Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Minneapolis To Go Wireless

Posted by Zonk on Tue Apr 12, 2005 10:16 AM
from the wise-neighbors-to-the-north dept.
Wireless Networking Hardware Technology
an_mo writes " According to a Minneapolis Star Tribune article, Wednesday will see the announcement of a request for bids on a citywide wireless access service The city will unveil a request for a proposal for a privately owned, $15 million to $20 million citywide wireless and fiber-optic network to improve government communications by linking every city building, police car and housing inspector. The network would also would be available to every individual in the city for $18 to $24 a month."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Minneapolis To Go Wireless 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Shouldn't be all that expensive... (Score:3, Funny)

    by aicrules (819392) on Tuesday April 12 2005, @10:19AM (#12212049)
    That area is so flat one high gain antenna on top of a flag pole should be able to service everyone.
    • Anyone wardriving this area? I'll post a link to an image if someone uploads their wardriving discoveries [wifimaps.com].
    • There's an FCC power restriction of about 20mW per channel for 802.11.

      You can crank up the power but you have to pay off the FCC first, see auctions [fcc.gov].

      To me the selling off of public airways to the highest bidder amounts to a totally corrupt system where cell phone providers, as one example, have to give the FCC millions and then stick it to the consumer in what is basically a tax on the electromagnetic spectrum.
    • It's really not that flat in Minneapolis / St. Paul. The Mississippi river flows through there which and seems to have caused the noticable changes in elevation. There are thousands of lakes, which logically need some hills around them in order to hold their water. All in all there's probably only 100 ft. of elevation change throughout the area, but it's not like Fargo or other cities further west in the plains.
    • We tend to put almost all of our antennae on top of the IDS tower, the tallest skyscraper in Minneapolis.

      In fact, over a dozen other towers have gone up in downtown Minnepolis over the last 20 years, all built to be a tiny bit shorter than the IDS, so they wouldn't have to put all the antennae on the newer structure.

      We also have a few broadcast towers over by the airport.

      TV reception around here is terrific.

      Steering back on topic:

      It's kind of cool, but there's a local coffee shop chain around here (Dun

      • Re:Shouldn't be all that expensive... (Score:4, Informative)

        by CharlieHedlin (102121) on Tuesday April 12 2005, @10:36AM (#12212275)
        Uh, a powerfull omni is high gain, it just has a very flat coverage pattern. Since you need to recieve signals, a powerfull transmitter won't do, you need a high gain antenna.

        All antenna gain comes from restricting the pattern. In your typical high gain directional antenna you have a conical pattern of anywhere from 3-45 degrees. There are 18dbi gain omni antennas, typically co-linear arrays. They will have a very flat pattern (typically 3 degrees vertically), but cover 360 degrees horizontally. The problem is that if it is on top of a flag pole you won't have any coverage below it, but that could be solved by using a standard antenna on a different channel closer to ground level.

        • I sugest you look at how they design TV tower antennas (assuming you aren't a broadcast engineer). They use multiple high gain patch pannel antenas to transmit in their coverage area. This also cuts down on the ammount of electricity they use as they do not broadcast up out of the atmosphere and only down to earth in their reception area.

  • Pros and Cons of Municipal Broadband... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by byteCoder (205266) * on Tuesday April 12 2005, @10:19AM (#12212054) Homepage
    As a resident of a suburb just outside of Minneapolis (Eden Prairie), I'm somewhat torn about this:

    On the positive side, this influx of competition in the broadband arena is good for me as a consumer, currently tithing about $45/month to Time-Warner Cable (which serves Minneapolis and the SW 'burbs). More competition in the broadband arena is a very good thing--especially when it shakes up entrenched local monopolies (Qwest DSL and Time-Warner Cable). Also, as a Hennepin County (which contains Minneapolis and my suburb) taxpayer, technologies that can streamline government operations (and either provide better services and/or lower taxes) is another good thing.

    However, on the negative side, I'm nervous about governments getting into the broadband business--the potential for intrusion and abuse of the citizen's rights to privacy is certainly increased. The fact that this deployment is run by a private company helps a little--but it still concerns me, since the government is providing the funding for it.

    Technology itself is neutral and can be used for both good and evil purposes. Perhaps, what I'd like to see would be a citizen's oversight group that can provide the checks on government abuse of the network.

    Another smaller suburb to my southwest (Chaska [chaska.net]) has their own municipal deployment, which apparently is working out pretty well.

    As long as municipal broadband doesn't block other entities from providing broadband service to a community and foster competition, municipal broadband could be a very good thing. But, I'm still concerned about potential abuse of the network by the local governments.

    • Re:Pros and Cons of Municipal Broadband... (Score:4, Funny)

      by Ingolfke (515826) on Tuesday April 12 2005, @10:25AM (#12212117) Journal
      I'm nervous about governments getting into the broadband business--the potential for intrusion and abuse of the citizen's rights to privacy is certainly increased. The fact that this deployment is run by a private company helps a little--but it still concerns me, since the government is providing the funding for it.

      Quit your whining. $24 and a set of 12 always-on govenrment monitored webcams in your house is small price to pay for broadband.
    • As long as municipal broadband doesn't block other entities from providing broadband service to a community and foster competition, municipal broadband could be a very good thing. But, I'm still concerned about potential abuse of the network by the local governments.

      I'm not concerned about it right now but I will begin to be curious once enough people switch over. With any municipality there is some financial ins and a lot of political ins.

      Will Hennepin County/Minneapolis make the right QoS choice when

    • Re:Pros and Cons of Municipal Broadband... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by CharlieHedlin (102121) on Tuesday April 12 2005, @10:31AM (#12212196)
      Many of my posts have been opposed to municipal wireless, but this Mineapolis project seems a little different.

      The city is proposing a private city wide network. Sure they will be using City provided facilities, but so does every phone and cable carrier (the right of way for the cables).

      The private carrier will also be allowed to sell their services to end users. It basically sounds like the government has invited the private industry to bid on the opertunity to setup the network, with the city as their largest customer.

      There is far less chance for the government to censor the network in this arangement. Sure, as the carriers largest customer the city will carry weight, but they already carry weight with the franchises offered to cable and phone carriers.

      • Re:Pros and Cons of Municipal Broadband... (Score:4, Informative)

        by SuperQ (431) * on Tuesday April 12 2005, @11:07AM (#12212750) Homepage
        I attended a meeting with the people in charge of this project.

        The proposed RFP will be for "shared governance" where the city will have a say in how the network is run, but the service provider (qwest/comcast/timewarner _could_ in theory bid for this) will do all the build out.

        They will also provide city backed loans to help with the finantial burden. basicaly better financing terms, because the city is behind them.

        The city will pay a certin ammount to have priority access to the network for use with police/fire/municipal departments.

        It's a well thought out system, but is potentialy handing another monopoly over a big company. It is un-certin how badly they will step on local hotspots, educational institution wireless, and projects like the Twin Cities Wireless User Group.

        (we have a hotspot network covering a large park near downtown)
    • The horns of the dilemma: You get government wireless access and they spy on your activities or you get private wireless access and they spy on you for information they can sell.
    • I'm nervous about governments getting into the broadband business--the potential for intrusion and abuse of the citizen's rights to privacy is certainly increased. The fact that this deployment is run by a private company helps a little--but it still concerns me, since the government is providing the funding for it.

      Just wait a few years when the religious zealots in town decide that "their" tax money isn't going to go to pr0n and that there should be filters in place. Hasn't this been the argument when it comes to filtering any other publicly funded access?

  • Wireless seems to be the "in" thing. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dzimas (547818) on Tuesday April 12 2005, @10:22AM (#12212076)
    I'm impressed that so many cities seem to get the idea of blanketing the metro area with wireless, but it also concerns me because the technology changes so quickly. Telephone and cable took decades to pervade the nation, and the technology progressed at a relatively slow rate compare to the proliferation of wireless 801.xxx standards that flood the market year after year.

    Spending $20 Million to install wireless is great, but it'll reflect poorly if the system isn't completely overhauled every few years.

    • Re:Wireless seems to be the "in" thing. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Timesprout (579035) on Tuesday April 12 2005, @10:25AM (#12212123)
      But this is the attraction of wireless, it requires far less infrastructure than previous networking technology so its cheaper and easier to implement and will be easier to replace.
    • The key thing about wireless is that it doesn't require anything like the investment in infrastructure that cable-bound telecoms do. Fewer streets dug up means it's both quicker and cheaper to set up; no reason for it to not spread like wildfire...
      • But fiber is faster. What people do not seem to get is that you do not have to "Dig" up streets to put in fiber. You can run fiber on poles just like phone, power, and catv. Where they are moving to under ground utilities they should be laying fiber since they have the place dug up.
        I am all for WiFi but fiber is how you get REAL high speed to people.
    • WiFi started with 801.11b 801.11a isn't WiFi. 801.11g is WiFi and backwards compatable with "b" There is work for a new WiFi standard 801.11n which will be backwards compatable with "b" and "g" devices. As long as IEEE sticks with WiFi compatability (and considering the huge infrastucture already inplace for WiFi networks, they will), then backwards compatability will be along for a very, very long time.
      Will a city with 801.11g WiFi be considered inferior to a city with 801.11n WiFi? I don't think so
      • They'll both be better than no WiFi, but even people who don't need the extra speed will consider the newer/faster one better. I already hear people complain at universities and airports that only have b rather than geven people who don't need the speed or know what an 801.11 is notice in their connection properties that the speed it's connected at is lower than they're used to seeing.
    • I'm impressed that so many cities seem to get the idea of blanketing the metro area with wireless, but it also concerns me because the technology changes so quickly.

      If Cringely [pbs.org] is to be trusted, all these cities are making a huge mistake. 802.11g absolutely sucks for what these cities are trying to do. When WiMax starts being deployed, the citizens of these WiFi cities are going to be mighty angry that these companies are providing a service that is far better than what their legislators are pushing thro
      • I don't know is Cringely is ever to be "trusted", but I happen to think he's 100% correct in this case.

        Out in Bloomington (a Minneapolis suburb), I've already got 2.4 GHz noise fouling things up to the point that my 802.11g hub has to be located almost dead-center in the middle of my house to reach every room. I would hate to think what would happen if the city started spraying competing signals all over town.

        Fortunately, it doesn't look (yet) like Bloomington is jumping on the bandwagon with Minneapolis
  • I look forward to the time in the not so distant future where wireless internet access is considered an inherent right. Even now, driving around Boston with macstumbler, I can find dozens of open non-WEP protected networks ripe for the taking and so I delude myself these unprotected networks are a purposeful open sharing of bandwidth. Am I the only one who finds the idea of forcing your citizens to pay to join such a network to be a little silly? I guess I think this sort of thing should be a public right
    • Quite possibly the most asinine comment I've seen in quite awhile. For god sakes take a moment to touch down in the real world. There is no inalienable right to wi-fi Internet access, or to Internet access at all. There are costs to such matters and they will be paid in one fashion or another by someone. Far better that they are paid for by the individuals making use of the service than to contribute to the overall tax burden.
      I fully support the development of such networks, and as a resident of the minneap
        • Lets replace a word here shall we?

          I personally find your comment to be distressing and pessimistic. I feel that the overall goal of having open Cable TV capabilities for all people (and the hardware to do so) has the potential to help people live more productive lives, by aiding in information acquisition and use.

          I personally find your comment to be distressing and pessimistic. I feel that the overall goal of having open Longdistance Telephone capabilities for all people (and the hardware to do so) has
    • I look forward to the time in the not so distant future where wireless internet access is considered an inherent right.

      Yes and free food, and free homes, and free clothing, and free TV, and free video rentals, and free pot (like what you've been smoking) and free computers and free cars... yippee this is fun.

  • Every cop car? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by imbroken3a (862091) on Tuesday April 12 2005, @10:27AM (#12212141)
    So if every cop car is linked, couldn't you find a way to track the location of each car and then use that to plan a crime? Or see that there are no cars on the road, so you can speed as fast as you want.

    • Or see that there are no cars on the road, so you can speed as fast as you want.

      You mean like what people use RADAR detectors for?

      I'm sure there will be patrol cars "running silent" every so often to shake things up. Most criminals aren't that tech-saavy. The ones that are, are already tracking cars through means of scanners and taking note of when cops go by usually.

      In fact, if data communicated to and from patrol cars in encrypted, you might know if a cop is coming, but, unlike radio and a scanner,

    • You can already plan the location for your crimes to ensure no police presence simply by making sure the target has no donut shops within a 5 block radius.
    • ... ... ...

      you think they are not "connected" right now?

    • Re:Every cop car? (Score:5, Informative)

      by giantsfan89 (536448) <linuxwebguy.gmail@com> on Tuesday April 12 2005, @10:54AM (#12212539) Homepage Journal
      Lots of cop cars are already linked via wireless. They just don't use 802.x. The one's I've seen use wireless modems, which connect at a LOT lower frequency, and also have a greater range. I used to repair laptops used in this capacity, and I was given a little demo by an officer I know (no, I wasn't being hauled off in handcuffs). The radios combined with GPS make for a very efficient tracking system of cars, especially for dispatch.

  • a Personal Telco (Score:5, Interesting)

    by tomwhore (10233) on Tuesday April 12 2005, @10:29AM (#12212162) Homepage Journal
    Want to empower your citizens or simply want to sell them to the highest bidder?

    Sure this simplifies the question, but some solutions ( http://www.personaltelco.net ) work with all the parts of a community ( citizens, biz owners, etc) to create the power to empower, not simply the muni blessed right to make more montly bill paying consumers.

    The real question is , what works for your community. In places where there is not a grass roots DIY mindset then the AOLization method might indeed be the way to go, for communities that can raise the populace to action though....oh thereis so much more to be done.

    Come to Portland, see the results in progress.

    -tom
  • I know Chaska Minnesota [chaska.net] does this with wireless gear from Tropos Networks [tropos.com]. Are they supplying Minneapolis too?
  • This is the phone & cable companies worst nightmare - they spend billions building their networks and somebody can now undercut their costs with $99 wireless access points and antennae. I think Qwest DSL costs $40-50 in Minneapolis - 2x as much. Still, competition is good - maybe phone & cable companies will step up and we'll see the type of residential speeds that they already have in Korea and Japan here in the US in a few years.
  • With all these cities going wireless, I wouldn't be surprised if we start seeing cases of the black shakes.

  • I can foresee signal strength problems due to:
    * snow
    * swarming hordes of rampaging mosquitoes

    Ever hear the joke: "Perhaps there's a reason the wind is always blowing north in Iowa... Minnesota sucks!"

    BTW: I'm a former Edina MN and St. Anthony MN resident; It's a GREAT place to live! But, you've got to wear a durable environment suit in the summer early evening due to the large mosquitoe population (Land of 10,000 lakes makes for lots of stagnant breeding grounds).

    Living there, I quickly learned that mos

  • zerg (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Lord Omlette (124579) on Tuesday April 12 2005, @10:37AM (#12212295) Homepage
    Didn't Popular Science just claim that Minneapolis [popsci.com] is America's most technologically advanced city? Seems like citywide wireless access would be a piece of cake for these guys...
      • Yes, but unlike conventional cities which just have to cover a 2D area with wireless, our new service will also have to reach our flying cars.
        Well, duh, just put pringles cans on your antennas @ the Lunar Base....
  • If government is going to proved a service (roads, parks, network, etc...) to the people, I think it should be available to everyone and paid for by taxes. Charging individuals for use is like going into business. Governments should not be in business. In a case like this, I can see the anti-competetive arguments from broadband providers making a lot of sense.

    Provide it free and open with our tax dollars or not at all.

  • I wonder how they're planning on securing this. Methinks it's just a matter of time before someone finds a way to use the network for free. I mean, we've heard [slashdot.org] that its not too hard to crack WEP, so how are they going to make sure people don't freeload on this service?

  • I live in Mpls - they will screw it up! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by gone.fishing (213219) on Tuesday April 12 2005, @10:49AM (#12212456) Journal
    I live in Minneapolis and have to say that I believe that they will find a way to royally mess this up.

    On one hand, I see the benefits of it - I even think it may have far reaching benefits (like raising property values). On the other hand, we are Murderopolis and the money should go to fighting crime.

    In a strange way, wireless may actually help with things like crime rates. No, I am not kidding! The city needs to attract business and people back into the city. Offering this inexpensive, quality service is one way of doing just that. More jobs = less despair = less crime.

    I live in the North side of Minneapolis which is where much of the crime exists. It is in parts very bad, the gangs have control. When the gas company goes on service calls into these areas, they frequently hire off-duty police officers for security! There are quite a few empty or underutilized commercial buildings and several large areas where commercial businesses were tore down and are now just empty lots. Still businesses would be crazy to relocate here. They would be robbed, their employees harrassed and their property vandalized.

    If wireless comes to Minneapolis, I would hope that it would hit the North side first. It would be an incentive to bring people and business in.

    But the city won't work that way. North will be last.

    Meanwhile, the cable company will slowly quit providing amazing broadband service since the few remaining subscribers won't justify the cost of upgrading equipment. Here, North Minneapolis will be the first to be cut back.

    I'm screwed.

    • Re:I live in Mpls - they will screw it up! (Score:4, Informative)

      by SuperQ (431) * on Tuesday April 12 2005, @11:14AM (#12212863) Homepage
      Actualy, I have met with the people in charge of this project. They want the whole system rolled out at once, as fast as possible to cover all areas, without gaps.

      This isn't municipal broadband either, it's commercial wireless, but the city wants "shared governance" to keep the wireless company in check, and so they have a say in the coverage (to prevent the problems you talk about) Basicaly they are trying to avoid another ricochet, network hardware all over town rusting because they went under.

      I live in Saint Paul, and we're trying to do something similar, although we're about 6 months behind minneapolis.

  • I Live In Minneapolis (Score:5, Interesting)

    by handy_vandal (606174) on Tuesday April 12 2005, @11:17AM (#12212903) Homepage Journal
    I've lived in Minneapolis all my life, and I'm here to tell you that free wireless is a natural outcome of our longstanding populist/socialist traditions.

    Free market, my ass. If you want to live in a better world, instruct your government to tax you and your neighbors -- then spend that tax money on a better world.

    -kgj

  • For those of you too lazy... (Score:4, Informative)

    by webhead04 (821037) on Tuesday April 12 2005, @11:58AM (#12213516)
    ...to RTFA, here are some key points.

    * The citywide wireless network is necessary to improve government communications by linking every city building, police car and housing inspector to the city's databases, city officials say.


    * No tax money would be used for the Minneapolis wireless network, which would be paid for, built, owned and operated by the winning bidder on the city's proposal.

    * Minneapolis officials decided not to build their own wireless network because of high construction and administrative costs, Beck said. In addition, city officials were concerned that cities offering high-speed Internet service have been accused by large telephone companies of competing with the private sector, he said.

    * the city also needed an improved network that could speed up data traffic in its 47 main buildings and extend high-speed access to 300 other buildings

    * The city also wanted to replace expensive cellular radio communications used by police cars with a cheaper and faster wireless data network. There also was a desire to provide broadband to an estimated 10 to 15 percent of the city's population that either isn't served by high-speed Internet access or can't afford it.


    So, there's a little bit more going on here than the city slapping an antenna on top of the IDS tower and charging people for internet access, which a lot of these posts seem to think is what is happening.

  • enforcing log-ins? hacking protection? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by radarsat1 (786772) on Tuesday April 12 2005, @12:17PM (#12213733) Homepage
    just read through the comments, didn't see anything about this...

    how are they going to enforce log-in? That is, when I have my 802.11b network setup at home, i simply use WEP and MAC filtering to ensure that no one but me can connect to my router. But if it's open to everyone, how do they make sure that only people who paid can use it?

    There's a local free service in my city (Montreal) that has wireless for cafes, and it's pretty cool, but kind of annoying at the same time. When you connect, the first time you try to access a page, it directs you to a log-in page. Then you can browse as much as you want, but every 10 minutes or so it'll direct you back to the log-in page. It's okay, but I wouldn't trust it not to interrupt me during.. i dunno.. online banking or something.

    Also, if they do use WEP or something, they can't very well give each user their own key. Besides, it's pretty well known that WEP can be cracked. Couldn't you listen in on conversations around you can grab people's passwords? Forget paying $24 a month, I'll just figure out someone's log-in and use their access...

    I remember back when everyone was using dial-up it was always possible to get lists of people's log in names and passwords, which i guess were leaked from local ISPs, and people would use them instead of buying their own accounts. I can see this happening even more easily with wireless.

    • Re:why? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Loco3KGT (141999) on Tuesday April 12 2005, @10:21AM (#12212066)
      Because, surprise, it takes time and money to do things.

      Kudos to the government for charging monthly for access. Charge the people that use it instead of taxing everyone for a handful of geeks to use it.

      • Re:why? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Ironsides (739422) on Tuesday April 12 2005, @10:33AM (#12212230) Homepage Journal
        FTA: No tax money would be used for the Minneapolis wireless network, which would be paid for, built, owned and operated by the winning bidder on the city's proposal. That is a markedly different approach than in Philadelphia, where the city will own and operate a new Wi-Fi network.

        From You:
        Kudos to the government for charging monthly for access. Charge the people that use it instead of taxing everyone for a handful of geeks to use it.

        The one reason I am not against this implementation. Had they made it free, I would have been pissed. One thing I am concerned about though, how is this network (if it is using standard 802.11 a/b/g equipment), going to be affected by personal wirless hubs/routers? That should degrade/jam performance. They also are talking about replacing police radios (if I understood that correctly) with VoIP radios on this network. Wouldn't that be open to jamming (as in even more so than cellphones) and interference from other WAPs? Or are they going to ban the use of all non-city WAPs?
        • I agree that they are looking for problems in this regard, however it should idealy only degrade performance. Unfortunately the real world experience proves otherwise.

          The city doesn't have the authority to regulate the ISM bands, so there is not telling where this could go.

          Not to mention that HAM operators have precedence and very few restrictions in channel 1.
    • Why would you think that the cities will do this and currently AT&T,MCI,Level3, etc. wouldn't or don't do this? Do you think that they value your privacy so much they wouldn't comply with such an order?

      If the NSA wants your data, they're going to get it. A network such as this makes that no more or less likely.

      Take your tinfoil hat off at the door.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.