pnh102
Reptiles Are Cuddly And Pretty
Premium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Lather... Rinse... Repeat...
At least the taxpayers will not be on the hook for this. |
|
TuPaK
join:2002-07-21
San Gabriel, CA | Chandler, AZ (about 25 min south of Scottsale)....
was planning on a city-wide WiFi but it didn't go anywhere.
I remember reading it in their local paper a few years back and they were serious about having it ready by late 2007.
*yawn* |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
 ·Cox HSI
 ·magicjack.com
| said by TuPaK  :was planning on a city-wide WiFi but it didn't go anywhere. I believe that was Kite Networks (owned by Mobile Pro), purchased by Gobility. Kite did Tempe's muni wifi. At about the time Gobility was closing the deal, Kite/Mobile Pro took the network off line. Gobility went ahead with the purchase. But, the last thing I read is that the network is operating in an unsupported state. Customers can still use it if (if an access point is still functioning). Nobody's being billed. If an access point goes down, nobody will fix it.
I used Kite about 18 months ago. I'm 90 yards from the nearest access point (which was removed three months ago when the city relocated the light pole two feet). I got a good signal using a directional panel antenna pointed out a window. I didn't have line of sight. It worked fine until the wind blew. I think my signal was based upon reflections. When the wind blew, the reflections became unstable due to trees swaying.
I've read wireless N is supposed to reduce reflection problems. Even capitalize on reflections. I wonder if these muni projects will use N.
Mark |
|
NOCMan
Verizon Fios User
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Flower Mound, TX | Nix City Wide expand as needed.
If I were to do it, I'd give a company a tax break for coverage of the low income areas and deploy as needed in other useful areas.
--
Mac Chatter
»www.macchatter.net |
|
dagg
join:2001-03-25
Rio Linda, CA
·Cox HSI
 ·Covad Communications
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| reply to amigo_boy
Re: Chandler, AZ (about 25 min south of Scottsale)....
said by amigo_boy :said by TuPaK :was planning on a city-wide WiFi but it didn't go anywhere. I believe that was Kite Networks (owned by Mobile Pro), purchased by Gobility. close, it was NeoReach who was owned by MobilePro that started the tempe/chandler/gilbert network. MobilePro then bought Kite in order to run those wireless operations as Kite was already supporting the old SprintMMDS fixed wireless operations. I dont know what happened with gilbert but i know much of tempe was already built out before kite came into the picture.
Gobility came into the picute as a result of the spectacular failure of mesh networks to provide adequate service in both the tempe market and the farmers branch market. |
|
dagg
join:2001-03-25
Rio Linda, CA
·Cox HSI
·Covad Communications
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
| reply to NOCMan
Re: Nix City Wide expand as needed.
said by NOCMan :If I were to do it, I'd give a company a tax break for coverage of the low income areas and deploy as needed in other useful areas. from the provider side, you cant do it that way. its too expensive to just provide services to one place.
look at it this way:
in tempe and chandler they used strix equipment for the wireless backhauls. those radios cost around 3,500 each. you have to have installers that are certified by the city to hang the APs. you have to have a crew that sets the APs up and you have to have a crew that goes out and figures out where the APs should be hung along with all the other people that you would have in your standard ISP type operation. you also have to backhaul them to a standard T1 or a fiber connection in order to get you to the gateway which was actually in PHX then out to the interwebs. in tempe, there was a HUGE underestimation on how many wireless nodes were needed to cover an area. add to this, many of the underprivileged areas that you are talking about were in areas that were extremely difficult to qualify (the process of deciding what light poles to put the radios on).
the poles have to be a certain type, and they have to have line of sight to the next pole for the backhaul or you have a stranded AP.
merely getting a tax break for starting in those areas would not come close to covering operating expenses. As with all things, when you are starting something up, you have to start where the money is at in order to bring in recurring revenue... and the idea of starting in under-served areas does not bring the money in.
i always thought it was a great idea.. but the more i learned about it, the faster i came to the realization that mesh muni networks are a long way from ever being a realistic option for people. |
|
marigolds
Gainfully employed, finally
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-13
Saint Louis, MO
| reply to pnh102
Re: Lather... Rinse... Repeat...
said by pnh102 :At least the taxpayers will not be on the hook for this. Actually, they are in this case.
Wildfire had a series of bond funding incentives from the city. Also, the city is now on the hook for removing all the hardware on city owned poles and traffic lights (but does not get the hardware). And, of course, the city back SkySong center now loses one of its tenants.
--
ISCABBS - the oldest and largest BBS on the Internet
telnet://bbs.iscabbs.com
Professional Geographer
Geographic Information Science researcher |
|
qworster
join:2001-11-25
Los Angeles, CA
·DSL EXTREME
·Brand X Internet
·RoadRunner Cable
·Vonage
1 edit | The city wifi model does not work.
The city commercial wifi model does not work. Wifi can not sustain itself commercially. If a city wants to build one at their own expense, that's fine-but don't expect it to make any money! It may benefit the city in other ways such as getting people downtown, or staying downtown longer, but time and time again we see these ventures going down the tubes because there's no way to make any money! |
|
rconaway8
join:2005-11-10
Phoenix, AZ
| Municipal Wi-Fi can be profitable
Triad Wireless posted a white paper 3 years ago stating those business models were not based in reality. However, we waited until they quit bullying their way into the market to start deploying our design. Municipal Wi-Fi has great value if you can keep the investment down (ours is 1/10 or less than any of the Earthlink or Metrofi designs), minimize overhead, and give the system a chance to develop clients. However, you have to create the applications that drive bandwdith. For example, the backbone for a city we will be starting in Arizona will cost approximately $3000 to cover backhaul for 36 square miles with almost 80Mbps of bandwidth. And this is scalable as high as necessary once the revenue supports the cost. The more amazing number is we are covering 1.5 square miles with Wi-Fi coverage also. This is accomplished with a better RF design without utilizing. Most areas are a little more but this should get the idea across that commercial Wi-Fi didn't have to be these mutlimillion boondoggles. |
|
