 RadioDocYeah, like it matters.Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
La Grange, IL
kudos:2 | Earthlink? Are they still in business? Where are all of their WiFi projects?
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
|
|
 wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace
join:2004-08-07
New York, NY | 4 years late, and nothing to show for it! For a network that was supposed to be up and running in 2004, this cant be a shock to anyone. What a joke this was, and what a waste of money.
--
с новым годом |
|
 nipseyrusselNipsey Russell, yo
join:2002-02-22
Philadelphia, PA | well, at least "The city and the taxpayers are not paying anything for the network buildout or operation" |
|
howrman
join:2000-07-08
Philadelphia, PA | reply to wifi4milez
said by wifi4milez:For a network that was supposed to be up and running in 2004, this cant be a shock to anyone. What a joke this was, and what a waste of money. Actually, there's a lot to show for it. The network is up and running and it's about 70% complete. Plus, it hasn't cost the City a penny. All in all, even if Earthlink bails, it was a very good deal. |
|
 feek
join:2002-01-23
Philadelphia, PA | earthlink wifi im using it right now. it's way overpriced for what it is (often slow, usually unstable connection), but good if you're desperate
--
"why don't we all strap bombs to our chests and ride our bikes to the next G7 picnic?" |
|
 Lone WolfIndependent Voter, Buy Gold and GunsPremium
join:2001-12-30
USA
kudos:1
 ·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Comcast
| reply to wifi4milez
Re: 4 years late, and nothing to show for it! Here's an older article on Philly WiFi....
»www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/···632.html
"Tripped by wireless
Phila. and other cities promising WiFi ignored obstacles." |
|
| reply to howrman
Why not get an IT guy that knows what he's doing, then buy bandwidth from a Tier I provider, maybe a have a rudundant backup by another Tier I provider....then you've cut out the middleman(Earthlink)...then maybe you'll have a workable WiFi system on a municipal basis. As the previous post said "The network is up and running and it's about 70% complete". So why do you need Earthlink ?? |
|
1 edit | reply to howrman
said by howrman:Actually, there's a lot to show for it. The network is up and running and it's about 70% complete. Plus, it hasn't cost the City a penny. All in all, even if Earthlink bails, it was a very good deal. That is complete fiction.
The network was slated to cover the entire city.
Right now it barely reaches out of Center City, if you can even find it working there.
Like most other technology projects that the city runs, Philadelphia Municipal Wifi is a complete disaster.
I saw this coming YEARS ago, as did anyone else who knows how Philadelphia's city government operates.
That said, I don't think ANYONE ANYWHERE has come up with a viable business model for municipal wifi. The fact that a city CAN do wifi, doesn't mean it SHOULD. While cities spin their wheels trying to work out kinks SLOWLY, like everything else in government, their private sector competition advances in leaps and bounds, giving few but the ultra-poor ANY reason to consider the second-rate service offered by municipalities.
If Philadelphia's city government REALLY wants to put more-affordable broadband into more of its citizen's hands, it should stop running interference for Comcast and allow Verizon FIOS within city limits.
But I won't be holding my breath waiting for this, anymore than I was holding my breath waiting for city wifi ANYWHERE NEAR my neighborhood in NE Philly.
|
|
| Let Philadelphians Know About It!! I manage a high volume shop at 31st and Grays Ferry Ave.
Almost no one and I mean no more than a couple of customers know anything about Earthlink's wireless network.
I guess my next email is to Mayor Nutter to explain the problem since no one else has.
Here in Philly it's a pretty cool situation. No good for P2P, but plenty of bandwidth for regular net activities. $20/mo is a little steep compared to Verizon DSL, but the portability at over 80% and climbing of the city is way cool.
BTW insiders tell me Philly should have the fiber laid (FIOS) for the entire city by year's end. No word on lighting it up yet. |
|
| I told you so - WiFi is not the solution In many columns I have said WiFi was not the Universal Solution. I rest my case.
ALSO - The municipality needs to have a stake in the game - nothing is FREE. |
|
| WiFi was not right »wistechnology.com/article.php?id=4096
All the "experts" were really not too expert.
Maybe WiMAX and fiber combined. WiFi is good for coffee shops and not major metropolitan areas. As I said in articles - just because you built a Lionel track in your basement doesn't qualify you to be the Chief Infrastructure Engineer for the Burlington Northern. Same goes for communication networks. |
|
 marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:2 | Your article misses the mark on one point.
You approach with the assumption that muni wi-fi is to provide wi-fi to the residents. This is not the primary purpose of muni wi-fi. The primary purpose is to provide wi-fi to government services, especially mobile vehicles and in emergency scenarios. Cities do not turn to the likes of earthlink for these networks. They turn to established providers of vhf, microwave, and cellular technologies.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | reply to ashworth
Re: 4 years late, and nothing to show for it! Oversubscribtion cough cough. Tier 1 bandwidth is 20-60 a mbit per month. Wanna pay? Bandwidth is a rip off these days, Tier 1s charge as much as they can because they know they are valuable. |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | reply to Nightstick
said by Nightstick:The network was slated to cover the entire city. Right now it barely reaches out of Center City, if you can even find it working there. So this map is a complete lie? ahhahaah »www.wirelessphiladelphia.org/cov···area.cfm |
|
| Absolutely!
A WiFi router stapled to a telephone pole is not "coverage."
Sustainable connectivity=coverage. Good luck finding THAT anywhere outside the initial pilot areas. |
|
| reply to marigolds
Re: WiFi was not right said by marigolds:Your article misses the mark on one point. You approach with the assumption that muni wi-fi is to provide wi-fi to the residents. This is not the primary purpose of muni wi-fi. The primary purpose is to provide wi-fi to government services, especially mobile vehicles and in emergency scenarios. Cities do not turn to the likes of earthlink for these networks. They turn to established providers of vhf, microwave, and cellular technologies. Really?
Well maybe somebody should clue the Philadelphia Police and Fire departments into this plan...because there is not ONE patrol car or piece of mobile fire equipment currently using anything on the mirage called Philly Wifi.
The "primary purpose" (using your words) of municipal wifi in Philly was the city controlling/administering the distribution of broadband as a new government-funded welfare entitlement. This is what the city already managed to do with the municipal gas and water utilities it has run into the ground. Somehow the natural gas and water utilities in Philly have been transformed into social services for the poor, funded by an ever-decreasing pool of people who actually pay their utility bills.
But what the dopey city broadband proponents didn't realize is that consumers have viable, market-driven alternatives to municipal wifi. So they aren't STUCK with an overpriced municipal wifi utility, like they are with natural gas and water in Philly.
Without a viable business model, municipal wifi projects nationwide will quickly evaporate. |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | reply to Nightstick
Re: 4 years late, and nothing to show for it! Are you expecting full building penetration or something? Using a directional antenna at a window and a inside dwelling repeater I would say should be standard procedure. Full building penetration would mean every lightpole or every other lightpole must have an AP. I am going to assume thats what your talking about. Or is there extreme wifi interference (# of APs) that makes its impossible to use even with LOS to the AP? If you can't get a connection with LOS to the AP on the pole, your story is too fishy.
IEEE needs to be put in the stocks for not having transmit power control in WiFi (using minimum amount of power needed to reach client), because they have polluted 2.4ghz so badly in urban/suburban areas. |
|
marigoldsGainfully employed, finallyPremium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:2 | reply to Nightstick
Re: WiFi was not right Philly Wifi was not a municipal wifi project though. It was some hybrid with a completely different purpose, as you pointed out.
Read Tom Carlini's article. He is talking about muni wifi in general as a network structure; and starting from the assumption that the primary purpose should be profitability. And then arguing that a profitable business model does not exist (which I think is true).
The problem is that the business model for successful muni fi is not about profitability but about cost savings. There are extremely successful municipal wifi, electric utilities, water utilities, etc. that operate on a service provision and cost savings model. In the case of wifi, they make the important distinction that they are not providing broadband services to the whole populace, but rather only to city services. This replaces the fortune that has to currently be spent on mobile broadband services, resulting in a huge cost savings.
Profitable? Not at all when the city is the only customer. Saves taxpayer money? Absolutely.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher |
|
