 |
 | Westofhere
join:2005-04-07
Monroe, WA | Re: Cool! Google should have used green $ signs to indicate the nodes! | |
|
kdandaoc
join:2003-10-13
608052427 | Just wait... Until the city goes to rufians. I wonder how they are protecting the transmitters? | |
|
| 
John Galt
What...me panic??
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Happy Camp
| Re: Just wait... said by kdandaoc  :Until the city goes to rufians. I wonder how they are protecting the transmitters? There are no "ruffians" in Mountain View.
--
A is A | |
|
| | 
koitsu
Premium
join:2002-07-16
Mountain View, CA
| Re: Just wait... Uhhh... wrong. There are quite a lot of "ruffians" here. Mountain View used to be a fairly "ghetto" city, and many parts still are (including many of the regions which do have coverage).
--
Making life hard for others since 1977. | |
|
|
| 
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? | |
|
| | 
LiamJunket
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Ocean City, NJ
 ·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
The Internet is Down
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 | |
|
Quiglag
God is Love
Premium
join:2004-09-19
Ontario, CA
 ·SharkSpace
·PowWeb
| more complicated then that... From the looks of it, they are avoiding those areas. They look like apartments and some look like mobile home parks. Probably using directional antennas and pointing them away from the areas they don't want covered.
--
\o/ My Website | Check Out My Gallery | |
|
|
koitsu
Premium
join:2002-07-16
Mountain View, CA
4 edits | Re: more complicated then that... (EDIT: Wow! I stand corrected about my mobile home statement! Bizarre...)
Most are either a) private housing communities (Google would need permission from the community to install anything on the light posts), or b) very tall buildings such as banks, churches, multi-story offices, and medical centres.
If you're really interested, I can make a weekend out of biking around and taking photos of the areas where there's missing coverage. Based upon what I know of the area, Google's coverage is lacking due to the above reasons.
P.S. -- If you're interested in the region, I can start you out with Microsoft's Silicon Valley campus, Google's HQ, what used to be SGI's main HQ, VeriSign's buildings (which used to be home to Netscape back in the mid-to-late 90s), Best Internet (largest shell provider back in the mid-90s), and Oppo (manufacturer of one of the most popular diverse DVD players on the market). Can't think of any others off the top of my head right now, other than Sun and AOL/Netscape, although Sun has offices randomly all over the place, and AOL/Netscape is boring.
--
Making life hard for others since 1977. | |
|
|
| 
tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
·Comcast
| Re: We're Sorry Exocet hit it right on the nose. It isn't natural terrain blocking the signal (that area is flat bayfill) but most of the "blocked" areas are the in shadows of medium rise (5-10 floor) office buildings, the rest (small roads/tight grids are 3-4 story apt/condo 'gettos' (actually nice expensive place, too high density for me)
a majority of the area is single to 2 story residential with pockets of 1 and 2 story local area businesses, with the trees being the tallest things.
It is likely these areas get some signal but are not reliable enough to be call, fully covered | |
|
| | tquan
join:2001-09-13
Mountain View, CA
| Re: We're Sorry sorry folks, you're overanalyzing.
In the community meetings about the project, Google reps indicated that most of the areas with missing coverage are areas where the electric utility and not the city controls the streetlights (the deal Google made was with the city, not with the local utility PG&E). Google is actually seeking building owners within the dead zones who are willing to place nodes on their property. | |
|
koitsu
Premium
join:2002-07-16
Mountain View, CA
| For those wanting photos... Try »Anyone want pictures of these?
The pictures there are photos of the following locations:
First 5 pictures: 125 Horizon Avenue (N of Central Expy, E of Moffett Blvd, W of 85)
Last 3 pictures: 440 Central Avenue (N of Central Expy, E of Moffett Blvd, W of 85).
I've been seeing new ones appear on my route to work since I posted those pictures (only a few days ago!), including some existing ones being upgraded.
--
Making life hard for others since 1977. | |
|
|
|
|
Google-Fi Coverage Map
Cool!
. That sure is a lot of transmitters though. 
Why coverage gaps with base stations right there
·
·