Too funny.... laughable.... Really

Quote:

---

They don't believe cities should provide services such as broadband. If businesses don't offer it, there's not enough demand, they say.

---

Spoken like true democratically elected representatives of the people. :rolleyes:

People who think like that couldn't run a hot dog stand, let alone a serious business. There are well established models for business investment such as Return On Capital Employed, Net Payback Period, Discounted Cashflow Analysis etc.............these would preclude provision of service to some areas for the next 20 years or more.

There are also models for the provision of services by democratically elected government. Basically: if a reasonably significant part of the electorate (which translates into those who exercise their right to vote, especially those who are likely to vote for me :D ) want a service, then the government will provide it. Particularly if it is likely to promote business, build a more skilled workforce etc.......

Over here, government is generally seen as a promoter and regulator of provision by private industry, rather than a prime supplier. They generally enter into "partnerships" with private suppliers.

"Governance rather than government" I suppose?

jinxy

Quote:

---

Currently we all connect to the internet via an ISP. All though regulated by the governments of our countries. ISP's are independant and there is very little those governments can do to regulate what we get up to

---

Errr, try an Islamic country old chap?


:)

Southeast Michigan should pay for an OC-256 to my house. TigerShark can help pay for it with his taxes.

Quote:

---

TigerShark can help pay for it with his taxes

---

Only after he has dug the trench for it, and filled it in properly?

:p :D

ZT3000, many areas of the country are run by state owned utilities, from power to gas to electric to trains to airports to an infinite number of high tech goodies.

Quote:

---

Errr, try an Islamic country old chap?

---

I do understand what you mean, Nihil.

However in those totalitarian countries the ISP's are explicitly instructed as to what data computers can access. The affectivness though is limited. We all know ways to by pass restrictions of one sort or the other, so restrictions are no more than a deterant.

The internet is the only truely censorship free publishing medium available to mankind. That is untill we all rely on our access to it via our governments, local or otherwise. Where it becomes the ultimate control.

Hey guys. There seems to be some confusion here about the Wireless Oakland intiative. As noted, my website has not been updated in some time. As such, the wirelss plan laid out in the website is no longer relevant and has been replaced by Wireless Oakland. I do not regularly maintain this site, as it was only used for campaign purposes and the elections are over.

For details on it you can see the following links:
Oakland County
City of Clawson Powerpoint

Regarding your specific questions about interoperability with existing standards, that is one of mayn requirements to participate in the project. Also, as stated in many of the articles, government is not running this program. We are simply providing the infrastructure to allow private industries to operate the network.

-Kurt

Kurt:

I have a question or three..... or maybe four....

Between my work location and my home, (both in Oakland County and a distance of just 4 miles), there are some 75 WAPs, 50% of which are unsecured and therefore of no consequence. But then there are the people who have spent time and money, (some of them businesses), securing thier WAP in order that they may use their own high speed connection via a secured WAP. Many of those, I'm quite sure, will have no idea when you put up your "beer bottle" next door and their connection "goes funny" on them and they will accept an insecured connection to your "beer bottle".

1. Do you not see this as a problem and an intrusion on their ability to maintain a secure connection?

2. Should this scenario occur and a user loses their identity due to their computer(s) becoming unfirewalled to the entire local area will the management company accept responsibility/liability and be prepared to fiscally compensate the user for their loss?

3. Since the entire system will have to be completely unsecured in order to allow casual users access to the wireless system do you not see this as a severe threat to the security of the internet at an infrastructure level? (I don't mean to be offensive here but you may not wish to answer this one unless you have a firm grasp of the myriad threats people like some here can bring against any system of authentication/accountability the management company can bring in it's defense).

4. What, (if any), security systems will be built in to ensure that there is some accountability for activities carried out on your wireless netwok?

Answers:

1. I agree that if my new Killians bottle is causing interference and/or connectivity problems with a secured network next door, that a problem exists. However, in the event that their connection "goes funny" and connects to Wireless Oakland's network I do not see fault with Wireless Oakland. The other unsecure network could just as easily be any of the other 37 unsecure networks you described. The onus of securing these workstations against other wireless connections falls back to the business and their IT staff, just as they have to do today. My assumption would be that their business applications would fail to work on anything but their internal network or while using a VPN within the unsecured network.

2. No. As mentioned above, the responsibility and liability for a user or company not securing their network and/or workstations from the use of unsecure access points is not the fault of Wireless Oakland any more than it is the fault of Joe User across the street who is broadcasting an SSID of Linksys.

3. I agree that a significant security threat exists with ANY wireless technology, and to a lesser extent wired technologies. Furthermore, I agree that WEP, MAC filtering, and username\password systems are all fairly easily compromised by the educated person. As such, ANY wireless network is susceptible to spoofing, DoS attacks, packet sniffing, and even direct jamming. However, these threats are not new, and have not stopped the marketplace from continuing to use these technologies. Consumers have accepted these risks with the existing providers, wireless or not. As such, we can not sit idly by and let other communities provide this level of service around us and taking away from Oakland County's marketability.

4. These systems are still being developed and discussed with the potential technology partners. Since the partners have not yet been selected, I can not answer your question. I would assume that since their reputation is on the line, that these systems will be as extensive as possible. However, as pointed out in 3, I'm sure that there is some assumed risk too.


Be Well,
-Kurt

Quote:

---

The onus of securing these workstations against other wireless connections falls back to the business and their IT staff, just as they have to do today.

---

Kurt, I can assure you that Bab's Bridal Store, (or whatever her name is there at 12 Mile and Coolidge in Berkley), doesn't have an IT staff, (but she does have a secured WAP at present - don't ask.... :)). If, and I mean if, Babs has any more technical ability than the home users that leave thier WAP's unprotected then she will be very lucky. The case is much more likely, as it is with all the other small businesses you are going to put at risk, that Babs hired someone to put in the WAP and has never seen him since. Hence when your Wireless Oakland interferes with her and she mistakenly accepts the connection to your unsecured network then you just placed her business at risk.

Your answer to the first two questions are really directed entirely towards businesses, (without regard for all the small businesses you will be risking), and utterly disregards all the taxpayers out there that have spent their own money and had the neighbor's 12 year old secure their WAP for them.

Frankly, your answers have more than a hint of "It's not my problem, deal with it". Can you shed any light on the reason for that?

Quote:

---

Consumers have accepted these risks with the existing providers, wireless or not. As such, we can not sit idly by and let other communities provide this level of service around us and taking away from Oakland County's marketability.

---

You are joking, right? The consumers out there have no concept of the risk..... Hell, after 10 years we are almost convincing them not to click on attachments in email. We still can't get them to install firewalls, AV etc. in any more than a precious few instances. If I'm wrong please explain the rapid spread and constant use of worms and viruses at a rate of several new ones per day. Then explain the advent of botnets numbering 10,000 nodes.....

I really don't think you fully understand the potential threats out there. Throwing around a few catch-phrases like D0S and spoofing is all very well but it really doesn't prove a good grounding in computer security.

With regard to Oakland County's "marketability": What _exact_ benefit does Wireless Oakland bring to Oakland County? Ok, it's cool that I could walk down the street with my PDA composing an email... But there is little else of substance in the idea other then the "cool factor"... You are just trying to make OC "trendy" looking regardless of the potential downsides and risk.

The assumed risk you discuss is perfectly acceptable in the cases where the taxpayer has chosen, in a private fashion, to implement this technology. What you propose is done with complete disregard for the existing infrastructure, (albeit ad hoc), and significantly alters the risk that infrastructure assumed at the time of implementation.

Quote:

---

I would assume that since their reputation is on the line, that these systems will be as extensive as possible

---

You are joking again, right?

Scenario: Bill is a small business owner. He has a PDA that connects to his wireless networks in his two Accountancy offices which he drives between. His PDA will connect to any network it detects - he doesn't know that but it's a fact. In his normal travels his drive does take him past many unsecured WAPs that his PDA attempts to connect to but for reasons of speed and signal strength his PDA rarely if ever manages to make an acceptable connection. Along comes Kurt and implements Wireless Oakland - a network that his PDA will be able to negotiate a connection to and data be transferred. Now, on his drive between the two offices his PDA connects to Wireless Oakland and becomes infected by a worm because the network is available for his entire 10 minute drive. His PDA then infects his two wired office networks and destroys his data.... Little did he know that his backup systems had failed due to old, dirty tapes..... Unless the network requires authentication and encryption to get onto it, (thus defeating the intent of the system), the connection is an open means of infection transmittal to any device that can connect to it regardless of the infection state of that device. That is a fact and there is nothing the management company can do about it.

But that's OK with you.... It was his responsibility to guard against the "attack" perpetrated by Wireless Oakland? Let's not mention the fact that he subsequently goes out of business and has to lay off his three employees or his customers who lose critical records becuase of his failed backup systems.

Worst case scenario? Of course. A possible scenario? Absolutely. But that's ok as long as Oakland County _appears_ to be a "cool" place even though there is no concrete benefit to your proposed system.

Thoughts?

Hmmm......

No answer was the stern reply.....

Decide for yourselves, folks. (if you don't have the time, then just read the bold items)

Almost two weeks ago, Detroit News gave us a clearer picture of this Oakland Wireless proposal.

To wit:

When L. Brooks Patterson laid out his vision to make Oakland County completely wireless by 2006, the idea was to attract more business. Companies would flock, he said, to a county so tech-savvy and cutting-edge that the Internet floats through the air where they can capture it -- for free -- and use it to make money.

While many raise questions about whether the Oakland County executive's plan to build the first all wireless county will work, the proposal is a hit with many residents and Web enthusiasts who would love to have Internet access without the monthly bills.

Under Patterson's proposal, for which bids are expected in June, anyone who pulls open a laptop computer on their front porch, a park bench or a boat in the lake district can tap into the World Wide Web for free.

Patterson vows that no taxpayer money will pay for the wireless system. Wireless technology experts and service providers agree that the technology exists to build a system that covers Oakland's 910 square miles but estimate it will cost in the range of $50 million to $100 million to build.

They also raise serious questions about whether it can be done so big and so fast.
"Nobody has built a network this big. No one even knows how it would work," said David McClure, president and chief executive officer of the Washington, D.C.-based U.S. Internet Industry Association, a trade association that advocates for wireless, broadband and cable companies, among others. "This is about bragging rights. At some point, someone's going to have to tell the emperor he's not wearing any clothes."

County leaders propose partnering with private technology firms to build the network using some 2,400 publicly owned access points, such as traffic lights and telephone poles, and have it in place by mid-2006. County leaders say the initiative will lure tech-savvy businesses and jobs to Oakland,...

Residents eventually could opt to drop their Internet service provider and rely on the county's wi-fi system, although the speeds will be slower than a cable connection, for instance, and the strength of the wireless signal will vary throughout the county, said Phil Bertolini, deputy county executive.

Cable giant Comcast, which provides cable modems to customers throughout Metro Detroit, isn't worried about the potential competition, said Jerome Espy, spokesman for Comcast in Michigan. "Right now, we're in listening mode and watching how things shake out," he said.

Under Oakland's plan, private providers are expected to offer to pay for, install and manage the network.

Building a system for the 910-square mile Oakland County, therefore, could top the $90 million mark, McClure said. (Poster note: I would double that figure, $150-180 million, all payable by the proposed providers with NO government recompense).

"When I talk to businesses around the world about locating in Oakland County, we'll get some attention if we can say we're the only county that's wireless," Patterson said. "This has everything to do with attracting more businesses and attracting more jobs, and I'm not at all ashamed that that's our motive." Bertolini agrees.
"We know that companies want to be located in high-tech areas. We want people to flock here for that reason like they flocked to Silicon Valley for years," he said.

Free of charge
The county insists private companies will provide wireless Internet access for free, but participating companies will be able to charge fees for certain services, such as faster connections. Oakland officials also said providers could sell advertising on the system as a way to make it profitable.

"We're concerned about the magnitude of what they're trying to accomplish. They're trying to form partnerships, but they're really not putting up any money . Their big claim is that they're making millions of dollars of resources available, but it's really nothing more than free access to roofs and poles," Coyl said. "That certainly helps, but it's a lot to swallow when they're asking certain companies to put up $50 million to $100 million to make this work."

"The question is why any company would want to come in and do this when they in theory could make money from doing something in that area without having to offer anything for free," he said.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hack's Attack:
Councilman Kurt Hack made a presentation at the last council meeting to discuss the project.

"The initiative will provide wireless Internet services to all Clawson residents at no cost to you," Hack said. "We (also) want to provide no-cost or low-cost computers to those at-risk communities, to low-income (residents), or the elderly ... so they can take full advantage of what the wireless Internet has to offer them."
----------------------------------------------------------------

According to the publicly available RFQ (Request for Qualification), here is partially what Oakland wants:

2.2 Wireless Oakland™ Overview
Wireless Oakland™ is an initiative launched by County Executive L. Brooks Patterson that consists of three goals. The first goal is to blanket the County's 910 square miles with wireless internet service. The second goal will directly address the County’s "digital-divide" and provide low-cost or no-cost PC's and technology training to underserved population groups. Finally, the third goal will develop a Telecommunication and Technology Planning Toolkit that will support continued high-tech investments in local government and promote the integration of those investments with local community character and quality of life.

Public tax dollars and/or grant monies will not be used to subsidize the provision of wireless internet service.

Respondents will be required to provide insurance and bonds to mitigate the risk
of installing hardware on the public and private assets.

One qualified Respondent will be required to implement a demonstration project in an urban County community in early September 2005. The demonstration project will be an opportunity to evaluate the proposed technologies in a small geographic area (10-12 city blocks) and gather feedback from the general public. The cost of the demonstration project will be borne by the qualified Respondent and the qualified Respondent is expected to assume complete management and responsibility for the demonstration project.

Certain qualified Respondent(s) will be required to implement a pilot project in assigned County communities in the Fall 2005. The pilot projects will be an opportunity to further evaluate the proposed technologies and gather feedback from the general public. The specific communities that will participate in the pilot projects will be announced in July or August 2005. The cost of the pilot projects will be borne by the qualified Respondent and the qualified Respondent is expected to assume complete management and responsibility for the project.

The benefits of this initiative are nearly endless. Wireless Oakland™ will prepare the residents of the County for the jobs of tomorrow. As businesses go high-tech and more high-tech firms locate and relocate their businesses within the County, the residents of the County must be prepared to fill the jobs those businesses have to offer. Government agencies will also benefit from increased efficiencies when providing services to the public.

Well, there it is in a nutshell, so what say YOU?

Tiger shut up for 5 minutes. Let them do this. It gives me something to do on the wekend while I drive around uploading horse porn, Goatse and tub girl to every Wireless Network I pick up. You can come too. We can buy "I told you so" tee shirts and drive around with laptops. It's not like it's a far drive from my town.

Two:

I'm highly doubting that's the real "hack" there. Well maybe. I've never been to that part of town but up here at least the crooked ****s on councel can spell main.

" that is one of mayn requirements to participate in the project."

Lol. Well you just get that bad boy up and during your next speech, free Tub girl slides. Should make it more interesting than the usual bullshit you ****ers spew.

Ohhh ohh ohh ohh ohh~~!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

CAN YOU ADD ALL THE PHARMACIES TO THE UN-SECURED WIRELESS TOO?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!!?!?!??!!?!?!?!?!

Tiger Shark’s five minutes are up, does that mean mine are too?

I think kurthack gave the real answer here:

Quote:

---

... it was only used for campaign purposes and the elections are over.

---

This was a clue, not an end-all.

"if you can’t dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit "

To continue,

Quote:

---

... However, these threats are not new, and have not stopped the marketplace from continuing to use these technologies. Consumers have accepted these risks with the existing providers, wireless or not. As such, we can not sit idly by and let other communities provide this level of service around us and taking away from Oakland County's marketability.

---

For the most part consumers have NOT accepted these risks but are clueless of them! That is what I believe was the purpose of this thread, that someone with even a little knowledge of computer security would find this suggestion absurd ( oh, as suggested by Mr. Hack: still chuckling over that one. )

As ZT3000 pasted

Quote:

---

Companies would flock, he said, to a county so tech-savvy and cutting-edge that the Internet floats through the air where they can capture it -- for free -- and use it to make money. ... County leaders say the initiative will lure tech-savvy businesses and jobs to Oakland,...

---

Dazzle and nothing more. Ernst & Young is going to close offices to move there for free wireless service so their business transactions are broadcast ( including e-mail don’t forget for those S&L types ) for anyone to tap?

This one really cracks me up:

Quote:

---

Patterson vows that no taxpayer money will pay for the wireless system. Wireless technology experts and service providers agree that ... it will cost in the range of $50 million to $100 million to build.

---

Will they lock those figures in, in writing? Will they absorb any overruns or additional costs?

For the past several years I have gone to a convention directed toward local government entities with salespersons pushing the convenience and mobility of wireless. Without fail ALL, when questioned, state wireless is secure. When confronted with the facts they either become cold and turned away or said they are only the sales person and I would have to talk to one of the technicians about it who was quite conveniently not there. They knew, but were getting paid to ignore the insecurities of wireless. And most of the elected officials who visited these same people believed every word they said. ( Why is that? Why won’t they believe the people who have a clue and believe those who are clueless? )

As to kurthack , I think if your intentions are to provide the public with a service while enticing tech-savvy businesses to your area is really your goal you should consider one of the links ZT3000 provided: http://www.ftthcouncil.org/newsroom...983088327945474 and http://provo.org/util.telcom_main.html

Quote:

---

[i] Originally posted here by IKnowNot ...... ( Why is that? Why won’t they believe the people who have a clue and believe those who are clueless? )

---

In my opinion, nothing has changed since biblical times as it's a case of "the blind leading the blind". What method they use varies, but the end result is the same "they believe those who are clueless".

In another train of thought about their persuasiveness, I guess that's why they are hired as salesmen, eh?

And...in yet another train of thought, I'm left wondering if all this is a fabrication by Oakland County official(s) as a way to get well thought out and complete wired/wireless plans without paying a dime, at which point the County will call off the proposal and then use the valuable information on some other existing and/or future projects?

In my 14 years of consulting, I've seen many a company request full blown/fleshed out RFQ's and the subsequent head-to-head pow-wow's (that cost the company nothing in $$) just so they could get the information they were lacking on a project.

Happens all the time, unfortunately.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Tiger Shark
Kurt, I can assure you that Bab's Bridal Store, (or whatever her name is there at 12 Mile and Coolidge in Berkley), doesn't have an IT staff, (but she does have a secured WAP at present - don't ask.... :)). If, and I mean if, Babs has any more technical ability than the home users that leave thier WAP's unprotected then she will be very lucky. The case is much more likely, as it is with all the other small businesses you are going to put at risk, that Babs hired someone to put in the WAP and has never seen him since. Hence when your Wireless Oakland interferes with her and she mistakenly accepts the connection to your unsecured network then you just placed her business at risk.

---

Are Bab's business systems connected to the outside world? If not then where is the additional risk, since her existing WAP is still secured and she can't conduct business until she connects back to her home WAP? If they are, then her risk should be controlled anyway, since her risk is much greater exposing her systems to the outside world.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Tiger Shark
Your answer to the first two questions are really directed entirely towards businesses, (without regard for all the small businesses you will be risking), and utterly disregards all the taxpayers out there that have spent their own money and had the neighbor's 12 year old secure their WAP for them.

---

The same risk exists today for anyone that has a secure WAP and a neighbor installs a new one without securing it. As mentioned in your previous post, the amount of unsecured WAPs is fairly high, and the potential for connecting with one of them is highly likely if residents and businesses don't secure their wireless connections.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Tiger Shark
Frankly, your answers have more than a hint of "It's not my problem, deal with it". Can you shed any light on the reason for that?

---

What possible answer can I give that would suffice for your needs?

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Tiger Shark
You are joking, right? The consumers out there have no concept of the risk..... Hell, after 10 years we are almost convincing them not to click on attachments in email. We still can't get them to install firewalls, AV etc. in any more than a precious few instances. If I'm wrong please explain the rapid spread and constant use of worms and viruses at a rate of several new ones per day. Then explain the advent of botnets numbering 10,000 nodes.....

---

I never stated that the users fully understood the risks involved. Just as many do not understand the risks involved with using their existing cable connections, or opening attachments, etc. Yet, these users are still using these services and enjoying their benefits. As the technology improves, as does the security of said services.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Tiger Shark
I really don't think you fully understand the potential threats out there. Throwing around a few catch-phrases like D0S and spoofing is all very well but it really doesn't prove a good grounding in computer security.

---

Again, I don't think there are any credentials, street or not, that would give you satisfaction.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Tiger Shark
With regard to Oakland County's "marketability": What _exact_ benefit does Wireless Oakland bring to Oakland County? Ok, it's cool that I could walk down the street with my PDA composing an email... But there is little else of substance in the idea other then the "cool factor"... You are just trying to make OC "trendy" looking regardless of the potential downsides and risk.

---

I think that you are downplaying the marketability of having internet access freely available to the public. The hope is that residents who don't currently use the internet and technology will become more exposed to it, since businesses and other residents will adopt it at an increased rate. As a result, your population becomes more "technically savvy". This increase in Oakland County's skilled worker base is hoped to increase the income of residents who reside in Oakland County. As such, this higher income will translate into more property purchases which will increase property values throughout the county. While the "trendiness" is a nice item and gives good PR, the true benefit comes 5, 10, 15 years from now.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Tiger Shark
The assumed risk you discuss is perfectly acceptable in the cases where the taxpayer has chosen, in a private fashion, to implement this technology. What you propose is done with complete disregard for the existing infrastructure, (albeit ad hoc), and significantly alters the risk that infrastructure assumed at the time of implementation.

---

Already addressed in response to prior quote.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by Tiger Shark

Scenario: Bill is a small business owner. He has a PDA that connects to his wireless networks in his two Accountancy offices which he drives between. His PDA will connect to any network it detects - he doesn't know that but it's a fact. In his normal travels his drive does take him past many unsecured WAPs that his PDA attempts to connect to but for reasons of speed and signal strength his PDA rarely if ever manages to make an acceptable connection. Along comes Kurt and implements Wireless Oakland - a network that his PDA will be able to negotiate a connection to and data be transferred. Now, on his drive between the two offices his PDA connects to Wireless Oakland and becomes infected by a worm because the network is available for his entire 10 minute drive. His PDA then infects his two wired office networks and destroys his data.... Little did he know that his backup systems had failed due to old, dirty tapes..... Unless the network requires authentication and encryption to get onto it, (thus defeating the intent of the system), the connection is an open means of infection transmittal to any device that can connect to it regardless of the infection state of that device. That is a fact and there is nothing the management company can do about it.

But that's OK with you.... It was his responsibility to guard against the "attack" perpetrated by Wireless Oakland? Let's not mention the fact that he subsequently goes out of business and has to lay off his three employees or his customers who lose critical records becuase of his failed backup systems.

---

The first portion of this scenario is possible. However, combined with the rest of the scenario is highly unlikely. Given this premise, I should blame Ameritech any time I get a virus at work and my tapes are dirty. While, I can understand your premist that users do not understand the omnipresence of Wireless Oakland, I reject it because you combine the risk factors of an unsecured wireless system with users not using anti-virus software, not maintaining proper backups, not sercuring their wireless devices, and finally having a faulty business model that would allow such failures to occur and let them put the business at such a risk.

Be Well,
-Kurt

Quote:

---

The same risk exists today for anyone that has a secure WAP and a neighbor installs a new one without securing it. As mentioned in your previous post, the amount of unsecured WAPs is fairly high, and the potential for connecting with one of them is highly likely if residents and businesses don't secure their wireless connections.

---

Right now Joe has an unsecured WAP. His total area of risk cannot exceed 300' from the WAP. Hence, the threat must be within 300' of his WAP. If he accidentally connects to his neighbors unsecured WAP his total area of risk is extended to a maximum of 300' more less the distance between his computer and the neighbors WAP. But you Wireless Oakland is not so limited. In some cases you will find that a computer miles away from Joe's will still be able to see it. You have extended his total area of risk exponentially.

Quote:

---

As a result, your population becomes more "technically savvy".

---

No, they will be exactly where they are now. Able to surf the web and send email.... period. You aren't challenging them, you aren't making them learn additional things, you're just giving them an alternative means to carry out the same tasks!!!! Come now, you don't really believe that Wireless Oakland will be the driving force in workforce education do you. The _only_ factor that contributes significantly to workforce education where technology is concerned is the requirement of the employers that the employees learn and use specific systems they are unfamiliar with.

Quote:

---

I reject it because you combine the risk factors of an unsecured wireless system with users not using anti-virus software, not maintaining proper backups, not sercuring their wireless devices, and finally having a faulty business model that would allow such failures to occur and let them put the business at such a risk.

---

Think of it this way Kurt. You have 20 computers spread throughout your office. They have no AV, firewall or anything security-wise. But they don't need them because they aren't connected to anything, (they have an airwall). You decide you want to network them and provide the cables, NICs and switches to do so. Now they are all connected. Previously, had a computer been infected with a worm all the others were safe. Now they aren't, they are all at risk. Wireless Oakland is the cabling, NIC's and switches that puts everyone at risk..

I really don't understand why you simply refuse to accept that the threat is real and that is places a high risk on numerous taxpayers and small businesses. When the management company tells you "don't worry about the security, we have it covered" are you just going to believe them or are you going to be able to ask the right questions and properly understand the answers so that you can do what is best for your electorate rather then what is good for the management company and makes Kurt Hack look like the high tech, forward looking leader he wants to be portrayed as?

Let me get this straight. If a private corporation does it and charges it's ok... but if the government does the same it's bad? Because some how the private corporation is more savy at security?

The interesting thing is that this IS private industry. The only thing the government is involved in is allowing the use of existing infrastructure and the initial build out scheduling. The network will be managed by private industry with a governmental body for oversight only.

-Kurt

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by IKnowNot
As to kurthack , I think if your intentions are to provide the public with a service while enticing tech-savvy businesses to your area is really your goal you should consider one of the links ZT3000 provided: http://www.ftthcouncil.org/newsroom...983088327945474 and http://provo.org/util.telcom_main.html [/B]

---

Thanks for the links. However, running a physical connection to each household is not financially feasable. The other issue we have is that in most cities, Clawson included, the utility poles are not owned by the city and are not a public resource. They are owned by private industry and pay taxes on their valuations. Thus, government bodies can not simply start stringing up fiber utilizing another body's assets.

The main reason wireless was considered is that the return on investment is at a reasonable level and allows Oakland County to reach rural areas that are not currently served by any broadband services, with the exception of higher-cost satellite services.

Be Well,
-Kurt

"The wireless network will be owned, installed, operated, managed, and/or maintained by the selected qualified Respondent(s). The County has articulated specific requirements that will be required of Respondents (potential private partners) and is soliciting creative technical and business solutions that could provide wireless internet service to all of the County's 1.2 million residents, over 40,000 businesses and countless visitors."

From the County Web Site. Tiger and Gore should be submitting their bids. :D

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by kurthack
Thanks for the links. However, running a physical connection to each household is not financially feasable.

---

Yea right, you could pay for an OC-256 to my house, quit being so cheap. ;)

OC-256? gore, that would bankrupt a city, maybe even a state government. :D what is that, quick head math, about 6000 - 7000 T1s? Or more?

Little over 13 GB per second. Soooo, a T1 is 1.544 MBs... Heh a lot of T1s.

He he, I did the math at 10 Gbps, so more like 7000 and beyond...or so. Some nationwide ISPs don't pull that much.

The title of this thread was prophetically correct....... :rolleyes:

Mr. Hack is selling a "sieve" to promote Workforce Development to teach people who have not demanded high speed internet connections, (rural in Oakland County.. there ain't much "rural" in Oakland Country folks...), or private industry would have provided it so they can learn all the bad habits the rest of the internet users practice which makes them useless to business.

Kurt: A thought.....

All those people who _want_ internet access where it is available have it already. If they don't have it it is because they can't afford the hardware _or_ they simply don't want it..... Those who want it but can't have it live in these areas you call "rural".

Wouldn't it be cheaper, more easily managed and safer for the Oakland County community as a whole to _only_ implement your wireless network in those areas that are currently _not_ served by the existing infrastructure or would that compromise your "trendying up" of Oakland County?

Tiger, South East Michigan is about as Trendy as Genital Warts and you know it.

Hey.... Leave my warts alone.... The gals love them.... Then again, at my age most of the "gals" can't see them... ;)

Quote:

---

I never stated that the users fully understood the risks involved. Just as many do not understand the risks involved with using their existing cable connections, or opening attachments, etc. Yet, these users are still using these services and enjoying their benefits. As the technology improves, as does the security of said services.

---

Two things to note here. One, I was under the impression that one of the main reasons government exists is to protect people from themselves and each other: i.e. to help prevent them from doing stupid things and having other’s stupid acts affecting them, not encourage them.
Examples: Driver’s license required to operate motor vehicles on the street, laws that prohibit shooting guns off in the center of town. I’m not trying to equate these exactly with computers, but rather the idea that quite a number of people would enjoy doing it, they could benefit from it ( especially if their ex happened across their sights ). These things all happened in the past, but society eventually found it better to restrict such actions to protect society in general.

Second, the technology may improve, and already has, but how long will it take? What will be the worth of your wi-fi when it does? How much of this equipment ( antennas, waps, etc. ) will have to be replaced to accommodate the changes, and at what additional costs?

Quote:

---

the utility poles are not owned by the city and are not a public resource. They are owned by private industry and pay taxes on their valuations. Thus, government bodies can not simply start stringing up fiber utilizing another body's assets.

---

Where are the utility poles located? On the town’s right-of-way or on property owned by the utility companies? And what about, where feasible, including underground lines with new projects, such as sewer line replacements, etc.?

What would the "risk" be if lets say: You're in New York, and you find your (M)IC surrounded by a bunch of insecure WAPS?