Hello!
The comments on this profile are unclaimed and thus are unverified.
Do they belong to you? Claim these comments.
Kimo Crossman
Is this you? Claim Profile »
3 months ago
in CNBC: How to play the housing rebound on AMERICAblog
Um.. San Francisco Chronicle today says there is a huge shadow inventory at least 1/3 of repos not on the market - banks are afraid to sell at such low prices
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/...
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/...
10 months ago
in Journalists = fair game? Video of Amy Goodman arrest on The Minnesota Independent
Video of Amy Goodman interview as she is released from jail/illegal arrest (San Francisco Chronicle)
1 year ago
in Chicken John Is Looking for a Contact at PayPal | Laughing Squid on Laughing Squid
I and others warned John to *not* use Paypal for political donations because of this and did it anyhow - I am sorry to see.
2 years ago
in Free WiFi in San Francisco Hitting a Bump on Webomatica
Take a look at the comments at the Davis Freeberg post. The discussion is much fuller than what initially described.
2 years ago
in San Francisco Local Politics Derail Free WiFi Project on Davis Freeberg's Digital Connection
Davis - Eric wasn't at that meeting.
2 years ago
in San Francisco Local Politics Derail Free WiFi Project on Davis Freeberg's Digital Connection
Mayor didn't come up with this idea first - it was already happening in other parts of the country - Tempe AZ, Philly. What the Mayor did do, was make a big announcement and then start a process with no community buy-in or needs analysis.
The Mayor said We'll give a corporation access to our building tops and lightpoles in exchange for Universal affordable/free WiFi. Well now that we know more we see that it's best effort generally an outdoor solution. And what recourse will a citizen have against Earthlink/Google if they don't get the signal on their desktop machine? Even now in Tempe AZ people complain about the spotty indoor coverage - and they are not seeing a lot of people cancelling their current wired internet connections. The cable company in Tempe - COX to my understanding has not had a need to lower their internet access charges
It seems issues I and others brought up should be answered (even if the answers are not what people desire) before the city signs the 12/16 year Franchise agreement.
I have never meet the two people who you called nutcases before - there was no orchestration. Even Chris Sacca said after the meeting that I was welcome to continue to bring questions like I did to the meetings. Ask him if you don't believe me.
I have never said that I thought a city-owned wifi solution would fix the technical issues that currently exist with MuniWiFi - I don't know why you seem to think I feel that way.
Maybe the city if it is serious about addressing the digital divide needs a multilayered approach that uses WiFi (no matter who owns/runs the network) as well as DSL or Cable or even fiber for places that can't get a good WiFi connection. Maybe the city could pass zoning laws to encourage landlords to open their buildings to support these solutions. I don't have all the answers - but it seems clear that City-Wide Wifi alone isn't going to give the poor the reliable indoor internet access that this initiative was sold as doing.
How would *you* solve this coverage problem?
It's certainly not my assertion that Google must buy spectrum or Wimax - but they are making an offer to the city - But, the city doesn't have to accept what is on the table. I'm glad you feel that Google and Earthlink are reputable businesses giving away WiFi for free - but what are they getting in return? I addressed what earthlink gets in my prior comment, and with it, it would be very difficult financially and logistically for another wireless firm to compete since many of the valuable locations would be in use by Earthlink and they would have signed up most of the relevant customer base.
on the 1mb speed question - metrofi is giving city's 1mb speed free as well as the Google Mtn Vw offering - Why can't SF get the same?
Also again, the city isn't getting Free accounts as I quoted for you from the draft contract.
How about answering some of the questions brought up at the meeting and recounted in my prior comment?
I'll say it again:
San Francisco is already one of the most unwired cities in the nation - you can’t throw a rock without hitting a free wifi cafe. It also has the one of the most favorable demographics and densities for wireless as an ADD-ON - San Francisco should wait for both the Fiber and City-Owned WiFi studies due in December before discussing a Earthlink/Google Franchise agreement.
The Mayor said We'll give a corporation access to our building tops and lightpoles in exchange for Universal affordable/free WiFi. Well now that we know more we see that it's best effort generally an outdoor solution. And what recourse will a citizen have against Earthlink/Google if they don't get the signal on their desktop machine? Even now in Tempe AZ people complain about the spotty indoor coverage - and they are not seeing a lot of people cancelling their current wired internet connections. The cable company in Tempe - COX to my understanding has not had a need to lower their internet access charges
It seems issues I and others brought up should be answered (even if the answers are not what people desire) before the city signs the 12/16 year Franchise agreement.
I have never meet the two people who you called nutcases before - there was no orchestration. Even Chris Sacca said after the meeting that I was welcome to continue to bring questions like I did to the meetings. Ask him if you don't believe me.
I have never said that I thought a city-owned wifi solution would fix the technical issues that currently exist with MuniWiFi - I don't know why you seem to think I feel that way.
Maybe the city if it is serious about addressing the digital divide needs a multilayered approach that uses WiFi (no matter who owns/runs the network) as well as DSL or Cable or even fiber for places that can't get a good WiFi connection. Maybe the city could pass zoning laws to encourage landlords to open their buildings to support these solutions. I don't have all the answers - but it seems clear that City-Wide Wifi alone isn't going to give the poor the reliable indoor internet access that this initiative was sold as doing.
How would *you* solve this coverage problem?
It's certainly not my assertion that Google must buy spectrum or Wimax - but they are making an offer to the city - But, the city doesn't have to accept what is on the table. I'm glad you feel that Google and Earthlink are reputable businesses giving away WiFi for free - but what are they getting in return? I addressed what earthlink gets in my prior comment, and with it, it would be very difficult financially and logistically for another wireless firm to compete since many of the valuable locations would be in use by Earthlink and they would have signed up most of the relevant customer base.
on the 1mb speed question - metrofi is giving city's 1mb speed free as well as the Google Mtn Vw offering - Why can't SF get the same?
Also again, the city isn't getting Free accounts as I quoted for you from the draft contract.
How about answering some of the questions brought up at the meeting and recounted in my prior comment?
I'll say it again:
San Francisco is already one of the most unwired cities in the nation - you can’t throw a rock without hitting a free wifi cafe. It also has the one of the most favorable demographics and densities for wireless as an ADD-ON - San Francisco should wait for both the Fiber and City-Owned WiFi studies due in December before discussing a Earthlink/Google Franchise agreement.
2 years ago
in San Francisco Local Politics Derail Free WiFi Project on Davis Freeberg's Digital Connection
@Davis:
Ha, what makes you think the city is getting municipal Wifi accounts for free?
Here's the current status on that:
City to consider EL for the provision of certain services for which EL has qualified as a sole source provider through the City established policies. EL may also bid on any projects the City makes available through its competitive solicitation process. The City and EL will negotiate mutually agreeable terms for such services as appropriate.
And there is no agreed deal. The April selection was to begin contract Negotiations. They are still very much in progress - this is not surpirsing Philly took 6-8 months - there is no rush here - San Francisco should get the best deal it can for it's citizens - don't you agree?
Here's the current status:
http://www.sfgov.org/site/tech_connect_index.as...
Ha, what makes you think the city is getting municipal Wifi accounts for free?
Here's the current status on that:
City to consider EL for the provision of certain services for which EL has qualified as a sole source provider through the City established policies. EL may also bid on any projects the City makes available through its competitive solicitation process. The City and EL will negotiate mutually agreeable terms for such services as appropriate.
And there is no agreed deal. The April selection was to begin contract Negotiations. They are still very much in progress - this is not surpirsing Philly took 6-8 months - there is no rush here - San Francisco should get the best deal it can for it's citizens - don't you agree?
Here's the current status:
http://www.sfgov.org/site/tech_connect_index.as...
2 years ago
in San Francisco Local Politics Derail Free WiFi Project on Davis Freeberg's Digital Connection
I was at the meeting that Davis writes about and had a much different take.
Give me a break. Politics are messy - this is how issues are brought up, not by backroom deals done by lawyers.
Muni Wifi is all about real estate - about essentially exclusive access to favorable lightpoles and city buildings (24x7 power with no trees and blocking structures). If Earthlink gets these - it's pretty unlikely that another provider will be able to come into the city afterwards with the slim pickings. Earthlink has been desperate to control the pipe and here in San Francisco Google is helping them get that monopoly control.
San Francisco has 4-5 Cell phone providers who compete viciously but will have only 1 WiFi Franchise. When the next WiFi tech comes out that actually works decently this franchise will be just like your Cable or phone company jacking the city around because they own the network.
While there were two audience members that where on the outer fringes and somewhat technically uninformed, that really was the supposed purpose of these Sales (oh, um Community) meetings right? If you exclude their concerns - which should still be answered - the discussion on both sides was not at all as you characterize it. And I would summarize thier issues as: the poor get screwed and there is no such thing as a free lunch. You can't blame them for being fearful.
Did you mention speakers from the Techconnect Taskforce asking for digital inclusion funding? What about the question from the audience about undergrounding of utilities - how that might effect Muni WiFi already offered in an area? How about the question: I can use a wifi connection in a cafe without signing in - then why do i have to sign-in to the projected free google network? How about Why is Google giving Mountain View 1000k Free and San Francisco only 300k Free? Or how will people get tech support for the google free wifi network when the only support offered is online? Or what recourse will a citzen have who lives in an apartment with a desktop have if the can't get the wifi? Let's call Muni Wifi for what it is with current tech: spotty indoor coverage - best effort at most. So the city issues a 12 year lightpole franchise to earthlink/google for unreliable wireless internet.
Its strange that Google is running these meetings when Earthlink is negotiating the contract with the city - what's going on here?
Why doesn't Google take the money they would put into this initiative and give it to San Francisco for a Hybrid Fiber/WiFi solution like Seattle's Fiber First initiative? That would be really innovative. Berekely is looking at Fiber, Palo Alto is looking at Fiber, etc the list is growing daily.
The reason SF is so messed up is because there was no Needs Analysis or Community buy-in before the bids began - Philly took at least 6 months doing this before they issued their RFP and then they made the top respondents implement 1 mile sq test plots.
Essentially Mayor Newsom and the Google founders cooked up this deal and has been trying to force it onto the city from the beginning. For example Google's Request for Information response had 90 of it's 100 pages fully redacted/blacked out - and while their have been at least 6 public hearings on the Muni Wifi initiative at city hall - neither Google nor Earthlink have participated at any of them while other vendors have.
San Francisco is already one of the most unwired cities in the nation - you can't throw a rock without hitting a free wifi cafe. It also has the one of the most favorable demographics and densities for wireless as an ADD-ON - San Francisco should wait for both the Fiber and City-Owned WiFi studies due in December before discussing a Earthlink/Google Franchise agreement.
Give me a break. Politics are messy - this is how issues are brought up, not by backroom deals done by lawyers.
Muni Wifi is all about real estate - about essentially exclusive access to favorable lightpoles and city buildings (24x7 power with no trees and blocking structures). If Earthlink gets these - it's pretty unlikely that another provider will be able to come into the city afterwards with the slim pickings. Earthlink has been desperate to control the pipe and here in San Francisco Google is helping them get that monopoly control.
San Francisco has 4-5 Cell phone providers who compete viciously but will have only 1 WiFi Franchise. When the next WiFi tech comes out that actually works decently this franchise will be just like your Cable or phone company jacking the city around because they own the network.
While there were two audience members that where on the outer fringes and somewhat technically uninformed, that really was the supposed purpose of these Sales (oh, um Community) meetings right? If you exclude their concerns - which should still be answered - the discussion on both sides was not at all as you characterize it. And I would summarize thier issues as: the poor get screwed and there is no such thing as a free lunch. You can't blame them for being fearful.
Did you mention speakers from the Techconnect Taskforce asking for digital inclusion funding? What about the question from the audience about undergrounding of utilities - how that might effect Muni WiFi already offered in an area? How about the question: I can use a wifi connection in a cafe without signing in - then why do i have to sign-in to the projected free google network? How about Why is Google giving Mountain View 1000k Free and San Francisco only 300k Free? Or how will people get tech support for the google free wifi network when the only support offered is online? Or what recourse will a citzen have who lives in an apartment with a desktop have if the can't get the wifi? Let's call Muni Wifi for what it is with current tech: spotty indoor coverage - best effort at most. So the city issues a 12 year lightpole franchise to earthlink/google for unreliable wireless internet.
Its strange that Google is running these meetings when Earthlink is negotiating the contract with the city - what's going on here?
Why doesn't Google take the money they would put into this initiative and give it to San Francisco for a Hybrid Fiber/WiFi solution like Seattle's Fiber First initiative? That would be really innovative. Berekely is looking at Fiber, Palo Alto is looking at Fiber, etc the list is growing daily.
The reason SF is so messed up is because there was no Needs Analysis or Community buy-in before the bids began - Philly took at least 6 months doing this before they issued their RFP and then they made the top respondents implement 1 mile sq test plots.
Essentially Mayor Newsom and the Google founders cooked up this deal and has been trying to force it onto the city from the beginning. For example Google's Request for Information response had 90 of it's 100 pages fully redacted/blacked out - and while their have been at least 6 public hearings on the Muni Wifi initiative at city hall - neither Google nor Earthlink have participated at any of them while other vendors have.
San Francisco is already one of the most unwired cities in the nation - you can't throw a rock without hitting a free wifi cafe. It also has the one of the most favorable demographics and densities for wireless as an ADD-ON - San Francisco should wait for both the Fiber and City-Owned WiFi studies due in December before discussing a Earthlink/Google Franchise agreement.
2 years ago
in http://laughingsquid.com/the-squid-list/ on Laughing Squid
Hi Scott
I understand about the desire for a stand alone script. It seems that there will be some mashup sooner or later to support what you desire and possibly a secondary posting of the events on a hosted solution.
On the layered issue, as I mentioned, by having submitters tag their events, one could quickly - interactively reduce the number of events displayed for each day, for example unselect Dancing if that is not of interest.
and in fact if you look at the Trumba calendar I referenced:
http://www.nytimes.com/ref/automobiles/event_ca...
You'll see that without unselecting any of the layers it handles 20 events on July 16th with ease.
I understand about the desire for a stand alone script. It seems that there will be some mashup sooner or later to support what you desire and possibly a secondary posting of the events on a hosted solution.
On the layered issue, as I mentioned, by having submitters tag their events, one could quickly - interactively reduce the number of events displayed for each day, for example unselect Dancing if that is not of interest.
and in fact if you look at the Trumba calendar I referenced:
http://www.nytimes.com/ref/automobiles/event_ca...
You'll see that without unselecting any of the layers it handles 20 events on July 16th with ease.
2 years ago
in http://laughingsquid.com/the-squid-list/ on Laughing Squid
Scott
I wish you guys would have found a way to embrace calendar 2.0 - interactive calendars - in particular look at the sample interactive Auto Calendar at tne NY Times by Trumba
http://www.nytimes.com/ref/automobiles/event_ca...
note that it supports calendar Appointments to Yahoo, Outlook, Hotmail, Ical and Google.
And for interactivity, Google Calendar is the gold standard now - they just need to come out with tools to let it sync with other calendars. And it already supports inviting friends to an event.
By having submitters tag their events - say Dance, Reading, or Political you could create layered calendars very easily.
I wish you guys would have found a way to embrace calendar 2.0 - interactive calendars - in particular look at the sample interactive Auto Calendar at tne NY Times by Trumba
http://www.nytimes.com/ref/automobiles/event_ca...
note that it supports calendar Appointments to Yahoo, Outlook, Hotmail, Ical and Google.
And for interactivity, Google Calendar is the gold standard now - they just need to come out with tools to let it sync with other calendars. And it already supports inviting friends to an event.
By having submitters tag their events - say Dance, Reading, or Political you could create layered calendars very easily.
