Find an investor or several. You're looking at 30 to 35 access points per square mile. Figure on $2,000 to $3,000 per access point.
Examples...
* Chicago - 220 square miles, 7,500 access points, $18.5 Million or 34 APs per sq. mile
* Google's Mountain View - 12 square miles, 400 access points or 33 APs per sq. mile
* Earthlink Houston - 640 square miles, $50 Million. Closed shop and city took it over for meter reading.
* Earthlink anywhere - Rebranded as Earthlink Nowhere.
* Corpus Christi - 147 square miles, $7.1 Million
If you have $100,000 per square mile ready to spend, let's talk.
we have a thesis and that is to provide a wireless internet access across the city. its like 27 sq. km. Now im thinking of how many access points do i have to use and why.
my plan is compute the range of the access point and divide the area of the city by the area of the access points. am i right? is this effective?
You're looking at 30 to 35 access points per square mile. Convert square miles to square kilometers and you'll get an answer.
That is only effective as a starting point. Higher density use footprints may require more APs. Then you have to consider your vertical access rights; utility or traffic light poles are good options, but that can be much more difficult than you can imagine.
What kind of range?
As I have posted many times in the past....
Quote:
From history, it is well known that a street level laptop or smartphone can use the AP up to 500 feet to 1,500 feet.
It will very likely work up to 500 feet.
It might work past 500 feet, or it might not.
It might work up to 1,500 feet, or it might not.
It will very unlikely work past 1,500 feet.
This is all assuming you have a clear line of sight (no trees or buildings in the way), and outdoors. If indoors, you will be very lucky to get 500 feet.
Example - Where customer is outside, like in a park, and you can see the AP with nothing in the way.
Less than 100 feet, you will have have good signal.
From 100 feet to 500 feet, you will very likely have good signal.
From 500 feet to 1,000 feet, you will likely have good signal.
From 1,000 feet to 1,500 feet, you might have good signal.
Over 1,500 feet and it will *likely not work*.
If there are trees in the way, you may get one half of the above distances.
If there is a building in the way, you may get one tenth of the above distances.
If you are inside, you may get one tenth of the above distances.
If you have a smartphone, you may get one half of the above distances.
If you have $100,000 per square mile ready to spend, let's talk.
WHT 100k is alot to us, but as you know nothing to some orgs or councils. After the 100k is raised for APs what other or ongoing costs are there to run a mile-wide wifi?
i have a problem
here is the scenario:
i have 2 access points,the building which i will be placing them is very different in height
one is 64m the other is 80m
my question is,do i have to use a tower on the first building to reach the 80m of the other
access point?
do they have to be in the same height?
it is LOS
Panoptic Technology makes some devices that are perfect for this sort of thing. I'd reccommend googling Panoptic Technology to find a solution that will work for you.
Panoptic Technology makes some devices that are perfect for this sort of thing. I'd reccommend googling Panoptic Technology to find a solution that will work for you.
Riiigggghhhtttt....I wired product when the OP wants wireless.
Suggestion for Deploying a City Wide WiFi 
/watch?v=zZgteOwZUT4 
Linear Mode
