As John Navas posted, a few high profile muni wifi projects are going south.
The San Fran project with Earthlink has had some bumps in the past, but it
appears that Earthlink has some internal problems and need to restructure
their business model anyway.
As for the projects themselves, some were a tad bit over ambitious to begin
with.
San Fran's project is a case in point. The city wanted Earthlink to cover
the city and offer free service to everyone. Well equipment and backhaul
costs money, hence that was doomed from the start.
Had the city used this wirless coverage for Police and Fire departments, and
paid for that service, then the city could have offered free service to the
people. Of course blanket city wide free service is also not a good idea,
they (the city) could have selected areas of town to cover, like say
downtown business district, bigger popular parks, the courthouse area, etc.
What I am trying to say, is that the technology is sound, but it is the
business model being used in places like San Fran that have resulted in the
falure of Muni WiFi.
Up here in rural alaska Muni Wifi is a great way of bringing high speed
access to the people. But instead of covering the entire village, we cover
an area around the government building and library, and allow the citizens
to use the excess bandwidth, and to use the bandwidth after the government
closes for the day.
With Wimax coming out, that equipment can be used a a WISP type of solution
to cover large areas with less equipment than what is needed with WIFI.
On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 11:42:55 -0400, "Dana" <raff242@yahoo.com> wrote in
<eaa82$46d6e582$944e306e$23871@STARBAND.NET>:
>As John Navas posted, a few high profile muni wifi projects are going south.
>The San Fran project with Earthlink has had some bumps in the past, but it
>appears that Earthlink has some internal problems and need to restructure
>their business model anyway.
It's doubtful that anyone could really make it work.
>As for the projects themselves, some were a tad bit over ambitious to begin
>with.
>San Fran's project is a case in point. The city wanted Earthlink to cover
>the city and offer free service to everyone. Well equipment and backhaul
>costs money, hence that was doomed from the start.
>Had the city used this wirless coverage for Police and Fire departments, and
>paid for that service, then the city could have offered free service to the
>people.
Using Wi-Fi for police and fire is a Really Bad Idea(tm)!
>Of course blanket city wide free service is also not a good idea,
No kidding!
>they (the city) could have selected areas of town to cover, like say
>downtown business district, bigger popular parks, the courthouse area, etc.
>What I am trying to say, is that the technology is sound, but it is the
>business model being used in places like San Fran that have resulted in the
>falure of Muni WiFi.
Free and muni are the problems.
The free market works much better.
>Up here in rural alaska Muni Wifi is a great way of bringing high speed
>access to the people. But instead of covering the entire village, we cover
>an area around the government building and library, and allow the citizens
>to use the excess bandwidth, and to use the bandwidth after the government
>closes for the day.
Better to let private business do it.
>With Wimax coming out, that equipment can be used a a WISP type of solution
>to cover large areas with less equipment than what is needed with WIFI.
Not necessarily. Only time will tell.
--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
>> Using Wi-Fi for police and fire is a Really Bad Idea(tm)!
>
> Not at all.
Sure it's a bad idea. Police, fire and other emergency response units need
a reliable means of communication. You get a couple of file-sharing users
on and the whole thing goes to pot.
That is why the FCC assigned the 4.9 GHz spectrum, in 2003, known as the
'Public Safety' band.
John Navas wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 11:42:55 -0400, "Dana" <raff242@yahoo.com> wrote
> in <eaa82$46d6e582$944e306e$23871@STARBAND.NET>:
>
>> As John Navas posted, a few high profile muni wifi projects are
>> going south. The San Fran project with Earthlink has had some bumps
>> in the past, but it appears that Earthlink has some internal
>> problems and need to restructure their business model anyway.
>
> It's doubtful that anyone could really make it work.
>
Works fine if you don't try and make it free... Check out skynet of spokane http://www.spokaneskynet.com/
had them for a few years... Hotspots are HUNDREDS of square miles, and work
with laptops/pdas/etc with 802.11b.... Does cost a few bucks a month, but
for the few years I used it (till I sold my house and moved), worked great
with stuff many people already have.... Wonder why they try and make things
supposedly free, or require you to buy something new?
In article <Xns999CBF5867BE2thisnthatadelphianet@216.196.97.1 42>,
DanS <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@a.d.e.l.p.h.i.a.n.e.t> wrote:
> >> Using Wi-Fi for police and fire is a Really Bad Idea(tm)!
> >
> > Not at all.
>
> Sure it's a bad idea. Police, fire and other emergency response units need
> a reliable means of communication. You get a couple of file-sharing users
> on and the whole thing goes to pot.
Sorta depends on what you are doing. P/F/ER could probably make good
use of a WiFi system for non-emergency routine things like using IM to
contact supply for needed replacements, calling on/off shift, chatter
between stations, sending reports back and forth, there are probably
others. The REAL question is do you want to strip money from the Public
Safety budget to underwrite the system. Seems like it maybe should be
general public subsidizing Public Safety.
On Mon, 1 Oct 2007 12:36:59 -0400, "Dana" <raff242@yahoo.com> wrote in
<379fe$46d843b0$944e306e$27233@STARBAND.NET>:
>"DanS" <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@a.d.e.l.p.h.i.a.n.e.t> wrote in message
>news:Xns999CBF5867BE2thisnthatadelphianet@216.196 .97.142...
>>>> Using Wi-Fi for police and fire is a Really Bad Idea(tm)!
>>>
>>> Not at all.
>>
>> Sure it's a bad idea. Police, fire and other emergency response units need
>> a reliable means of communication. You get a couple of file-sharing users
>> on and the whole thing goes to pot.
>
>Proper design will ensure that the bandwidth for police, fire, etc is
>preserved.
Unfortunately, there's really no way to do that with standard Wi-Fi.
--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
On Sep 5, 4:56 pm, John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Oct 2007 12:36:59 -0400, "Dana" <raff...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> >Proper design will ensure that the bandwidth for police, fire, etc is
> >preserved.
>
> Unfortunately, there's really no way to do that with standard Wi-Fi.
Fortunately bandwidth modeling for WiFi is very easy...when you are a
professional in the biz.
"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:te9ud3545mnsrnck7cl5hd800dm3rt4efr@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 1 Oct 2007 12:36:59 -0400, "Dana" <raff242@yahoo.com> wrote in
> <379fe$46d843b0$944e306e$27233@STARBAND.NET>:
>
>>"DanS" <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@a.d.e.l.p.h.i.a.n.e.t> wrote in message
>>news:Xns999CBF5867BE2thisnthatadelphianet@216.19 6.97.142...
>>>>> Using Wi-Fi for police and fire is a Really Bad Idea(tm)!
>>>>
>>>> Not at all.
>>>
>>> Sure it's a bad idea. Police, fire and other emergency response units
>>> need
>>> a reliable means of communication. You get a couple of file-sharing
>>> users
>>> on and the whole thing goes to pot.
>>
>>Proper design will ensure that the bandwidth for police, fire, etc is
>>preserved.
>
> Unfortunately, there's really no way to do that with standard Wi-Fi.
Sure there is. It is called proper design and engineering.
<nevtxjustin@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1189035366.294713.88740@w3g2000hsg.googlegrou ps.com...
> On Sep 5, 4:56 pm, John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 1 Oct 2007 12:36:59 -0400, "Dana" <raff...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> >Proper design will ensure that the bandwidth for police, fire, etc is
>> >preserved.
>>
>> Unfortunately, there's really no way to do that with standard Wi-Fi.
>
> Fortunately bandwidth modeling for WiFi is very easy...when you are a
> professional in the biz.
Yet people tend to insist that it cannot be done, only because they lack a
complete understanding of the technology and how to make it work like we
want. Like you said above, "when you are a pro in the biz".
People like John just make our job a tad more difficult with customers and
users of the systems, when they spout bogus info, based on a lack of
complete knowledge of the capabilities.
>Fortunately bandwidth modeling for WiFi is very easy...when you are a
>professional in the biz.
Ahem. I beg to differ. I've done quite a bit of modeling wireless
data systems for various customers in the past. Strangely, I've never
done a Wi-Fi system as all of them were various proprietary schemes
designed to compensate for the deficiencies of Wi-Fi.
I've looked at Wi-Fi with Mathcad 2000 and had problems because of the
large number of outside influences that are difficult to include. For
example, reflections, interference, multipath, proprietary
enchancements, and creative implimentations, are all common with Wi-Fi
systems. I was interested in simulating various mesh network
topologies, mostly to verify how close test results followed theory.
Mesh adds additional complexity with routing algorthms, geographic
routing, and long range timing problems. Throw in various fading
models for moving clients, and life becomes really complex. I could
ignore all the outside influences in the simulation, but then it
wouldn't resemble reality.
Unfortunately, I may have hit the limits of my abilities with Mathcad.
If I ever get inspired to resurrect the exercise, I may to need an
update to the latest version (13?), a copy of Simulink, and to get
some qualified advice on where I screwed up and on how to continue.
I'm also tempted to switch to MATLAB, which offers a library of models
to plagerize:
"IEEE 802.11a WLAN model"
<http://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/loadFile.do?objectId=3540&objectType=FILE>
"Jeff Liebermann" <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in message
news:cqmud35r5j7kp1pq0kqccnfggsupijre4q@4ax.com...
> nevtxjustin@gmail.com hath wroth:
>
>>Fortunately bandwidth modeling for WiFi is very easy...when you are a
>>professional in the biz.
>
> Ahem. I beg to differ. I've done quite a bit of modeling wireless
> data systems for various customers in the past. Strangely, I've never
> done a Wi-Fi system as all of them were various proprietary schemes
> designed to compensate for the deficiencies of Wi-Fi.
>
> I've looked at Wi-Fi with Mathcad 2000 and had problems because of the
> large number of outside influences that are difficult to include. For
> example, reflections, interference, multipath, proprietary
> enchancements, and creative implimentations, are all common with Wi-Fi
> systems.
Sounds like a typical day in the office for cellular engineers. Ray tracing
methods are now becoming popular in rf propagation software solutions.
I was interested in simulating various mesh network
> topologies, mostly to verify how close test results followed theory.
> Mesh adds additional complexity with routing algorthms, geographic
> routing, and long range timing problems. Throw in various fading
> models for moving clients, and life becomes really complex. I could
> ignore all the outside influences in the simulation, but then it
> wouldn't resemble reality.
http://www.wavecall.com/accurate.php
>
> Unfortunately, I may have hit the limits of my abilities with Mathcad.
> If I ever get inspired to resurrect the exercise, I may to need an
> update to the latest version (13?), a copy of Simulink, and to get
> some qualified advice on where I screwed up and on how to continue.
> I'm also tempted to switch to MATLAB, which offers a library of models
> to plagerize:
> "IEEE 802.11a WLAN model"
> <http://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/loadFile.do?objectId=3540&objectType=FILE>
>
> "Simulation of an 802.11 Wireless Network"
> http://nislab.bu.edu/sc546/sc546Fall...less/index.htm
>
> "802.11b PHY MATLAB Code"
> <http://webscripts.softpedia.com/script/Communication-Tools/802-11b-PHY-MATLAB-Code-32206.html>
>
> "Modeling Multpath in 802.11 Systems"
> <http://www.commsdesign.com/story/OEG20021008S0001>
>
> Ugh... power going up and down. Later...
> --
> 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
Methinks we're talking about two different types of simulations here. nevtxjustin@gmail.com said:
"Fortunately bandwidth modeling for WiFi is very easy...when you
are a professional in the biz."
which I took to mean simulating bit/packet error rates, retransmission
algorthm effects, thruput, error correction effects, carrier to
jamming ratio, doppler damage, Eb/No falloff, power control effects,
and reliability/availability. You seem to have interpreted the
original statement as coverage area, which really is a trivial
exercise until you get down to urban jungles and indoor propagation.
(Incidentally, thanks for the Wavecall link. I was trying to remember
their URL).
What I use for propagation is Radio Mobile:
<http://www.cplus.org/rmw/english1.html>
using SRTM data for the wide areas, and some "borrowed" LADAR data for
the local urban jungle. It blows up in the near field, but then I
don't care much about that. I should finish this web site one of
these daze:
<http://802.11junk.com/cellular/>
<http://802.11junk.com/cellular/jeffl/SVLY-PGE/>
Simulating Wi-Fi is far more complicated. With a propagation and
coverage model, there are really only a few variables, which are
mostly signal strength and postion. All the other variables are
static for a given map. With modulation and data simulation, there
are a huge number of variables, most of which I listed previously.
However, the purposes are very similar, which it to calculate how many
radios can function in a given geographic area, and at what
performance levels. That's not very easy as witnessed by none of the
MATLAB models I posted go beyond the idealized RF model (no
interference, no reflections, no multipath, no doppler, no MIMO, no
mesh, no long distance timing, etc).
Incidentally, I don't think I'll be buying MATLAB. $1,900 for MATLAB,
$3,000 for SIMULAB and my guess is about $7,000 for all the RF/COMM
modules I'll need.
<http://www.mathworks.com/store/productIndexLink.do>
"Jeff Liebermann" <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote in message
news:bkqud3p8sgimll424kde8srob227ifc5rj@4ax.com...
> "Dana" <raff242@yahoo.com> hath wroth:
>
>>Sounds like a typical day in the office for cellular engineers. Ray
>>tracing
>>methods are now becoming popular in rf propagation software solutions.
>
>>http://www.wavecall.com/accurate.php
>
> Methinks we're talking about two different types of simulations here.
I was replying to your reply about the impairments like multipath has on the
system
> nevtxjustin@gmail.com said:
> "Fortunately bandwidth modeling for WiFi is very easy...when you
> are a professional in the biz."
> which I took to mean simulating bit/packet error rates, retransmission
> algorthm effects, thruput, error correction effects, carrier to
> jamming ratio, doppler damage, Eb/No falloff, power control effects,
> and reliability/availability.
I took his statement in the context of the ongoing thread, about preserving
bandwidth for certain users.
You seem to have interpreted the
> original statement as coverage area, which really is a trivial
> exercise until you get down to urban jungles and indoor propagation.
> (Incidentally, thanks for the Wavecall link. I was trying to remember
> their URL).
No problem about the url.
When I read your reply which included multipath and other rf impairments, I
thought you were saying rf planning fro mesh networks is almost impossible.
>
> What I use for propagation is Radio Mobile:
> <http://www.cplus.org/rmw/english1.html>
> using SRTM data for the wide areas, and some "borrowed" LADAR data for
> the local urban jungle. It blows up in the near field, but then I
> don't care much about that. I should finish this web site one of
> these daze:
> <http://802.11junk.com/cellular/>
> <http://802.11junk.com/cellular/jeffl/SVLY-PGE/>
>
> Simulating Wi-Fi is far more complicated. With a propagation and
> coverage model, there are really only a few variables, which are
> mostly signal strength and postion. All the other variables are
> static for a given map. With modulation and data simulation, there
> are a huge number of variables, most of which I listed previously.
> However, the purposes are very similar, which it to calculate how many
> radios can function in a given geographic area, and at what
> performance levels. That's not very easy as witnessed by none of the
> MATLAB models I posted go beyond the idealized RF model (no
> interference, no reflections, no multipath, no doppler, no MIMO, no
> mesh, no long distance timing, etc).
>
> Incidentally, I don't think I'll be buying MATLAB. $1,900 for MATLAB,
> $3,000 for SIMULAB and my guess is about $7,000 for all the RF/COMM
> modules I'll need.
> <http://www.mathworks.com/store/productIndexLink.do>
Yep. for those of us not lucky enough, mathlab is kind of out of reach on
the affordability scale.
On Wed, 5 Sep 2007 19:46:43 -0400, "Dana" <raff242@yahoo.com> wrote in
<6cf2$46df3ffc$944e306e$15337@STARBAND.NET>:
>"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:te9ud3545mnsrnck7cl5hd800dm3rt4efr@4ax.com.. .
>> On Mon, 1 Oct 2007 12:36:59 -0400, "Dana" <raff242@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> <379fe$46d843b0$944e306e$27233@STARBAND.NET>:
>>
>>>"DanS" <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@a.d.e.l.p.h.i.a.n.e.t> wrote in message
>>>news:Xns999CBF5867BE2thisnthatadelphianet@216.1 96.97.142...
>>>>>> Using Wi-Fi for police and fire is a Really Bad Idea(tm)!
>>>>>
>>>>> Not at all.
>>>>
>>>> Sure it's a bad idea. Police, fire and other emergency response units
>>>> need
>>>> a reliable means of communication. You get a couple of file-sharing
>>>> users
>>>> on and the whole thing goes to pot.
>>>
>>>Proper design will ensure that the bandwidth for police, fire, etc is
>>>preserved.
>>
>> Unfortunately, there's really no way to do that with standard Wi-Fi.
>
>Sure there is. It is called proper design and engineering.
I beg to differ -- Wi-Fi lacks the kind of facilities needed for
guaranteeing "bandwidth" (a serious misnomer -- tsk tsk:) or even any
sort of communication at all -- all it takes is one bad apple to spoil
the Wi-Fi barrel, which is why it's definitely not "mission critical".
--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
On Wed, 5 Sep 2007 19:46:43 -0400, "Dana" <raff242@yahoo.com> wrote in
<6cf2$46df3ffc$944e306e$15337@STARBAND.NET>:
>"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:te9ud3545mnsrnck7cl5hd800dm3rt4efr@4ax.com.. .
>> On Mon, 1 Oct 2007 12:36:59 -0400, "Dana" <raff242@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> <379fe$46d843b0$944e306e$27233@STARBAND.NET>:
>>
>>>"DanS" <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@a.d.e.l.p.h.i.a.n.e.t> wrote in message
>>>news:Xns999CBF5867BE2thisnthatadelphianet@216.1 96.97.142...
>>>>>> Using Wi-Fi for police and fire is a Really Bad Idea(tm)!
>>>>>
>>>>> Not at all.
>>>>
>>>> Sure it's a bad idea. Police, fire and other emergency response units
>>>> need
>>>> a reliable means of communication. You get a couple of file-sharing
>>>> users
>>>> on and the whole thing goes to pot.
>>>
>>>Proper design will ensure that the bandwidth for police, fire, etc is
>>>preserved.
>>
>> Unfortunately, there's really no way to do that with standard Wi-Fi.
>
>Sure there is. It is called proper design and engineering.
p.s. Thanks for finally fixed your computer clock. Was that a good
example of proper design and engineering? Or just cockpit error? ;)
--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 20:14:23 -0400, "Peter Pan"
<PeterPanNOSPAM@AkamailNOSPAM.com> wrote in
<13denbonvd1ek3b@corp.supernews.com>:
>John Navas wrote:
>> On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 11:42:55 -0400, "Dana" <raff242@yahoo.com> wrote
>> in <eaa82$46d6e582$944e306e$23871@STARBAND.NET>:
>>
>>> As John Navas posted, a few high profile muni wifi projects are
>>> going south. The San Fran project with Earthlink has had some bumps
>>> in the past, but it appears that Earthlink has some internal
>>> problems and need to restructure their business model anyway.
>>
>> It's doubtful that anyone could really make it work.
>Works fine if you don't try and make it free...
And that's the point.
--
Best regards, FAQ for Wireless Internet: <http://Wireless.wikia.com>
John Navas FAQ for Wi-Fi: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi>
Wi-Fi How To: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_HowTo>
Fixes to Wi-Fi Problems: <http://wireless.wikia.com/wiki/Wi-Fi_Fixes>
"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:rg83e3t94vg8i0grv9nv7jdcac2frblreo@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 5 Sep 2007 19:46:43 -0400, "Dana" <raff242@yahoo.com> wrote in
> <6cf2$46df3ffc$944e306e$15337@STARBAND.NET>:
>
>>"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>>news:te9ud3545mnsrnck7cl5hd800dm3rt4efr@4ax.com. ..
>>> On Mon, 1 Oct 2007 12:36:59 -0400, "Dana" <raff242@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>> <379fe$46d843b0$944e306e$27233@STARBAND.NET>:
>>>
>>>>"DanS" <t.h.i.s.n.t.h.a.t@a.d.e.l.p.h.i.a.n.e.t> wrote in message
>>>>news:Xns999CBF5867BE2thisnthatadelphianet@216. 196.97.142...
>>>>>>> Using Wi-Fi for police and fire is a Really Bad Idea(tm)!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure it's a bad idea. Police, fire and other emergency response units
>>>>> need
>>>>> a reliable means of communication. You get a couple of file-sharing
>>>>> users
>>>>> on and the whole thing goes to pot.
>>>>
>>>>Proper design will ensure that the bandwidth for police, fire, etc is
>>>>preserved.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, there's really no way to do that with standard Wi-Fi.
>>
>>Sure there is. It is called proper design and engineering.
>
> I beg to differ
Only because you lack the knowledge of the technology.
On Sep 7, 2:13 pm, John Navas <spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >>>Proper design will ensure that the bandwidth for police, fire, etc is
> >>>preserved.
>
> >> Unfortunately, there's really no way to do that with standard Wi-Fi.
>
> >Sure there is. It is called proper design and engineering.
>
> I beg to differ -- Wi-Fi lacks the kind of facilities needed for
> guaranteeing "bandwidth" (a serious misnomer -- tsk tsk:) or even any
> sort of communication at all -- all it takes is one bad apple to spoil
> the Wi-Fi barrel, which is why it's definitely not "mission critical".
I beg to differ...WiFi is nothing more than another type of radio
communications, albeit with more limitations. With proper traffic
control facilites, i.e. limiting how much pipe a user can have access
to, it can take out that "bad apple".
Please refrain from spouting misleading misinformation. Hire a
professional that deals with "mission critical" applications as part
of his professional venue.
WiFI going bust? Wimax coming on strong 
Linear Mode
