dslreports logo
 story category
Cities Realize Wi-Fi Isn't Magic Pixie Dust
World's largest network sees low subscriber count...

Someone declared it "citywide Wi-Fi is over-hyped" week and didn't tell us. On the heels of reports that the Lompoc, California Wi-Fi installation has coverage issues, come reports that the world's largest Wi-Fi installation is plagued with similar problems, but on a larger scale. Taipei, Taiwan's citywide Wi-Fi network uses 4,200 antennas spread over 52 square miles and serves 90 percent of the city's 2.6 million residents ($12 a month gets you 500kbps).

The city has had trouble signing up enough subscribers, in part because of performance issues -- but also because of competition from free AP's and 3G services. The city predicted 250,000 users for the system but has only 30,000. Taipei, like many cities in the U.S., see Wi-Fi as a sort of economic panacea -- a competitive edge in a global marketplace. Unfortunately the technological limitations of Wi-Fi are making those dreams hard to attain.

Even when the service has been free, customers haven't been particularly impressed. We've documented similar complaints with Google's free Wi-Fi service in Mountain View, California. Coverage issues also plague some Wi-Fi deployments by Metro-Fi, who operate an ad-driven revenue model. It seems that many people are suddenly realizing that they get faster speed outdoors from 3G, and with spotty indoor coverage -- they're better off sticking with DSL or cable.

Of course many of these networks aren't fully deployed, but such coverage issues certainly help foster interest in the range promises of WiMax. We'll ask our resident experts: are these early Wi-Fi deployments doomed to extinction? Can they be salvaged? Did cities who didn't spring for the extra cost of fiber to the home bet on the wrong horse?
view:
topics flat nest 

Cthen
Premium Member
join:2004-08-01
Detroit, MI

1 recommendation

Cthen

Premium Member

LOL

quote:
Someone declared it "citywide Wi-Fi is over-hyped" week and didn't tell us.
Someone had to tell you? The obvious wasn't enough? LOL

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

1 edit

FFH5

Premium Member

Re: LOL

said by Cthen:
quote:
Someone declared it "citywide Wi-Fi is over-hyped" week and didn't tell us.
Someone had to tell you? The obvious wasn't enough? LOL
The hype and the idea that muni-wifi would stick it to the telcos and cable companies has clouded some peoples minds about the potential failings of city-wide wifi. It has taken a couple years for the pro wifi propaganda machine to slow down .

batageek
Slave To The Duopoly
Premium Member
join:2003-01-25

batageek

Premium Member

Re: LOL

muni fi?

This isn't a muni project.

"The disappointing rollout has convinced city leaders that their decision to turn over construction and operation of the network to Q-Ware was the best move because it minimized risk to the city.

Chang Chun-Hung, director of Taipei's information management center, said the city considered owning the system outright, as some San Francisco supervisors are advocating, but thought it better to turn over the operations to a private corporation with experience. He said it also helps encourage other businesses to use the network."


Is it possible a private sector company has problems with this too?

FFH5
Premium Member
join:2002-03-03
Tavistock NJ

FFH5

Premium Member

Re: LOL

The reply was not specific to this one project, but to the whole city-wide, muni-fi movement no matter how it was funded.

RadioDoc

join:2000-05-11
La Grange, IL

1 recommendation

RadioDoc to batageek

to batageek
The technology is fragile, and that doesn't change regardless of who is running it. A muni or commercial network has the same interference, coverage and marketing problems.

To me, these seem like the 'downtown malls' which were supposed to be the savior of urban center shopping as streets were closed and streetscapes took their place. Problem is, folks are lazy and didn't want to walk three blocks from parking to the stores...they can do that at the suburban mall and get better selection with less hassle.

So, the 'downtown mall' is extinct.

Any time you see a governmental agency propping up anything as The Answer to The Problem, you end up with this result.

Being a muni doesn't make you immune. Some would argue it makes you more prone to failure.
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY

patcat88

Member

Re: LOL

said by RadioDoc:

To me, these seem like the 'downtown malls' which were supposed to be the savior of urban center shopping as streets were closed and streetscapes took their place. Problem is, folks are lazy and didn't want to walk three blocks from parking to the stores...they can do that at the suburban mall and get better selection with less hassle.

So, the 'downtown mall' is extinct.
What are you refering to in the real world? (not wifi related)

RadioDoc

join:2000-05-11
La Grange, IL

RadioDoc

Re: LOL

If you're younger than about 35 you probably don't remember them, but to "save" downtown many cities created pedestrian malls which replaced main shopping streets. With few exceptions they were disasters.

One article (among many you can google for) is here: »www.emich.edu/public/geo ··· lls.html
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY

patcat88

Member

Re: LOL

Oh god, I know what your talking about. I have to deal with one every day. Hobos sleep in the tree pots.

batageek
Slave To The Duopoly
Premium Member
join:2003-01-25

batageek to RadioDoc

Premium Member

to RadioDoc
I remember LaGrange's own "mall" quite well.

Much better now that it's opened back up, but I do remember when it was cranking as well. I spent too much of my early youth there...

RadioDoc

join:2000-05-11
La Grange, IL

RadioDoc

Re: LOL

La Grange's love affair with TIFs did far more than the Calendar Court Mall ever did to revitalize downtown La Grange. Now its getting full of poseurs and wannabes and nauseatingly cute shops. At least they spend money and LG collects their sales taxes, although a lot of long-time retail businesses got squeezed out due to rents tripling, which is rather ironic.

South of the Mason-Dixon line (47th St.) we see none of that TIF love. Probably just as well; as a commercial property owner I don't think I want the headaches.
lawrence171
join:2001-12-24
Canada

lawrence171 to Cthen

Member

to Cthen
Toronto Hydro's One Zone wifi services is great.

ninjatutle
Premium
join:2006-01-02
San Ramon, CA

ninjatutle

Member

0 wifi in my life

WIFI sucks. Its good if I'm mobile and in a jam where my EVDO doesn't work.

My place has CAT5 prewired so thankfully I don't have to use WIFI.
mrbueno
join:2002-08-03
US

1 edit

mrbueno

Member

This was never the intended use.

It's that simple.

WiFi outdoors can work, but you have to know what you are doing and you have to have some clue to do an install. Most of these installs try to ignore the fact that 2.4Ghz doesn't like wood, water, concrete, or metal. 2.4Ghz wants it's space.

Those of you wanting a working WiFi experience in one of these cities should buy an outdoor unit and get it above the trees. That will help alot. Then all you have to worry about is the interference created by hundreds of APs seeing each other on the same channel, the fact that 802.11b/g isn't meant for outdoor use, and the nearest AP having too many associations.

SandShark5
Long may you run
Premium Member
join:2000-05-23
Santa Fe, TX

SandShark5

Premium Member

Re: This was never the intended use.

We don't have city-wide wi-fi, but there are a few free hot spots provided by the local visitor and convention bureau. It's always there, but I don't find myself taking advantage of it that much.

Here I am in the white van on a slow work day.


Smile. I'm on Candid Camera!
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY

patcat88 to mrbueno

Member

to mrbueno
said by mrbueno:

It's that simple.

WiFi outdoors can work, but you have to know what you are doing and you have to have some clue to do an install. Most of these installs try to ignore the fact that 2.4Ghz doesn't like wood, water, concrete, or metal. 2.4Ghz wants it's space.

Those of you wanting a working WiFi experience in one of these cities should buy an outdoor unit and get it above the trees. That will help alot. Then all you have to worry about is the interference created by hundreds of APs seeing each other on the same channel, the fact that 802.11b/g isn't meant for outdoor use, and the nearest AP having too many associations.
There is nothing like being in a NYC park in a hip upscale urban area in Manhatten with very tall buildings on all sides. And when I try to get the park's wifi, I get over 400 SSID. Plenty of open APs.

You need to attenuate or use a directional antenna to have ANY hope of loging onto a AP. Wifi was designed so its signal dies by the time it gets just outside your house, so your neighbors can reuse the channels. Its not a cellular protocol. Its very difficult and expensive to make a good throughput cellular/mesh wifi network. You need low enough transmit power so APs dont hear each other, but then shitty wifi laptops/clients cant hear, so you need more APs. Plus frequency reuse is hard when you only have 3 channels effectivly.

d_l
Barsoom
MVM
join:2002-12-08
Reno, NV

1 edit

1 recommendation

d_l

MVM

Taipei in Korea? Huh?

Although it doesn't say, I'm pretty sure the article is referring to Taipei in Taiwan, not Korea.

ninjatutle
Premium
join:2006-01-02
San Ramon, CA

ninjatutle

Member

Re: Taipei in Korea? Huh?

This isnt Reuters

Theres no editor, proof reader or copy boy here.
Expand your moderator at work
cheesus
join:2002-08-16
Lompoc, CA

cheesus

Member

Well

at least my hometown made the price more reasonable now starting at $9.99 for a 1000/1000 service »www.lompocnet.com/newsfl.html . Its still spotty as far as coverage goes though. Customer service is a joke still.
aglinka
join:2005-10-21
Saint Johnsbury, VT

aglinka

Member

Re: Well

Taipei, Korea?

They don't mean Taiwan?? No wonder the coverage is bad..

-A

rawgerz
The hell was that?
Premium Member
join:2004-10-03
Grove City, PA

rawgerz

Premium Member

who designs these networks?

If these networks are using low to the ground structures like light poles, it's NO wonder why coverage is so bad!

Theres a reason why they make 300 foot cell towers, and why they're used!

And since any off the shelf hardware can be used, the problems just keep growing.
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY

patcat88

Member

Re: who designs these networks?

said by rawgerz:

If these networks are using low to the ground structures like light poles, it's NO wonder why coverage is so bad!

Theres a reason why they make 300 foot cell towers, and why they're used!

And since any off the shelf hardware can be used, the problems just keep growing.
Raising the height wont work. Then it will be further from the laptops, and the AP wont hear laptops. Plus then the signal will go further and interfere with another AP on the network.

rawgerz
The hell was that?
Premium Member
join:2004-10-03
Grove City, PA

rawgerz

Premium Member

Re: who designs these networks?

with a sector antenna and enough downtilt, sure it's going to be better than omni antennas.

But still, wifi is not well suited, or practical for a network this size.

How anyone in NYC can use wifi is beyond me, with that many APs that you stated above, the interference has to make it completely worthless.
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY

patcat88

Member

Re: who designs these networks?

I will say, apt buildings and such, decrease outside signals, and in most apartments, its near-LOS to the AP. Concrete floors decrease signal enough to make some room for a AP in a apt on floor below/above. Also most apts have have heavy thick walls, so that also blocks signal (making it easier for AP to transmit). I would bet on the near-LOS factor.

RadioDoc

join:2000-05-11
La Grange, IL

RadioDoc to rawgerz

to rawgerz
Unless you're in the sticks, you won't see any 300 foot cell towers...

a reader
@grandenetworks.net

a reader

Anon

wi-fi

In general wi-fi works great when just a couple of clients connect (like in your home). In general the 802.11 spec just wasn't designed as a carrier class technology. CDMA/GSM networks were designed from the ground up to support lots of users, but relatively low bandwidth. Eventually we'll see better technology in the licensed spectrum (lower frequency is better at penetration). The most advanced, expensive, centrally coordinated system we deploy still has to be carefully engineered and still only covers campuses, making it work realistically in large areas just doesn't work right now. It will take time for demand (consumers voting their wallets) to really have big upgrades to licensed networks. In teh meantime, wifi is a local area technology and 3g is a road warriors only option for good coverage, but even that is getting slower as subscriber count has increased (i've noticed my verizon slowing over the 2 years I've had it)

chakey
Premium Member
join:2004-06-14
Gladstone, NJ

1 edit

chakey

Premium Member

Taipei

is in Taiwan, not Korea.
------------
Thanks for editing, Karl!
Eric Martin
join:2005-06-19
66308

Eric Martin

Member

I sense BS

The whole purpose of 'affordable' wifi has been lost.

These cities are trying to monopolize it and make a profit.

What's the point then? Let private companies handle it.