with the most resources are muni or are NGO type orgs.
There were some amazing stories about lighting up whole countries, but
that was done with millions of dollars and mostly as US Aid vs a
grassroots model. Probably the best grassroots stuff that was
talked about was the stuff I was already familiar with in Vienna,
Berlin, Athens, Barcelona, Belgrade, Croatia, etc. People building
networks that they themselves use.
I talked a bit with Dana Spiegel and Laura Forlano from the
NYCWireless project, and it turns out they're still getting people
interested in lighting up parks in NYC, and they're continuing to do
it. Parks are a big part of the NYC focus, and if you remember back,
their big kickoff was lighting up a few key parks (Bryant Park was the
big one that comes to mind). That said, walking around DC and other
East Coast cities, It seems that their parks are a bit different than
ours. Most of the parks that I saw (that had people in them) were
downtown greenspaces vs our mostly residential area parks. Getting
people behind a project that allows them to surf the tubes on their
lunch break is a different sort of proposition than getting someone to
bring their laptops to say.. Discovery Park.
If people here are interested in getting into the low income / ICT /
NGO stuff, I do have some contacts in those areas and would love to
help out, but it's not something I'm interested in diving into at this
time. If you are interested in it however, I'll do what I can to
support it.
-matt
As far as interesting technical developments go, there is some really
interesting work on the mesh front. Aaron Kaplan and others are
working on "NOCATS LESS DOGS MORE FUNK" firmware <http://
robin.funkfeuer.at/> which is currently backended by the open-mesh.com
dashboard. If you're already hip to RO.B.IN, it's a new firmware
using OLSR-NG instead of B.A.T.M.A.N. comes with a greatly simplified
web interface (3 simple steps to setup) and of course, a nice backend
management system.
Ken Meyer
Telecommunications Innovation) was championed by former Seattle Councilman
Jim Compton. who went off to teach in Egypt or something.
Compton said that he was anticipating that the study would be about the
feasibility of a wi-fi network, but the Taskforce, which included some
pretty heavy hitters and true experts, threw that idea out in its first
meeting. The entire thrust of the subsequent effort involved FTTH at 25
mbps and up (to maybe 100 mbps) for openers. The idea was that it would be
a waste of time and money to create any new network that was not capable of
supporting the veritable "triple-play" with ease -- and wi-fi would not do
it, even under the best of circumstances. The collapse of the wireless
efforts in Philadelphia and San Francisco attests to the wisdom of this
group in not being diverted by unfunded obeisance to the "digital divide",
which is another problem entirely.
The questions addressed by the BTT mainly involved what the best
technologies for FTTH might be, how existing city resources could be
applied, how the financing would be implemented, and how to deal with
objections to government competing with private industry (or rapacious
corporations, if you prefer). Of course, the question of free or low-cost
basic Internet access for low-income folks is quite another issue, and in my
view, is almost totally a political problem of financing the ongoing
operations of such services.
The state of the broadband effort is that the Department of Information
Technology (DoIT) under Bill Schrier and Tony Perez, has gone through a RFI
(Request for Interest -- or Information) process for a city-wide FTTH
network and received 28 responses, of which they selected 10 for further
discussion. Recently, DoIT received permission from the Council to spend
about $130,000 in existing funds to create an RFP (Request for Proposal) for
implementing such a system. Here is the NEW broadband information site
(still pretty bare):
The RFP process is anticipated to be completed by the end of the year.
The Council, and particularly Bruce Harrell, who is the Chair of the Energy
and Technology Committee -- and is a former General Counsel for Qwest -- is
acting like they're not really committed and really hope that the RFP will
not bring attractive responses, so will just die on the vine. At present,
the city does not intend to put any significant $$$ into this system, but
will only negotiate use of the city's existing 400+ miles of fiber and
perhaps "facilitate" the process of gaining access to "telephone" poles and
other facilities, such as electrical substations for locating the switches,
routers and whatever.
Some other entity will have to build it and (maybe still another) provide
the content. Well, Schrier and crew are totally in sync with maintaining an
open, neutral network, but given that the responders will be required to put
up all of the dough, that requirement could kill the project, if conducted
under the current "rules of engagement".
The cost of installing the fiber backbone is guessed to be about $250M,
which is consistent with estimates for build-outs in progress in Europe and
Asia, and the hook-ups to individual homes at another $250M (but this cost
could be shared by the owner, much as you are responsible for water and
sewer service on your side of the "point of presence" in your front yard ,
To kick-start the system, perhaps low-cost loans could be made for financing
the local drops.
The failure to aggressively step up to the future on the part of the Council
is totally outrageous, especially when you consider that the Council, in
it's alleged wisdom (except for objections by Nick Licata), has just moved
(but maybe not quite yet set in concrete), to use $200M of the "Bridging the
Gap" tax levy, which was supposed to fix roads in our neighborhoods, just to
address the so-called "Mercer Mess" in a lame and ADMITTEDLY largely
ineffectual project that Joel Connelly of the P-I calls "Paul Allen
Parkway" -- not a transportation project, but really "urban renewal" for the
benefit of Allen's South Lake Union private city-within-a-city.
One new development MAY be that the Mayor, who had been adverse to a
city-implemented fiber network, has now asked Seattle City Light to look
into creating one (hopefully, they won't propose BPL). The Mayor may
finally have heard of Tacoma's successful Click! network, which was
initially created to read electric meters, but now offers TV and Internet
access down there, and prevailed even when sued by AT&T (ATTBI cable
network). Is it effective? Comcast's "Basic" service (that is not its
basic offering, which is now called "Limited") costs $45/month in Seattle
and $35/month in Click! territory -- and you have a choice of 3 or 4
independent ISPs for your connectivity. Perhaps the Mayor has also realized
that a FTTH network would obviate the need for many automobile trips, which
would contribute to his quest of a legacy in making Seattle greener than a
hung-over Leprechaun post St Patty's Day.
Now, I understand the geek's typical aversion to interminable political
process, but I assure all of you, in today's environment, very little is
going to get done of significance to society without political
involvement -- and there's a real art to effective participation.
Furthermore, given the cluelessness of most elected officials about ANYTHING
technological, people who can advocate for technology in a manner that is
compatible with, and knowledgeable about, the political process are
incredibly valuable. Just watch out for the jargon, acronyms and cavalier
references to arcane theorems :-)
Keep track of what is going on in the Council's E&T Committee meetings,
which can be viewed live on Channel 26 (Comcast in Seattle), or can be
streamed from archives at the Seattle Channel site (RealPlayer video).
http://www.seattle.gov/council/archived_meetings.htm
and for meetings in previous years:
http://www.seattlechannel.org/videos/browseVideos.asp?topic=councilArchive
Meetings are on Wednesday at 2 PM on the first and third weeks, if not
cancelled. Check the agendas, or sign up to have them e-mailed to you:
http://www.seattle.gov/council/committees/energy_comm.htm
Lame as it is, the best way to keep track of what is going on, or not going
on, with the city's involvement in technology is to attend the monthly
meetings of the so-called Citizens' Telecommunication and Technology
Advisory Board (CTTAB) on the second Tuesday at 6:00 PM, on the 27th floor
of the Key Tower (NOT city hall).
Perhaps a force of public attendance by folks who understand technology
could cause these wimps to step up to some real advocacy, and not just do
menial tasks at the behest of the city government. The cynical might
suspect this Board to be a dodge by the politicians to buffer themselves
from any complaint from the community on issues addressed by the Board,
while pointing to (a very limited and largely ineffective) involvement by
the citizenry in technological issues in the community.
In any event, there are usually reports presented by DoIT (Bill Schrier),
the Cable/Broadband Office (Tony Perez and Jill Novik), and the Community
Technology Program (David Keyes). So you can get some insights that are
otherwise very difficult to come by, and you can beard these city principals
in their own lair. After an absurdly difficult struggle, they have
grudgingly agreed to take public comment as well. Wow! Check it out:
Doesn't sound too attractive? It's the only game in town in which to gain a
toe-hold.
As to wi-fi at present, here is a "root resource" for the city's
involvement:
http://www.seattle.gov/html/citizen/wifi.htm
Note that there are some experimental installations in parks, which I expect
many of you are familiar with. Here is what the site says:
"The City of Seattle is providing free wireless Internet access in the
Columbia City and the University District business districts. The City's
Wi-Fi pilot project also ** includes four downtown Seattle parks:
Occidental, Freeway, Westlake and Victor Steinbrueck ** [two may be seedy,
but not really dangerous], as well as the City Hall lobby area. This is a
pilot project. Users can log-in using seattlewifi for the ssid. In 2006,
Seattlewifi served 14,400 different users. For 2007, that number was reached
in August. Our initial evaluation of the project found that wi-fi helped
save driving and helped increase customers in the business districts. In
addition to the City-provided service, wi-fi is available at the Seattle
Public Library, Seattle Center Centerhouse and in many other locations
enabled by private providers."
I don't see evidence that the city plans to terminate this program, though
the business district coverage could be dependent on funding by the
businesses. On the other hand, they don't intend to expand it either.
Schrier is amenable to considering wi-fi access points on poles passed by
the FTTH cables in appropriate areas, but only as a bonus.
Casey, did the Hilltop House and Kawabi wi-fi installations disappear?
I keep up with this stuff pretty conscientiously and would be pleased to
answer questions or direct one to likely resources.
Ken Meyer
-----Original Message-----
From: swn...@googlegroups.com [mailto:swn...@googlegroups.com]On
Behalf Of Casey Halverson
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 12:02 AM
To: swn...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [swn-dev] Re: Unwiring the parks
Wireless networks in Seattle (or anywhere else) was mainly a Layer 9
issue (Politics) and sometimes a Layer 8 issue (Finances) ...
fortunately, with extremely good, cheap hardware, finances is pretty
much non-existent for the group. A good node used to cost perhaps
$500-$1000 ... now its between $30-$120 (!).
But lets go back to politics.
In 2004, the Seattle Broadband Task Force set out to research a
possible muni network rollout to provide connectivity to the city as a
utility. In May 2005, the organization disbanded because it
completed its assignment. The result was this gem:
http://www.seattle.gov/btt/docs/SeaBTF.pdf
I really do not think the city is interested in supporting any
sort of wifi rollout at parks though...even though the Seattle
Broadband Task Force did dabble in this.
Some of seattle's most seediest parks featured wifi, with an unknown
level of usership. I haven't dared to take my laptop to any of these
places, but perhaps they are still online, perhaps not, as funding was
likely cut.
I always thought bringing a laptop to a park was a bad
idea, because I can barely see a laptop screen in the shade. YMMV.
Parks do have technical issues, but they can all be solved. Lamp
posts are usually around areas where people are -- and you could mount
them there, a distribution network could be mesh-based, upstream
you...@hotmail.com
industry hacks. Even though the outcome could have been predicted from the
start, they went through the motions of gathering opinions.
Wi-Fi is part of the 'answer' but, of course, that depends on the objectives
and time frame. I expressed my opinions to the panel and majors office
directly: that the metro region should build out a fiber optic grid to FTTN,
fiber to the node, about every 2-3 miles depending on density, terrain and
other factors. Termination to standardized equipment cabinets suitable for
various environments. Then let GigE, Wi-Fi/Wi-Fi MESH, fiber optic, WiMAX,
LTE, even 3G... open access to the node on a technology agnostic basis. Of
course, there has to be some method of selecting among alternative
applicants and for helping to subsidize low income citizens. But as little
government meddling as is feasible in delivery of service as possible.
The problem with the metro-fi commercial movement such as in Philly, and
other places is that municipal governments mistakenly thought they could get
free service and the operators nothing. If you want to make service free,
then let free wireless groups have access to fiber optic on some basis.. if
you want taxpayers to pay to build out the grid then pass a referendum.
That is fair if voters approve it. But also let commercial interests have
the same advantage. No fair, imo, to subsidize one group to compete with
another group that pays taxes. Let Seattle Wireless and other groups have
access to do things using volunteered equipment and work is great, but don't
give anyone a blank check.
The problem with unlicensed spectrum are the limitations of the media access
methods, signal power/gains, etc. 3.65 GHz gets around some of that but is
not cheap or likely to be as common. Using licensed spectrum is out of the
question in the traditional sense. But this might become a possibility as a
sub-licensing arrangement.. but not for free. Community wireless, such as
ethnic group, enterprise and specialty applications wireless is being worked
on now to work on Clearwire-Sprint networks.
White spaces is being pushed, but unless Google gets their way, which is
unlikely, it will be used primarily in rural areas due to gain and
interference limitations. It could be used for long range interconnects.
But even with limitations it has to meet FCC approvals and may start out on
a trial basis that takes years before widespread use if possible.
The City of Seattle and surrounding metro should build out an expensive
fiber grid to enable open competition and provide reasonable community
access imo.
WiMAX, LTE will become available. Open access to low frequencies besides
limited 900 MHz is unlikely because almost everything is spoken for. The
time for advocacy for more unlicensed spectrum access is past.
There are some people working on pirate versions of WiMAX chips... using
802.22 RAN interference sensing methods... what nobody can easily detect...
In some regions of African and other countries the rural use of spectrum is
a no-man's land - some use it, just don't get caught. Of course, I do not
recommend pirated spectrum even if evolution of technology makes that cheap
and increasingly feasible.
George Lathrop
George
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.24.6/1480 - Release Date: 6/3/2008 7:00 AM
Ken Meyer
If my mushy memory does not deceive me, you were off to Europe for an
extended stay last I heard. Did they throw all the damn yankees out?
Note that there is a CTTAB meeting next Tuesday, the 10th. In fact,
Councilman Harrell, who we are stuck dealing with for city support of things
technological, will be there for a coordination meeting. Again, it's:
and find an agenda there.
By the way, what sort of awareness is your workshop promoting; a website
apparently is not one of the subjects :-)
Ken M.
George Lathrop
> Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 270.0.0/1487 - Release Date: 6/6/2008 8:01 AM
you...@hotmail.com
which makes little sense in the wide metro area. FTTH makes great sense for
densely populated areas that have extensive existing fiber runs underground
conduits but makes absolutely no sense in most suburbs. Even in many
close-in neighborhoods fiber would have to be run into the residential areas
and to the homes at a cost of $1,000-$3,000 per residence and that excludes
residential equipment.
WiMAX and LTE are rapidly developing: WiMAX has caused the incumbent 3G
wireless chip, network equipment and device suppliers to quicken the pace of
development. Spending on R&D has accelerated to over $5 billion per year
among WiMAX and LTE ecosystem developers. A very high rate of further
spending and acquisitions are occurring in related developments to feed
mobile broadband services.
This is resulting in development of systems targeted at IMT-Advanced that
include use of multiple station smart antenna, multi-tiered networks, and
virtualization techniques that greatly increase bandwidth per user. Of
course, all of that bandwidth must be connected to broader private,
government and Internet networks... and for major metropolitan areas that
most often that means fiber optic.
The goals of IMT-Advanced are to aggregate multiple bands of spectrum
including new/recent and existing bands. Of course, the aggregation of
IMT-2000 spectrum will require relinquishing of currently viable 3G networks
which will require several years. In the meantime, many operators will
deploy WiMAX or LTE (there is harmonization taking place in the standards
and among vendors products. Intel, Motorola and others call for a more
thorough harmonization - for adoption of 802.16m as/into TDD-LTE). The
bandwidth goal of IMT-Advanced is 200 Mbps mobile and 1 Gbps fixed-portable.
Of course, these systems are being developed to support several types of
video communications including HDTV as well as all IP/SIP communications.
FTTH makes perfect sense where the costs make it feasible to deploy. If you
wish to achieve goals of digital inclusion, then unless Seattle discovers
oil under public lands, forget it! ; ^)
Robert Syputa
Casey Halverson
you...@hotmail.com
Charles N Wyble
Casey,
Lets try and trim replies please. Its good mailing list etiquette.
Thank you.
> Who are the heavy hitters on the board?
>
> On Jun 7, 2008, at 9:09 AM, You...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
<snip bunch of original text like casey should have>
Ken Meyer
NOTE: I have "cleaned" the message trail except for my original one,
provided for reference.
Absent the "body language", it's not clear whether you had dialed up the
BTT's (Broadband Telecommunications Taskforce, a.k.a. Task Force on
Telecommunications Innovation) report from the site associated with one of
the links I had provided, and you were being a bit sarcastic in suggesting
there were no members worthy of being classified as "heavy hitters", or
whether this was a straight up-and-down question on your part.
Also, if you were conflating the BTT, which is a "Task Force" and the CTTAB,
which is a "Board", know that there is no association between them. The BTT
members were hand-picked. They met, issued a report, and dissolved. The
CTTAB (Citizens Telecommunications and Technology Advisory Board) is an
ongoing entity consisting of volunteers who serve terms of several years and
meet monthly. These folks are typically impressively knowledgeable in some
technical or community service domain. However, they tend to be essentially
clueless, or at least totally passive, in the area of political and
bureaucratic processes needed to introduce and accomplish any significant
initiative by the city.
The CTTAB meetings, for the rest of us citizens, are primarily useful for
the information provided in reports by the city employees, like Bill
Schrier, the head of DoIT (Department of Information Technology).
Unfortunately, that's about the same objective as the Board members seem to
view it. In the heyday of the Seattle Community Network, the Board was
quite political advocacy oriented -- probably in the extreme, in fact. And
that certainly is not the model for government enforced by Mayor Greg
Nickels, who is an admirer of Richard Daly, the last of the Chicago big
political bosses.
In any event, here is the report:
http://www.seattle.gov/btt/docs/SeaBTF.pdf
Page 2 (report native numbering) lists the members of the Task Force. Of
course, "heavy hitter" is a very relative term. Some "heavy hitters" gauged
by compensation or position hardly hit at all, c.f. Ritchie Sexon. I leave
the list members to form their own conclusions:
BTT Membership
Steve Clifford
Task Force Chair
Former CEO, King Broadcasting
William F. Baron
Foster Pepper & Shefelman
Art Butler
Ater Wynne, LLP
Reuven M. Carlyle
Washington2, Inc.
William Covington
University of Washington
Toni Cramer
City of Bellevue
Ronald A. Johnson
University of Washington
Huat Chye Lim
Microsoft
Gregory B. Maffei
360networks
Dennis I. Okamoto
Former Regional Vice President
US West Communications
William M. (Bill) Schrier
City of Seattle
Ann Suter
Seattle Community Access Network (SCAN)
Commission Staff
Anne Fennessy
Cocker Fennessy
Sarah Driggs
Cocker Fennessy
City Staff
Tony Perez
Department of Information Technology
David Docter
Seattle City Light
On page 20 (report native numbering), you will find bios of the members.
You won't find the likes of Vinton Cerf there, but I assert that it is a
solid group from a spectrum of backgrounds, having many applicable areas of
the expertise needed to create such a project (except for the
"facilitators").
In fact, though Bob moans, as usual, about the lack of recognition of the
overwhelming superiority of wireless for anything and everything bit-wise,
at least one member of the Taskforce, Reuven Carlyle, has a strong
background in the promotion of wireless communications (and, by the way, is
now running for State Representative in the -- I think -- 36th District of
Ballard, Magnolia...). I do not recall that he was ever a squeaky wheel on
the Taskforce, crying out, "What about wireless; we can do all of that with
wireless on the cheap", etc., etc.
-----------------------------------
Reuven M. Carlyle
Reuven Carlyle is the CEO of Washington2, Inc., which offers strategic
business development and public policy consulting
for commercial and public sector projects.
Previously he served as director, officer and senior executive for
UIEvolution, Inc., a wireless software company (2001-2002); as vice
president for external affairs and business development for XYPoint
Corporation, a provider of wireless location technology (1996-2001); as
external affairs manager of AT&T Wireless Services, Inc. (1995-1996); as
special projects representative for McCaw Cellular Communications, Inc.
(1993-95); as deputy press secretary in the Office of the Governor,
Columbus, Ohio (1989-1991); and as public information officer for the
Washington
House of Representatives (1987-1989).
He received a master’s degree in public administration from the John F.
Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University in
1993, and a BA in communications from the University of Massachusetts in
1987.
He has been active in City Year of Seattle & King County and the Hillel
Foundation.
--------------------
In any event, the idea is that this was not the usual group of political
hacks. All of the members have excellent, pertinent credentials, and I
think that the balance between technical, commercial, and government
interests was substantially above the average for such exercises. Greg
Maffei was head of a network company, to be sure, but others on the
Taskforce were just interested in pumping gobs of data by the best means
possible.
I know a few of these folks personally, and think that they are extremely
well-qualified to be TF members. Also, they drew presenters from all over
the country, who were directly involved with such efforts and could provide
really well-informed data and conclusions.
BTW, a number of years ago now, Tony Perez had ram-rodded a contract with an
outfit called Western Integrated Systems to provide an FTTH implementation
for Seattle. That was in the height of the Dot-Com boom, when venture
capitalists were pouring out money like water, and when the balloon burst,
WIN went down for the count, of course.
Any more questions about the BTT, I will be happy to answer of provide a
forwarding reference.
Ken M.
-----Original Message-----
From: swn...@googlegroups.com [mailto:swn...@googlegroups.com]
On Behalf Of Casey Halverson
Sent: Saturday, June 07, 2008 3:47 PM
To: swn...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [swn-dev] Re: Unwiring the parks
Who are the heavy hitters on the board?
>>>> Ken Meyer wrote: