
how-to block ads
|
  DaneJasper Sonic.Net Premium,VIP join:2001-08-20 Santa Rosa, CA clubs:
| reply to Time4aNAP Re: A Solution Without a Need
said by Time4aNAP :said by DaneJasper :It's not so much for institutions as cable companies. Hey, I'm just going by the Rich Media article, that says " municipalities, tourism centers, small businesses and universities in North America". If that's in error, take it up with them. The idea is that then can feed these WiFi units directly from their cable plant. That begs the question as to whether or not the cable plants have the power insertion capacity to handle the additional loads from these devices. After that, where do they place the radios, and the necessary antenna cluster? A lot of cable plants are buried. Those that aren't are typically leasing space on utility poles owned by the utilities that were there first. Like the phone company. I seriously doubt that AT&SBC, Qwest or Verizon will be magnanimous when their tenants/competition want to add the extra tonnage to their poles that will be required to support a workable WISP operation. And Cisco equipment is anything but inexpensive. One way or another, this is going to cost big money to build out. Now it might seem to be a great choice for a cable company, with years of experience using coaxial cable for analog TV to keep on using it for data-only applications as well. After all, they have tons of the stuff, right? The thing is: cable companies have to buy that RG-6 just like everybody else. It's not free, and it's significantly more expensive per foot than CAT5-6 UTP. I just don't see the limits of their existing physical plants falling neatly into the exact same spots where a Wi-Fi radio is needed. And the engineers and technicians who operate the current system will not automatically be competent to operate the WISP system just because it uses coax. Furthermore, 99% of DOCSIS is about keeping the customer from having any possibility of controlling their cable modem, which simply isn't an issue here. So I repeat, what's the advantage of the Cisco Aironet 1520? For my money, a risky venture like this, competing with everyone including yourself, had better be done with a bare minimum capital outlay because it's bound to fail. You're right on so very many points here. If WiFi is going to succeed, it's got to be cheap, that's a major failing of most systems. Both Cisco and Tropos are just too darned expensive, in my opinion.
As for feeding the upstream via DOCSIS, and competing with oneself and pole mounting, there might be some applications. For example, a city owned municipal cable system which wants city-wide WiFi, and isn't concerned about the fact that it's competing with it's own cable Internet access. Perhaps they're charging something extra to use the WiFi, who knows. I don't know if it's a solution without a problem or not, though it does seem like there would be pretty limited users.
-Dane | |  Time4aNAP Premium join:2007-04-09 Des Plaines, IL
| said by DaneJasper :Both Cisco and Tropos are just too darned expensive, in my opinion. I agree. Hasn't the #1 reason for implementing 802.11 hotspots and larger ad hoc, grassroots WLANs (in hopes of creating the first WMAN) been because of inexpensive, off-the-shelf 802.11b equipment? That Cisco 2500 that's been bringing T-1 service to the company LAN for the last decade without a single failure was well worth its several-thousand dollar price tag. The thing is that T-1 and Ethernet have been around for a whole lot longer than 802.11, and will still be around long after 802.11x has become as obsolete as the original 1 Mbps 802.11 stuff is today.
Spending top dollar on equipment that's designed for a standard that's already at the end of its lifespan is like buying a new Mercedes to take to the demolition derby.
As for feeding the upstream via DOCSIS, and competing with oneself and pole mounting, there might be some applications. It's not so much that there are applications (although I wouldn't take it as a given; Wi-Fi hotspots are still boutique offerings), it's more about the dubious efficacy of using Cisco's Aironet 1520 system to turn a cable company into a WISP just like that. For such an expensive product, it leaves the bulk of the engineering challenges, namely powering the devices, to the customer. No thanks!
For example, a city owned municipal cable system which wants city-wide WiFi, and isn't concerned about the fact that it's competing with it's own cable Internet access. Perhaps they're charging something extra to use the WiFi, who knows. Are there any city-owned municipal cable systems in America?
I think the more likely scenario would be a small city or suburban town that makes a sweetheart deal with their cable franchisee to make it so that they too can brag of being "wireless", mainly to benefit the politicians. The cable company would most likely receive a set fee from the municipality for building the WMAN, and wouldn't expect to turn a profit from subscriber fees. What's more, the politicians will want public areas (parks, recreational and sports arenas, the town square, etc., places where there never was and never will be any use for an expanded conventional cable infrastructure) to have free coverage.
If I was a major cable company manager, I'd be pretty conservative. I wouldn't want to commingle our large, established core business with this relatively small, risky venture. I'd want the WISP to be completely separate, from our fiber backbone outwards. I'd built a bare-minimum WISP plant with an expected lifespan of a year, maybe two. After that time, I'd expect 802.16, Canopy and whatever might come along to make an 802.11 network pointless and impractical, let the town pay us a second time to remove the WISP, and get back to our core business. | |  hottboiinnc ME
join:2003-10-15 Cleveland, OH | Actually there are a few Mini owned cable systems.
One was Lebanon Telecom before they sold the system to Cincinnati Bell and there is San Bruno Cable in California. There are others just not heard of. | |
|