sillyputty <karmictaragem@2die4.com> hath wroth:

>I could probably find the answer to this by some research, but I'm too
>lazy.

That's ok, because I'm too lazy to research a proper answer.

>We have the beginnings of free wifi in our city (Portland),

Are you thinking perhaps of the MetroFi system:
<http://www.metrofi.com/content/maps/mf_portland_map_ad.html>

>though it's still spotty, at best, since not all areas of the city are
>'wired.'

Ummm... we gotta work on the terminology. One does not "wire" a
wireless network. I guess "install" might be a suitable substitute.
Personally, I prefer to "plant" an access point, since many of mine
are hidden inside fake plants, but nobody else likes the term. I'm
open to alternatives.

>I was thinking about how the nodes only cover about 300'
>each, then there's obstacles, interference, etc. Why can't they put up
>one big antenna, like radio stations, and pump out 50k watts, or
>whatever would be necessary to cover the entire city?

Well, lots of reasons, some of which others have mentioned. 50,000
watts means an AM broadcast band xmitter operating on about 1MHz with
a bandwidth of about 9KHz. Wi-Fi is 2,400Mhz, with a bandwidth of
about 26MHz, or about 3000 times the bandwidth of the AM station. So,
you could use a 50,000 watt AM transmitter to run wireless data, but
it would be at the speed of a really slow dialup connection, with only
one user for perhaps 100 square miles.

Need reading material on RF theory? I'm too lazy to supply a list but
might be able to generate a few buzzwords that you can insert into a
Google search.

--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558