Oklahoma City Builds World's Largest Muni-Fi Network Though it will only be used for municipal functions Wednesday Jun 04 2008 10:47 EDT Oklahoma City says they've launched "the largest city owned and operated municipal Wi-Fi mesh network in the world." However, according to a press release issued by the city, the $5 million, 555 square-mile network is to be used for public safety and other City operations, and area residents won't be able to access it. According to the release, public safety will be one of the network's primary functions: quote: Police officers are equipped with a laptop in patrol cars that gives them better access to advance criminal information in real time and allows them to download photos, file reports and even do paperwork in the field. In addition, police officers and fire fighters have access to over 300 video cameras, giving them a real time, around-the-clock, birds-eye view of key locations throughout the city.
The $5 million Wi-Fi mesh network system was funded with public safety capital sales tax and city capital improvement funds. |
Matt3All noise, no signal. Premium Member join:2003-07-20 Jamestown, NC
1 recommendation |
Matt3
Premium Member
2008-Jun-4 10:51 am
Good Implementation for WiFiThis is a good use for large-scale WiFi. The number of users is known and it has a specific purpose than can be planned and engineered to support. | |
| | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little Guy Premium Member join:2000-01-17 Tulsa, OK |
KrK
Premium Member
2008-Jun-4 11:03 am
Re: Good Implementation for WiFiAnd it snuck in under the radar and for a very low budget considering the size and scope of the project, plus it has very real applications for the city that will save them money long term.
Kudos. | |
| | | NOCManMadMacHatter Premium Member join:2004-09-30 Colorado Springs, CO |
NOCMan
Premium Member
2008-Jun-4 11:35 am
Re: Good Implementation for WiFiThey apparently snuck in some big brother as well. | |
| | | | MarkyD Premium Member join:2002-08-20 Oklahoma City, OK |
MarkyD
Premium Member
2008-Jun-4 11:40 am
Re: Good Implementation for WiFisaid by NOCMan:They apparently snuck in some big brother as well. yes...that part I don't like at all. | |
| | | | tobyTroy Mcclure join:2001-11-13 Seattle, WA |
to NOCMan
Video cameras yes, more cities should do this. | |
| | | | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little Guy Premium Member join:2000-01-17 Tulsa, OK Netgear WNDR3700v2 Zoom 5341J
|
KrK to NOCMan
Premium Member
2008-Jun-4 11:43 am
to NOCMan
The Cameras they refer to are things like traffic cameras measuring traffic density and cameras at lights to help determine efficient patterns of light changes for maximum traffic flow amd easing congestion. They are not red light cameras or speed cameras and the like.....
I guess though that the use of security cameras will grow, watching public areas like parks, sporting venues and the like.
This isn't necessarily bad. | |
| | | | | |
Re: Good Implementation for WiFiWhat about face fingerprinting to catch National Security, probation/home arrest violations, and on "innocent" people, track their movements and sell it to marketing research firms to sell to advertisers, turn your head at a store or an ad, and you will get junk mail for that. Walk into a doctors office, and if your old, your get blood pressure and diabeters. Walk slowly and be a senior citizen (face to age cross referencing) and you'll get calls from electric wheelchair salesmen. | |
| | | | | | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little Guy Premium Member join:2000-01-17 Tulsa, OK |
KrK
Premium Member
2008-Jun-4 7:53 pm
Re: Good Implementation for WiFiNope. Nothing like that on this network. | |
|
wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace join:2004-08-07 New York, NY |
Was this the best use of the money however?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!........... | |
| | MarkyD Premium Member join:2002-08-20 Oklahoma City, OK 1 edit |
MarkyD
Premium Member
2008-Jun-4 11:21 am
Re: Was this the best use of the money however?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!........... 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. I think it's a GREAT use of resources. 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. | |
| | | wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace join:2004-08-07 New York, NY |
Re: Was this the best use of the money however?said by MarkyD: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!........... 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. 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. | |
| | | | firephotoTruth and reality matters Premium Member join:2003-03-18 Brewster, WA |
Re: Was this the best use of the money however?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. | |
| | | | | |
Re: Was this the best use of the money however?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. Cellphone providers are a very limited resource. Atmost you will have 2-3. Usually onlu 800s (ATT/Verizon/Alltel) are usable. There are 2 of them always. Sprint, T-Mobile, Cricket/MetroPCS are PCS and have plenty of holes, usually the PCSes will not include roaming in a contract due to abuse and need to undercut competition reasons. Satellite phone/internet? hah. | |
|
| | | |
to wifi4milez
Good point, though I'm not sure where you got the $39.99 from. Though even at $10 or $20 higher per month it still would take a LONG time to amortize the cost of the WiFi network.
As far as bandwidth goes, what characterizes "adequate" on the OKC muni system? A megabit? Two? More? Less? Would be interesting to find out. Would also be intresting to see how much each employee uses per month data-wise. More than 5GB?
Also, if the city had instead used mobile broadband cards, Sprint would have had to beef up their cell sites with extra T1's (which the monthly fees wuld pay for) to add capacity and keep the network running well. Guess who that benefits? Everyone else using the Sprint network. Sounds good to me, who of course can't use the muni WiFi network since it's city-only.
Or the city, since they're only looking at a small coverage area, could cut a deal with CricKet, who could probably give them service for even less per month in such large volumes. Maybe even free aircards, too. Again, the monthly fees would allow the commercial carrier to upgrade their network and provide a higher level of service to everyone.
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. | |
| | | | | wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace join:2004-08-07 New York, NY |
Re: Was this the best use of the money however?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. Thats my major point. This network might work now, but they will inevitably need more capacity down the road. This will mean a complete redesign, and a lot more money. Purchasing the service from a carrier is a set cost per month, and nothing else. Its much easier to budget and plan for that in my opinion. | |
|
| | | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little Guy Premium Member join:2000-01-17 Tulsa, OK Netgear WNDR3700v2 Zoom 5341J
|
to wifi4milez
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! Your argument is filled with a number of assumptions on #'s of users, usages, equipment for free, discounts, and pricing.... But let's forget all that and just point out your math is incredibly far off. That's not 83 years. It's 83 months. So assuming all the other assumptions were correct, it still means in only 7 years more money would be wasted being paid to Sprint in fees then the entire cost of this network.... and the sprint idea wouldn't cover things like meters, real-time monitoring, and other advanced usages. | |
| | | | | wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace join:2004-08-07 New York, NY |
Re: Was this the best use of the money however?said by KrK:That's not 83 years. It's 83 months. You are correct, I did the math wrong (you see I do admit when I am wrong!). However, what will the ongoing costs of the wifi network be? As the other poster stated, Sprint (or whomever the provider is) is responsible for all tower upgrades. As new technology comes out (LTE, Wimax, etc.) the carrier is responsible for implementing that. How long will wifi be viable in this current implementation? Lets assume that in 5 to 10 years (at most) all the outdoor equipment will need to be replaced, and all the back-hauls will need to be upgraded. The city will then need to drop another $5m into the system just to keep it current. I think there are valid points for both arguments. However, 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. | |
| | | | | | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little Guy Premium Member join:2000-01-17 Tulsa, OK Netgear WNDR3700v2 Zoom 5341J
|
KrK
Premium Member
2008-Jun-4 12:11 pm
Re: Was this the best use of the money however?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. In this case though the city isn't providing service to anyone other then itself, so it's really like an internal network. 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.... | |
| | | | | | | wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace join:2004-08-07 New York, NY |
Re: Was this the best use of the money however?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.... Of course not, but since the taxpayers are paying for this network anyway why not let someone else deal with the headache? | |
|
| | | | | jester121 Premium Member join:2003-08-09 Lake Zurich, IL |
to wifi4milez
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.
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. | |
| | | | | | | wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace join:2004-08-07 New York, NY |
Re: Was this the best use of the money however?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. 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. 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. I also have access points that have been working for years, however they arent outside and I would bet neither are yours. | |
| | | | | | | | MarkyD Premium Member join:2002-08-20 Oklahoma City, OK |
MarkyD
Premium Member
2008-Jun-4 5:12 pm
Re: Was this the best use of the money however?said by wifi4milez: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. 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. 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. I also have access points that have been working for years, however they arent outside and I would bet neither are yours. these APs are MADE to withstand extreme temperatures. There will be a very low failure rate. | |
|
| | | | Jodokast96Stupid people piss me off. Premium Member join:2005-11-23 NJ |
to KrK
said by KrK:That's not 83 years. It's 83 months. Glad someone here knows how to count. | |
| | | | | | wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace join:2004-08-07 New York, NY |
Re: Was this the best use of the money however?said by Jodokast96:said by KrK:That's not 83 years. It's 83 months. Glad someone here knows how to count. I freely admit I made a mistake, however my argument is still valid. | |
|
| | | |
to wifi4milez
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. 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. 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. Argument #3) I could imagine city EMT or other emergency services using this, but realistically, 900 other people using this network? 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? | |
| | | | | wifi4milezBig Russ, 1918 to 2008. Rest in Peace join:2004-08-07 New York, NY |
Re: Was this the best use of the money however?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. I was being very conservative, and you just helped prove my point. The lower the number of actual users the better (economically) using carrier wireless cards is. Lets assume that the total number of people using the network at a given time is 200. At $33 each, this means the monthly costs is $6600. The annual cost would then be $79,200. At that rate, the $5M the city spent would provide service for 63 years (I used the correct math this time). There is no way the existing network will be good for 63 years, and more money will be needed far sooner than that. 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. You are correct. However, networks (internal or external) still require dedicated staff to maintain them. A network by definition doesnt "care" if its for public or private use. said by googoodan:Argument #3) I could imagine city EMT or other emergency services using this, but realistically, 900 other people using this network? See above, I was trying to be as conservative as possible. The less people that use it the better my argument becomes. 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? 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. | |
| | | | | | |
Re: Was this the best use of the money however?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. NYPD still uses IBM PCs and XTs and ATs with monochrome monitors......... | |
|
| | | jester121 Premium Member join:2003-08-09 Lake Zurich, IL |
to wifi4milez
Huh? A century of future proof technology? What about the hundreds of other municipal functions though? Public works, parks, inspectors (health, building, etc). Your numbers don't work. On a side note, OKC can easily install wireless cameras that integrate seamlessly into the mesh. Last I checked there aren't too many cameras with PCMCIA slots to hold a Sprint card. | |
|
| | knightmbEverybody Lies join:2003-12-01 Franklin, TN |
to MarkyD
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. Outdoor Wi-fi AP run about $60 a piece on the bulk purchase. If you set them up right and plan out your WDS system properly, you'll be able to get 54 mbps around to basically everywhere you go within range. Outdoor wi-fi setup are much easier to go with than in a large building for example. The $5 Million is probably all for labor and time to set it up, with the hardware cost being a very small portion. | |
| | | catseyenuAck Pfft Premium Member join:2001-11-17 Fix East |
to MarkyD
Any idea if there are plans to implement cross talk between agencies? We don't need to see another officer die to realize the importance of what seems to be "simple" communications. Also, how do I get to the cameras? | |
| | | |
to MarkyD
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. Very very very simply. The backhaul needs are magnetutdes less, since you aren't providing service to a abusing, entertainment hungry public. You can easily mathematically model backhaul needs because you need very little backhaul initially, as you add more employees and more uses, and because its goverment and strictly business, you can fire any employee for youtube, assuming the network is connected to the internet. The amount of repeater nodes would make Earthlink or a public wifi system faint from the shock. If there are 10 employees using the system intermittently a single T1 somewhere in the city is ALL YOU NEED. Look at all the backhaul in a public network. Pages 17-19 » www.wirelessphiladelphia ··· bits.pdfNot needed for a city Govt network. | |
|
| KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little Guy Premium Member join:2000-01-17 Tulsa, OK Netgear WNDR3700v2 Zoom 5341J
|
to wifi4milez
This isn't wasted money. It's up and running and working.
It's been tested and people are impressed.... Plus the ongoing costs are low and administration costs are low.
This will save the city money and provide them with great real time data. It's perhaps one of the most effective use of a Muni-Fi idea to date.
Examples like police information, paperwork in the field etc and monitoring traffic flow have already been stated, but there's more applications that can be brought on over time;
Meter reading..... Water flow.... Storm water and flood control realtime monitoring ... Smog monitoring... etc
This network has a lot of pluses, and the cost savings will more then cover it's operational costs. | |
| | FFH5 Premium Member join:2002-03-03 Tavistock NJ |
to wifi4milez
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. 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. | |
| | | •••• | | |
to wifi4milez
Long term, it costs LESS to own and operate the network themselves... Period. Lower cost, better for the tax payers. | |
| | | •••••••••
| |
GJL
Anon
2008-Jun-4 12:54 pm
NumbersGiven that emergency services and other personnel work in shifts, there is nowhere near that number of wireless units in use at any given time. I assume here that wireless access units are expensive (one-time and monthly) that they are assigned to active individual mobile units (ambulances, ladder trucks, road maintence vehicles, etc.) rather than individual paramedics, firefighters, maintenance workers who take them home off-duty. Some supervisors would use personal devices, but those are a small majority of a major public department.
Given the rate of change of wireless technologies, we probably should assume a major infrastructure replacement in something like 3-5 years and a minor upgrade every 2-3 years.
Twelve hundred nodes for 555 square miles give us about 2 nodes per square mile. For Wi-Fi, that's astonishing. It's about a tenth of a more common (and often unsuccessful) rule of thumb of 20 nodes per square mile. There seems to be more success at 40-60 nodes per square mile and Toronto eventually deployed about 120 nodes per square mile to get excellent coverage.
I'll be interested to learn more. | |
| | •••• | |
What Kind of Gear?Any idea what they used? Meraki?? (that's a joke, for anyone who was ready to flame) | |
| |
EVDOFor $5M, they could simply get EVDO laptop cards and be done with it. Nothing to manage, no issues with 300' radius. EVDO covers the entire metro already. | |
| |
Hehe
Anon
2008-Jun-4 2:58 pm
Would home Wi-Fi interfear?Would home Wi-Fi interfere? Would this city wide system interfere with a home Wi-Fi system? | |
| | |
Re: Would home Wi-Fi interfear?Touche.
There is a posibility this wifi network operates on 4.9ghz, which is for govt/public saftey usage only, and its licensed spectrum by the FCC, so very very very low noise and never any interference. | |
|
x30n_Not Sure What Color Pill To Call It Premium Member join:2000-09-14 Newport News, VA |
x30n_
Premium Member
2008-Jun-4 3:55 pm
One big wireless LAN..That is all it is.. Whos to say they will even have access out to the internet..
So using Sprint or some other carrier is out of the question. | |
| intellerSociopaths always win. join:2003-12-08 Tulsa, OK |
OKC, pork barrel cityThis town subsidizes more shit than I can think of. tax tax tax....thank god I dont live there. | |
|
| |
|
|