I wanted to share an article with you about the limitations of wireless networks. These networks have received a lot of coverage recently as new technologies emerge. Of course, fiber technologies continue to advance as well. So yes, wireless is convenient, but it inherently has a lot of problems that fiber does not. Also, as Roxanne Murphy highlighted at when she answered my questions about her stance on fiber at the May 19th Endorsements Meeting, "you need fiber to do wireless." She also then talked about the success of fiber in Tacoma. Also, no matter what solution we go with we want it to be public for all of the reasons I've listed before and more. The COB was NOT "smart" to ignore our infrastructure needs, keep poor records, and "wait for wireless." There simply is no comparison from a performance standpoint. Yes, wireless is convenient and we should have more wireless too, but it needs to be backed up by fiber and we need to do it in a way that does not negatively impact our environment. Senator Ericksen's 5711 bill, for example, will remove all land usage policies from large companies looking to put lots of wireless dishes in. The bill is disturbing in many more ways than that, but talking about it would require a separate update. Anyway, the bottom line is that Bellingham is way behind in telecom infrastructure and needs to put more fiber in, and you need fiber to do wireless well. No matter what the hype is wireless and satellite communications will always require more translation, and be higher latency, than a fiber cable. Remember, a lot of the companies running stories about new technologies also get advertising revenue from the companies creating them. It's time for Bellingham to stop messing around and give our citizens, including businesses, what they need. Wireless networks cost more to maintain in the long run than fiber. Even Google is not totally sold on them. Yes, they are doing some, but internally they are not sure that wireless is worth it when compared to fiber.