 
Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
clubs: | It's a shame that wireless service has not provin to be the third option in broadband (from cable and DSL.) It has a lot of promising possibilities, but nobody can seem to make the $$$ work out. | |
|  | Ahrenl
join:2004-10-26
North Andover, MA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| Re: It's a shame I'd still say it needs time. It's a brand new (w/in years) technology tryng to replicate networks that took decade(s) to build. Not to mention their marketing budget isn't exactly off the hook. What they need to do is get Apple to use their AppleTV or something over it, just to get the marketing guru's on the scene. | |
| | |
Maxo
Your tax dollars at work.
Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL
clubs: | Re: It's a shame That's probably true. I think the current best solution is internet over cell phones, but it's just too damn expensive. If I could get an unlimited 1.5M connection over wireless for ~$50 I would seriously consider dropping my fixed-ISP. | |
| dynodb
Premium,VIP
join:2004-04-21
Minneapolis, MN
| Atlanta vs. Chicago They'll still deploy to contracted cities like Houston (which will be their largest at 600 square miles), but they're probably going to be very picky moving forward (for instance, picking Chicago over more sprawling cities like Atlanta). You mean that population density makes a difference? Who knew?  | |
| | | | nranieri
join:2005-01-03
Massapequa, NY
| Never going to show solid return Ubiquitous WiFi in urban areas is a terrible business plan. The technology just does not work well in high density locations, which is where all of the networks are being built, because that is where the best user density is. Too many large buildings and trees create multipath interference that can only be helped by deploying an incredible number of nodes per sq mi. With all of the attendant install and support costs.
Then they have to compete in the cable/telco companies prime markets. They would be much better served in smaller towns where the incumbents offerings are weak, but then the user density is too low. These huge meshed networks, with expensive nodes and complex routing algorithms cannot offer the throughput that is possible over high end cable/dsl circuits in major cities.
Just a bad business model all around. I am waiting to see if mobile WiMax offers any better radio performance. | |
| | 
John Galt
Premium
join:2004-09-30
Oceanside, OR
| Re: Never going to show solid return said by nranieri  :Ubiquitous WiFi in urban areas is a terrible business plan. That is one of those buzz words that consultants like to throw out there to dazzle the uninformed non-technical policymakers. Engineers cringe every time they heard that word tossed around.
I am waiting to see if mobile WiMax offers any better radio performance.
Same issues with WiMax as WiFi with regards to frequency...
--
A is A | |
| | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| said by nranieri :Ubiquitous WiFi in urban areas is a terrible business plan. The technology just does not work well in high density locations, which is where all of the networks are being built, because that is where the best user density is. Too many large buildings and trees create multipath interference that can only be helped by deploying an incredible number of nodes per sq mi. With all of the attendant install and support costs. Nothing like sitting in a Manhattan NYC park, trying to use the park's free wifi, except you cant EVER connect, since you see around 250 APs at any place in the park. So much bandwidth, but no ability to leach. | |
| 
Occasional
@swbell.net
| In Houston, where EarthL is just now starting it is crazy for them not to do everything they can do to get the project infrastructure in place WITHOUT putting OLD radio technology in.
They are starting to place 802.11 b/g with n right around the corner and available BEFORE THEY'LL BE DONE laying basic infrastructure.
With 802.11n requiring a fraction of the antenna placements and much better coverage through the trees... it just seems like politics and land grab that has anyone deploying the legacy stuff.
I think there is such a thing as "waste" when it comes to deploying CITY WIDE wireless in such large cities given current technology. Just because current WiFi seems affordable on the personal scale doesn't mean it is for the 100s of tree and building covered square miles of real estate some cities want covered.
Why not plan for the next generation technology instead of deploying the older one? | |
| patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| power control Everyone must remember that muni wifi gets interferance from residential private Wifi. There often isnt enough bandwidth in the air, and wifi doesnt have dynamic power control (only transmit at a high enough power to be heard by your AP/Client, so your signal wont bleed over into another wifi system, and they get more bandwidth, ALA cellphones »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_control ). | |
| | | |
|
|
Earthlink Rethinking Muni-Fi Projects
·
Return On Investment?