 Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
| Too bad I live in Tempe. I tried Kite for a month (a year ago). It worked ok using a directional antenna and their wireless modem (with higher power than a normal device). But, whenever there was wind it was unusable.
I didn't have line-of-sight to the access point on the light pole 90 yards away. I suspect my signal was based on reflections. When the wind blew, it caused the reflections to move (trees moving, etc.).
Their customer support was good. I always got someone quickly. They refunded all my money when I canceled and returned the device. They didn't even charge me for the month.
I didn't realize Kite sold it to someone else since then. It doesn't surprise me they want out. I don't think anyone in my neighborhood is using it. I don't see how they can make it successful without putting an AP on every lightpole and/or offering exterior installation services using directional antennas.
Mark | |
|
|
 | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
1 edit | Re: unsuccessful in large cities Not sure where you're getting those numbers. In Tempe it was something like $20 a month for 1meg down, $30 for 2meg. (Edit: And no contract.).
It was competitive. DSL ($25 for the landline, $39 for Earthlink, and I only get 300k down). Or, Cox Cable at about $30 for 1.5meg.
I think the problem is that Wireless G isn't suited for this kind of long-distance (100 yards) wireless (in windy conditions, rain, disrupting reflections). I read that N is supposed to take advantage of reflections (thus the multiple antennas). Maybe when it's ubiquitous it would be feasible.
Mark | |
|
| |  Anonymous_AnonymousPremium
join:2004-06-21
127.0.0.1
kudos:2 | Re: unsuccessful in large cities AV radio net is the local Wifi i am talking about | |
|
| | | It's unsuccessful in in large cities due to the business model that's being proposed by the companies bidding to run the network. The cities all want completely free access to any type of wireless network put into place, and the companies want the city to pay them for upkeep, maintenance, and access to the network.
The trouble here is that these cities want something for free and believe that the citizens are a commodity which they can offer up to the wireless networking companies. The reality is that the larger municipalities are still the home of what's referred to as the "Digital Divide", meaning that there are people out there that don't own a computer so essentially there's no customer base. No company is going to invest themselves into a market that doesn't have customers.
If these cities were smart, they'd start offering public internet access at all of the recreation centers, libraries, and publicly held properties. This would be a first step in bridging the divide and would ultimately be viewed as a progressive step forward in the direction of modernization of any city. | |
|
|
| | | Re: small city muni wi-fi... Nice advertising plug Rick...got your name right there at the bottom of the page
Again...it's not the build...it's the business model. | |
|
|
|
·