|
 
GetAClueDude
@bellsouth.net
| Re: Why coverage gaps with base stations right there It's more complicated than that... You need to know at what height the access point is located and then anything around it may be located. Unfortunately, looking at the satellite imagery won't give you that. You would need detailed altimetric data. The satellite imagery causes distortion of the terrain that, without training, makes it extremely difficult to extrapolate the height of features. | |
|
morbo
Complete Your Transaction
join:2002-01-22
00000
clubs: | I thought they were trying to avoid coverage to apartment complexes in the area? Also, is there a simple way to direct coverage away from specific areas? | |
|
 | 
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
2 edits | Re: Why coverage gaps with base stations right there said by morbo  :I thought they were trying to avoid coverage to apartment complexes in the area? Also, is there a simple way to direct coverage away from specific areas? You definitely can arrange antennas to not be omnidirectional. But why would they avoid apartment complexes. And after doing some checking I see that they didn't want to provide INDOOR coverage. So that would explain the holes around apartment comlexes. »wifinetnews.com/archives/006771.html
Recall that Mountain View isn’t designed for indoor coverage. [link via GigaOm via Niall] --
--
Join Red Room Forum
BLOG tkjunkmail.blogspot.com
My Web Page | |
|
truocchio
join:2004-07-05
Miami Beach, FL
1 edit | It is nearly impossible to avoid covering nearby areas, even with directional antennas you still have significant back plane that will provide coverage if close enough. That being said there is no way to accurately do a coverage map because it really all depends on the strength of your wireless card and the antenna gain on the card (or internal laptop antenna). So they should have said that this is the coverage with xx mw card and xx gain antenna. A high power radio with high gain antenna could pick this up from miles away.
These coverage gaps are probably areas they were told to stay away from or that are just not a location they want included in the "coverage zone". Other may be due to geographic or other obstacles (see below post of large house, lmao), whether physical or political.
I am probably going to flamed for this but the whole idea just really is a bit silly. 370 transmitters plus backhaul units to give outdoor internet access of 1 mbps. Most if not all people there will still need their own home connection, because its an outdoor network and 1 meg (best case) will not cut it for your average silicon valley resident. I can see some convenience factors for public areas, which can be done without doing the every persons front yard at a considerable price savings. Lastly anyone who truly needs mobile coverage probably has EVDO or some other 3g which are now clocking in at 3x1.8megs (see article above). Great concept but I miss the practicality of the whole thing and the ROI, not monetary, but usage wise. I guess we can wait 6 month and see how much this network actually gets utilized. My guess is low usage.... | |
|
| 
sapo
I eat meat
Premium
join:2002-09-16
Sacramento, CA
| Re: Why coverage gaps with base stations right there Id agree, this looks like a project of someone who had nothing better to do. Then again free outdoor Internet even at 1mbps is awesome, your average Silicon Valley person basically just needs enough to download MP3s.
--
La ilaha illah Allah | |
|
|
|
|
Why coverage gaps with base stations right there