[CWN-Summit] Re: CWN-Summit Digest, Vol 30, Issue 3

[Esme Vos]

This is an excellent thread and I posted an article on Muniwireless  
about this, too bad you are not posting comments on my site where a  
lot of muni officials come for information. I will try to post a  
summary of our arguments here (no names revealed, though).

Sincerely,

Esme Vos
Founder
Muniwireless.com

*Muniwireless Dallas Conference*
March 4-6, 2007
www.mw07tx.com



On 5 Feb 2007, at 10:00, cwn-summit-request at lists.cuwireless.net wrote:

> Send CWN-Summit mailing list submissions to
> 	cwn-summit at lists.cuwireless.net
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/cwn-summit
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	cwn-summit-request at lists.cuwireless.net
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	cwn-summit-owner at lists.cuwireless.net
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of CWN-Summit digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: Re: Mayor prorosed giving away public	resources for ATT
>       "free" wifi (Harold Feld)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2007 12:50:36 -0500
> From: Harold Feld <hfeld at mediaaccess.org>
> Subject: Re: [CWN-Summit] Re: Mayor prorosed giving away public
> 	resources for ATT "free" wifi
> To: National Summit on Community Wireless Networking Participant
> 	E-mail List	<cwn-summit at lists.cuwireless.net>,
> 	cwn-summit at lists.cuwireless.net
> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.0.20070205124831.03abf0b0 at mail.his.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
>
> At 08:48 PM 2/3/2007, Michael Oh wrote:
>> Now, I do qualify this by saying that the Boston model - based on the
>> establishment of a non-profit organization that forces structural
>> separation between the wholesale and retail sides of the network -
>> has not been proven either.  If anything, our ideas have slowed the
>> progress in Boston while the city has to try to find the funding to
>> make the model work.  But we do feel confident that, even if slow,
>> the Boston approach (or any similar approach that double-checks all
>> the details) is still better in the end.
>
> Mike, this is exactly right.
>
> Getting pressured into a wrong deployment because a real
> community-based deployment is "too slow" is a recipe for
> disaster.  It's like cutting out mandatory building code safety
> features to get a tunnel done on time. :-)  In the end, you pay far
> more by trying to short cut the process than you do by having a
> reasonably paced build out.
>
> Harold
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> CWN-Summit mailing list
> CWN-Summit at lists.cuwireless.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/cwn-summit
> http://www.communitywirelesssummit.org
> http://www.cuwireless.net
>
> End of CWN-Summit Digest, Vol 30, Issue 3
> *****************************************