said by wifi4milez :

Feel free to do some research yourself (on this very site!) if you dont believe me.

Ok so first you question my statement and then you agree with me?? Chose your side of the argument and stick with it!

said by wierdo :

Being pedantic won't help you communicate with others. Understand what they mean, not what a dictionary says they should have.

Unless of course you don't actually want to communicate, in which case by all means continue. :)

said by wifi4milez :

I have difficulty with language? See the definition of "most" below.

Most (definition according to Dictionary.com)

said by wierdo :

You have difficulty with language, it appears. "Most" could easily have meant "most of the failures," and even if "most" meant "most municipal wifi efforts fail," that's a far cry from saying 90% fail, which is an extraordinary claim.

Of course, in my experience most non municipal wifi efforts fail, too, just like in every other industry.

said by wifi4milez :

Ok so first you question my statement and then you agree with me?? Chose your side of the argument and stick with it!

said by NetAdmin :

90%, ehh ? Do you have actual data to backup that number or are you making up your facts and figures?

said by NetAdmin :

And the reason most muni efforts "fail" is because most people have unrealistic expectations of the timeframe for ROI because most people don't have a clue about networks and the costs associated with them.

said by wifi4milez :

There is a reason 90% of muni efforts fail......

said by wifi4milez :

No need for that, they would use a VPN instead.

said by wierdo :

You fail to include the thousands of dollars a month for a pipe from the 3G provider back to the city's internal network.

said by wifi4milez :

There is a reason 90% of muni efforts fail......

said by wifi4milez :

Just because you are using something for internal purposes doesnt mean it wont need to be upgraded. Unless the city doesnt plan on ever adding any new capabilities to their network, they will need to upgrade. Realistically, they will likely have to start upgrading within 5 years. Technology, especially when its used outside, has a fairly short life span. In 5 years, it wont make any sense for the city to go dumpster diving looking for old wireless cards when newer, better ones are available. As they add more cameras they will need higher bandwidth to be able to monitor them. As they come up with new uses for the network it will require more bandwidth to work. All of these things require additional (new) equipment.

said by MarkyD :

Edit: By the way, the AP's are ALL OVER THE PLACE. I have no idea how this was done for 5 million, but there are a TON of the APs on light poles all around town.

said by OverModded :

You make a good point. They probably could have done a nice deal with a 3G provider for about the same cost. But at least this WiFi rollout made more sense than most.

said by firephoto :

Going with a service provider means going out on bid which means going out on bid repeatedly so others have a chance in the future and being at the mercy of the provider when they decide to use new equipment. It also means an account per device, not per person.

said by NetAdmin :

Long term, it costs LESS to own and operate the network themselves... Period. Lower cost, better for the tax payers.

said by wifi4milez :

But thats just the point. Sprint (or whoever the provider is) will give the new cards out for free. If the city is managing the network then they need to go out and purchase new equipment.

I also have access points that have been working for years, however they arent outside and I would bet neither are yours.

said by jester121 :

Maintenance costs happen. The laptops in the cars will need to be replaced, as will the cars themselves. Do you think Sprint will still be offering the same cards 7 years from now? I think not.

said by jester121 :

On the other hand, wireless protocols tend to stick around for quite some time. I still have some 802.11b access points that have been running for years, at a maintenance cost of precisely $0 per year.

said by googoodan :

Argument #1) If OKC has 1020 police officers, then surely there aren't 1020 people walking the streets with no break. They take shifts. Even if they just work two 12-hour shifts per day, all officers do not work every day. A more realistic number of officers on patrol at any given time is between 75-175.

said by googoodan :

Argument #2) From what I understand, this wi-fi network is not an ISP. It is a local area network. It will be used for internal purposes only. I could be wrong, but I did not read anything that would lead me to believe otherwise.

said by googoodan :

Argument #3) I could imagine city EMT or other emergency services using this, but realistically, 900 other people using this network?

said by googoodan :

Even at the reduced intial costs of going with a national carrier, the city will end up saving money in the long run. Since this network appears to be an internal LAN, there is no real need to upgrade as technology evolves. Every network device will still be connected to the same network using the same technology. Why would the city need to upgrade because an ISP upgrades their technology?

said by MarkyD :

Another problem with aircards is available bandwidth, especially when you're using a VPN tunnel. AT&T 3G coverage in OKC is spotty at best. Sprint Rev A is the only other option, and their coverage here is not fantastic, either.
Edit: By the way, the AP's are ALL OVER THE PLACE. I have no idea how this was done for 5 million, but there are a TON of the APs on light poles all around town.

said by wifi4milez :

Here is why I disagree. Oklahoma City currently has 1020 police officers. Lets assume that 85% of them are on street patrol, which gives you 867. Now, lets assume that the total number of "other" employees of the city who would use this system (fire department, ordinance, etc.) is another 900. This means you have a total of 1767 people who will be using the network. Sprint charges a standard list rate of $39.99 per month per laptop card (they would certainly provide the actual cards for free with this kind of volume). On top of that, Sprint (and all other carriers) offer corporate, or volume, discounts to customers who have a large number of devices. Lets assume that in this case it would be 15%. This means the cost per user (per month) would be $33.99. Multiply that by the number of users (1767) and you get $60,062 per month. The $5 million that the city spent on their own network (which they have to constantly maintain and upgrade!) would provide 83 years of managed service from Sprint! As I said before, the wireless carrier is responsible for all the upgrades, maintenance, etc. If the wireless cards fail, Sprint repairs or replaces them. If towers need more bandwidth, well you get the point. The point is that for the same cost the city spent to just to start this network, they could have paid for almost a century of future proof technology. Was it a good deal? I think not.

said by iansltx :

But what's done is done. Now to amortize the cost of the wireless network over what's basically forever in the tech world. Though in ten years the network will be antiquated in the face of 4G+ technologies, or appliations that require more bandwidth than the current setup can handle.

said by KrK :

As to an outside vendor having to bear the costs of maintenance, upgrades, expansion, this is all true points... but a business doesn't work for free. These costs would be passed back to the city in the form of rate increases or usage charges.... they certainly aren't going to just do it for free....

said by Jodokast96 :

Glad someone here knows how to count.

said by wifi4milez :

I think cities in general are not set up to be service providers. They certainly needed to hire additional people to manage this new network, and as things get more complex that will continue. There is something to be said for outsourcing technology, especially since it puts the onus of keeping the technology current on the vendor instead of the taxpayers.

said by KrK :

That's not 83 years. It's 83 months.

said by KrK :

That's not 83 years. It's 83 months.

said by wifi4milez :

Lets assume that in this case it would be 15%. This means the cost per user (per month) would be $33.99. Multiply that by the number of users (1767) and you get $60,062 per month. The $5 million that the city spent on their own network (which they have to constantly maintain and upgrade!) would provide 83 years of managed service from Sprint!

said by wifi4milez :

While this type of implementation is certainly better than most, I still question if it was the best way to spend the cities money. My main issue is that wifi has a very limited range, and requires multiple access points to work properly. I have a hard time believing that this network covers the entire 555 square mile area, especially for such a "low" cost.

On the other hand, I can almost guarantee that the whole 555 square mile area is covered by "cellular" service, and likely 3G at that. Would a better solution have been for each municipal worker to be issued a laptop card instead? The city could simply encrypt the traffic using a VPN back their central servers, and the infrastructure (cell towers) is already in place. I suspect that they could have worked out a much better deal with a wireless provider, AND they wouldnt be responsible for maintenance of the outside plant and so forth.

said by MarkyD :

I disagree with a number of your statements. As someone with first-hand knowledge of how this system is set up, I can tell you the coverage is VERY good. Bandwidth is adequate in almost all areas for them to do what they need to do.
Aircards for everyone would prove to be very costly in the long term...the monthly recurring cost alone would be brutal. This network can be maintained with a minimal amount of administrative effort and tax dollars.

said by wifi4milez :

While this type of implementation is certainly better than most, I still question if it was the best way to spend the cities money. My main issue is that wifi has a very limited range, and requires multiple access points to work properly. I have a hard time believing that this network covers the entire 555 square mile area, especially for such a "low" cost.

On the other hand, I can almost guarantee that the whole 555 square mile area is covered by "cellular" service, and likely 3G at that. Would a better solution have been for each municipal worker to be issued a laptop card instead? The city could simply encrypt the traffic using a VPN back their central servers, and the infrastructure (cell towers) is already in place. I suspect that they could have worked out a much better deal with a wireless provider, AND they wouldnt be responsible for maintenance of the outside plant and so forth.

The bottom line is that I think the wifi system will be useless unless the officer/operations worker/etc. is sitting right underneath one of the access points. My feeling is this is $5M down the tubes, and take a guess who paid for it!...........