Municipal Wi-Fi Networks In Trouble 294
imamac writes "According to an AP story, municipal Wi-Fi is going nowhere fast. A think tank research director quipped, 'They are the monorails of this decade: the wrong technology, totally overpromised and completely undelivered.' Subscriptions to the services are much lower than expected and lawmakers are concerned that millions of dollars will have gone to waste that could have been better spent on roads or crime-fighting. Satisfaction with the quality of service has also been low, which give some insight into the low adoption rate. Is municipal Wi-Fi just a bad idea, has it been poorly implemented, or is the technology just not there to support such an endeavor?"
But if we don't have it (Score:5, Funny)
A think tank research director quipped (Score:5, Insightful)
WTF? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
As a tech , I couldn't care less about wi-fi (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Two thoughts:
At the risk of being repetative (Score:5, Insightful)
When the city/county (whatever) owns all the last mile physical plant/infrastructure and ISP's simply rent connectivity to end users the municipality will be functional and profitable. Yes, that is how we would see big bandwidth to every home, and each home would have the choice of ISP services. It is possible to do this and would instantly flatten the cost of entry as well as the rules of engagement.
Then, if you ad Wi-Fi support to parts of the city that is subscribed to by users who already pay... well, it's not such a stretch to support financially.
Does anyone see any downsides to this?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm entirely behind the concept of the municipalities running fibre and wireless networks, as long as they don't try to shrug existing providers aside and provide open competitive access to service providers using their network.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The downside is that few municipalities are still free of these existing monopolies, so most could not execute that brilliant plan.
Suburb. developments locked into 75-year contracts (Score:2, Interesting)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic l [washingtonpost.com]
Re:Suburb. developments locked into 75-year contra (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
New Orleans is Working (Score:2)
The article complained that people are not buying in New Orleans. I suppose that's because they have a free wireless network that works OK.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Some government services work out nicely in most cases (police, fire, water, sewage).
Good idea, but proper execution is REQUIRED. (Score:2, Informative)
However, they can be done very, very horribly. Case in point: Tempe, AZ (think Phoenix) has municipal wireless. They got it right with allowing some free services to everyone (you can visit asu.edu and such without paying), but the service is run by co
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
My parents live in Mountain View and had to use a router with a directional antenna pointed directly at the nearest node around 250 meters away to get reliable access.
The major issue (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't believe this could happen? Ask anyone that has tried to use the Toronto mesh network downtown. It's flat ugly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The major issue (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, you have several things wrong. Mesh radios CAN be set to low power modes but invariably they are not. They are set to blast at or near full power because nearby interference causes issues that only power output can solve. Sectorizing only solves so much. But even those that aren't set up that way still exhibit many issues. At a full 36db EIRP, 2.4Ghz will indeed go 20 miles line of site and beyond, if the noise floor is low enough and the radio is high enough. 5.2Ghz cannot use reflectors and only has a useful range of a few kilometers, but it's the lowest power of the available bands.
Take a look at the 2.4Ghz backhauls that go over 40 miles with standard EIRP. Not that PCMCIA cards will power that far, but the A.P.s will. One company makes a product that claims 216Mbps full duplex over 20 miles, in fact.
So the question to you: If mesh gear worked so well, why is everyone having trouble with them?
As for interference... 5.8Ghz noise levels are horrendous around here, 2.4Ghz is only good for backhaul links for towers that are way out in the middle of nowhere, for multipoint it's nearly unusable, and 5.2Ghz is moderately noisy as well. I'm hoping the 5.4G and 4.9G radios will be available really soon because I need them. Speaking of that, my damn Motorola OFDM radios still can't be set to 4.9G even though it says right on the box that they support that band.
Then there's 900Mhz... the interference in the top of the usable unlicensed band made it unusable and if two WISPs in an area decide to use 900Mhz, they'll both lose... and the beat goes on.
The only real way out of the mess is to go with proprietary WiMax type products, and if you see another one of my posts, that's not a completely infallable solution, either.
Anecdote (Score:4, Insightful)
Internet as a utility needs time to develop if it is ever going to be adopted. Take a look at my situation. I pay for a cable modem and not for a municipal wi-fi connection. Why? Well, because I occasionally like to watch television and television service is bundled with internet service. If I buy them separately I'm paying a whole lot of extra cash. What would make me change my mind? Well, if I could rent legal TV episodes over IP for a very, very low price akin to that portion of what it costs to see them on cable TV. Until that time, however, why should I pay extra?
Muni wireless done right: Oakland County, MI (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
No demand for it (Score:2, Informative)
Most other people might have
Re: (Score:2)
But even without constant WiFi, I manage fine without it. The only times I really miss it are when I need to look up new directions on the road, and I have to rely on EDGE-speed cellular (over Bluetooth from my cell phone) to do my Google Mapping.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Implementation dependent, not a failure of muni wifi.
- Limited support
Contract support organization. Not difficult.
- Limited compatibility
Implementation dependent, not a failure of muni wifi. I've not run across a single muni setup like you're describing.
- Only available if signing up ahead of time
I'm not even sure what point you're trying to get across here.
- Guaranteed to be monitored
Cite examples. Show me this "guarantee".
Also, UMTS is far from universal and also requires similar ve
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If I'm visiting a city with Municipal Wi-Fi, I can't just open my laptop and access it. That was the initial promise of Municipal Wi-Fi -- it should be free for all, and anyone could access it -- not just those who had signed up in advance.
Then the crusade against child porn and copyrighted entertainment shot down that idea, because there was a "need" to register who did what.
It wasn't meant to compete
Re: (Score:2)
Well since the wifi will technically never be free (taxes?) are you saying that the government shouldn't provide the service? This is the same conundrum with healthcare. Someone always ends up paying more for a service from the government they don't personally use. If you are going to make wifi for the city, make it cheap, but don't make it free and dig into the pockets of taxpayers who won't use it, and
It's because (Score:2)
Let people connect. If you MUST have something, put a 1 page explaination. Period. Then let people use it. If somene crosses the line, deal with them.
Re: (Score:2)
Um... if you don't have accurate information about your users, how are you supposed to deal with them when they abuse the system? Fleets of roving, packet-sniffing vans with directional antennas trying to track down the mac address of the kiddie pr0n guy that keeps popping up all over town... or? Or, how about: if you wan
Re: (Score:2)
I can read books in the library without ID. And depending on which library I visit, I can use the computer without displaying ID, too.
Re: (Score:2)
But reading books in the library doesn't really lend itself to launching DoD attacks, maintaining your Russianm kiddie pr0n site, following up on your phising project, etc. And most any library that allows anonymous computer use runs filters, proxies, and logs. Regardless of how appropriate the comparison is to other utilities, the GP's notion that municipal WiFi isn't taking
Reasonable requirements but premature technology (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Cellular internet may have already taken over by the time WiMax is ready. Though WiMax may get a boost if the cellular providers are the ones providing it, which is likely what will happen around here (WiMax base stations on cell towers, telco offers yet another package to their users).
Re: (Score:2)
Is it as cheap or fast as some people want? No.
WiFi obsolete as a public WAN... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's the marketing (Score:4, Insightful)
"Municipal Wi-Fi", in contrast, sounds so lackluster, like "Deparment of Leisure Services". Proponents use lame slogans like "Wi-Fi? Wi-Not?" and "Just because you can't see it, doesn't mean it's not useful."
We need something that will make folks excited, like "Naked Bimbos Everywhere".
In trouble? Seriously? (Score:2)
London municipal wifi (Score:2)
Suprised? (Score:2, Insightful)
1. Unlike the free market, they only answer to the people every couple of years. The sellers must respond to the buyer every single day.
2. When government screws up they spend your money to figure out what happened and to come up with a solution. In the free market, you can just change providers.
And what of the problems with the "free" market? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Government services don't have the overhead of profit.
Unless government has the magical power to produce goods and services out of thin air, the government needs to make a profit. The only difference is that private industry relies on a voluntary system of generating revenue, where as the government relies on the threat of violence to compel people to pay.
Of course, in most cases it is the government and corporations are working together (such as in the case of municiple wifi). If a corporation can't sell enough wifi equipment to willing buyers, all it has to
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
And, from Moofie's response:
It seems that a definition is in order. Profit is the amount of revenue received minus the production cost and overhead. So, no, government doesn't need to make a profit, it just needs to cover its costs and overhead. Neither of which are zero.
And, again, the idea that
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with that sort of argument isn't that it's not true, it's that it seems to underestimate the waste and bureaucracy that frequently happen in for-profit organizations. Those who believe government agencies are uniquely equipped to produce high overhead have probably never worked at a 25,000+ person corporation. (Or to put it in Slashdot-esque terms, Office Space wasn't about a government agency, after all.)
Somewhat more seriously, it seems to me that the questions around municipal wi-fi are ess
Poor Implementation (Score:3, Insightful)
It is not that City-wide Wi-Fi doesn't work or there is no tech powerful enough to run it; it's just poor implementation and, more importantly, poor advertisement.
For one, rural and suburban municipal Wi-Fi would be a much better implementation because some of these cities are still on the lower-end of personal internet connections (think low-speed DSL...). Running a Wi-Fi network with its network connection coming from an area with a much faster internet connection or a satellite-capable connection could possibly happen...
Also, I live in a fairly popular city in the United States. I believe we have city-wide Wireless internet, but I have not heard a WORD from our city's government (either that or it was taken down). Plus, another poster mentioned a good point that there is just too much cross-talk; I could be in a cafe with Wi-fi enabled, but it will not be that advantageous with the SEVENTEEN other wireless networks that are in the air...
I think this is a case where 802.11a might hold a candle. But that's just me, and maybe it's not right either ;-)
Well.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, based on my experiences with municipal bureaucracies, I'd say yes, yes, and maybe.
Good Ideas Bad Implementations? (Score:2)
Maybe Muni WiMax, but not WiFi (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
However, this is not without its problems either. Customers would have to buy Wimax equipment and also pay spectrum licensing fees, since it's far from free to buy it. And it doesn't work as well as the vendors would like us to believe.
huh (Score:3, Funny)
Did anyone else instantly think "SimCity" when they read that?
Yeah? No?
Subscriptions? (Score:2)
On the other hand, a free
Why? (Score:3, Informative)
Do people constantly use their computers in parks? On the sidewalk?
Most people use the Internet in their home. A few will use it at a coffee shop or restaurant.
If you want to provide Internet access then a community DSL or fiber network is the place to start. Then selective hot-spots. like at schools, libraries, community centers, and maybe some parks.
Why would I pay for access to a metropolitan wifi network when I have a WAP at home, internet at my office, free wifi and a couple of restaurants I go to, and a browser on my phone?
metropolitan wifi networks are a solution seeking a problem.
Now Monorails are cool. Actually they do tend to be cheaper than subways and a lot more attractive than elevated trains. I think they are a good solution to mass transit. Too bad buses and light rail are cheaper still.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
1. Cost of housing
2. Work force
3. Schools
4. Cheap fiber to my Office.
5. Traffic
6. Home Broadband.
My priories are based on a small development staff and a big support staff.
Wifi everywhere? Not really on my list.
I think City managers think that it will attract "high tech" companies. The problem is they don't understand high tech so they guess wrong. Or I could be totally wrong.
I think paying my staff enough to afford a ho
This is hysterical (Score:2)
No, not that millions of dollars will have gone to waste. That "lawmakers are concerned" bit. It gets me every time.
I mean, they took the money from someone, to give to someone else. They're not feeling the pain, and they're not really feeling the benefit. Build the matrix:
Not a slanted story, no siree (Score:2)
Municipal Wi-Fi Can't Beat Laws of Physics
Companies Grow Wary of Building Out Municipal Wi-Fi Networks
Expert: Wi-Fi Laptops 'Pose Health Risk to Children'
Hackers Target Wi-Fi Hotspots in New Phishing Attacks
OK, I see the problem (Score:2)
Lompoc recently slashed prices by $9, to $16 a month, for the main household plan.
OK. Here's the thing guys. If I didn't already have cable or DSL broadband, at $25 I would tack it on with my current provider instead of dealing with yet _another_ provider. At $16 I suppose you will get a great percentage of dial-up people to up
Fiber Spanks Wireless (Score:2)
Bad deployment decisions (Score:2)
Whereas other deployments that chose decent equipment like Tranzeo's two radio wifi m
Re: (Score:2)
Tranzeo is kind of a neat company. Their stuff is damned inexpensive and it works pretty well, from my experience.
Bad timing (Score:2)
Give it 5 more years.
Worst since the monorail eh? (Score:5, Funny)
Coincidence? I think not. (Score:2)
Hmm. Lompoc introduces a municipal wireless network. Just as the city starts, the local DSL and cable providers suddenly do massive upgrades to their systems. Upgrades that the city has been asking for for years, and that the DSL and cable providers have found it infeasible to do. One wonders whether this sudden change of heart on the part of the private providers might have something to do with the failure of the wireless network, and whether those providers would have had that change of heart if it weren'
Works great here... (Score:2)
If your family can't afford the f
What a loaded plant. False Choice Winner! (Score:2, Insightful)
WOAH. False Choice fallacy winner here.
"A think tank" study, eh? I don't have to look at the name, as I can guess. Lissen up; the "think tanks" are really, REALLY well funded right wing propoganda outlets dressed up as friendly wonks. Who's picking up the tab for this "think tank" study? Would that group have a deep interest in reaming us bloody with corporatized, right-size
Other options (Score:2)
Hmm. I take it for granted that the government is generally both slow and dumb, but any implementation beats my current options:
DSL doesn't reach. SpeedNet is a privately owned WiFi network downstate-only for rural areas, at the rural price: $50.00 a month. And Sprint's WiMax [wikipedia.org] is *years* away.
ANY muni wi-fi service would beat the Comcast monopoly. So just get your act together and make it happen.
Most important part of the article (Score:2)
If nothing else, the muni wi-fi forced the commerical players to upgrade. That by itself make the project a success.
I am opposed to it... (Score:2)
It's a half-baked idea (Score:2)
Re:the answers: (Score:5, Interesting)
1) Most businesses have their own network (which, BTW, is faster than the service provided)
2) Most CBD's are "vacant" during the evening when individuals would be using it.
3) It doesn't make it to the 'burbs where I live.
Layne
Re:Harry Browne said it best...to sell his book (Score:2, Insightful)
Hey swallow some assholes book - he needs the money.
Re:Harry Browne said it best...to sell his book (Score:4, Insightful)
And the private sector does work? (Score:2, Insightful)
Hell, scroll down the front page here at Slashdot and you'll see a story posted today about the failure of many ISPs to provide adequate service [slashdot.org]. Of course, we've seen many, many stories like that posted here. I'm sure we've all got our own stories to tell about the trouble we've experienced dealing with various ISPs.
So every time that somebody comes along and says that t
Me Too (Score:2)
My favorite quote? We are not libertarians, we are constitutionalists. Suuuure you are.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you are so interested in voluntarely interaction between people, it might be a good idea to not think that everyone who has his own ideas (that might be different from yours) is by definition stupid, else you are just arguing everyone should be like you, and this whole voluntary interaction thing becomes pretty meaningless.
Something else, untill the invention of centralized government, humanity was stuck living in rather primitive and
Re: (Score:2)
It was intended as a jest to compliment the offensive politically decisive parents posts.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because someone isn't crazy enough to buy into libertarianism doesn't mean they're a socialist. It just means they aren't completely stupid. Admitting to being a libertarian is akin to admitting to being a Scientologist, it's a fairly clear sign of mental derangement.
Libertarianism is the crazy idea that most human interactions should be voluntary, rather than compulsory or forbidden. Does not being crazy enough to buy into libertarianism make you a socialist? Maybe not. A statist? Most definitely. I am uncertain why I am being modded as flamebait above for stating the obvious. Spun's posts are clearly more inflammatory than mine...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Libertarians want the right to economically enslave others. When all resources are privately owned, all non-owners are defacto slaves, and it is this goal that libertarians work towards: the enslavement of the poor, worldwide.
Re:Harry Browne said it best... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Harry Browne said it best... (Score:4, Insightful)
Good call.
Given that life at least requires food, and according to many, also clothing and shelter. having a right to life implies having a right to those things as well.
That sets them apart from whatever_you_want
Hence. maybe you should follow your own advice before starting to sound like a fanatical non-thinker.
Re: (Score:2)
"Mutually beneficial" is not the guarantee of moral correctness you seem to think it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A libertarian society is the most vile and inhumane society you can imagine which is
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Harry Browne said it best... (Score:4, Interesting)
I think there's plenty of evidence to support that the only thing private companies do "better" than government is enrich themselves. You may not have noticed, but to a great extent, many of the economic problems we're facing in the US at the moment are the direct result of the fanatical belief that "free markets" are good in any way shape or form.
The reason we had a strong middle class in the US during the second half of the 20th century is because of the "socialist" programs of FDR and his followers. That, and Labor Unions were the two forces that created a middle class where families could live off the salary of one working parent and kids could expect a better life than their parents (mostly gone, now). All unfettered capitalism and free markets got us last century was a whopper of a Depression and a tech bubble.
By the way, after a decade of Republican, pro-capital, "free market" rule in Congress and 5 years of Bush, we've just about done away completely with the American middle class. Things like thederegulation of the banking industry have leeched an incredible portion of the wealth that had been gathered by the middle class. If we keep this nonsense up much longer we're going to have a very small group of rich people and a whole lot of serfs. That may suit some of you, but I don't really have the temperament for serfdom, and I certainly don't have the necessary greed and lack of morals required to become one of the elite.
I get such a kick out of midlevel techie "managers" who swear they're doing so much better under Bush, until you find out the amount that they owe has been increasing every year, and their real income has been declining at about 7 percent annually (despite their 2 percent "raises").
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Harry Browne said it best... (Score:5, Interesting)
Government is a control structure, and like any it can be abused. That includes the control structures of private ownership, which aren't as efficient as you may think. In studies of privatization, privatization of competitive industries works well, while privatization of natural monopolies has always failed.
With government, there is a system of checks and balances. In the free market, there are no checks and balances to curb the runaway positive feedback loop of wealth accumulation. There are no checks to stop the exploitation of the natural failure modes of the free market: information imbalance, natural monopoly, and externalities. I have yet to hear a Libertarian give a cogent explanation of how their system would deal with those three factors.
You accuse me of not understanding Libertarianism, I accuse you of not thinking through the consequences.
Re: (Score:2)