Re: American Wi-Fi gets off to a bad start

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: dewayne () warpspeed com (Dewayne Hendricks)
Date: June 26, 2007 8:54:38 AM EDT
To: Dewayne-Net Technology List <xyzzy () warpspeed com>
Subject: [Dewayne-Net] re: American Wi-Fi gets off to a bad start

[Note:  This comment comes from reader Ken DiPietro.  DLH]

From: Ken DiPietro <ken () nextgencommunications net>
Date: June 26, 2007 5:35:58 AM PDT
To: Dewayne Hendricks <dewayne () warpspeed com>
Cc: Dewayne-Net Technology List <xyzzy () warpspeed com>
Subject: Re: [Dewayne-Net] American Wi-Fi gets off to a bad start

Dewayne (et al)

I fear this is yet another article where the editor started off with  
the set of preconceived notions suggesting that wireless deployments  
are not ever going to work and then went out to find some supporting  
quotations to back up these assumptions.

Conversely, it should be pointed out that many of the problems that  
have been raised in this article are quite accurate. We have seen  
problems in network design and deployment, as in what has happened in  
Philadelphia, not to mention political issues as have plagued San  
Francisco since their project was announced. In fact, depending on  
what criteria one would use to measure success in this industry I  
cannot think of one network I would label a complete success.

It should be pointed out, that in all reality, we are talking about a  
technology that has been applied to this application for under a  
decade and that specifically homing in on one aspect, the Municipal  
Wireless industry, which is realistically less than four years old.  
If we were to compare this to where the telephone industry was a  
century ago the conclusion would probably be that we are doing quite  
well, in comparison.

One point that should be made, in my opinion, is that many of these  
networks will largely be obsolete, as defined by the purposes that  
many people will wish to use them for, by the time many of them are  
completed. However, the most dramatic failures will be not technical  
in nature, they will be due to poorly planned and executed business  
models, based on an almost dot com mentality, where can almost hear,  
"We really don't know where the revenue to support these networks is  
coming from but we'll build them and then figure out a way to make  
them profitable." Whether this insanity was driven by dialup  
providers becoming increasingly desperate, as their clients abandoned  
them by the droves, or whether there was a lack of comprehension as  
to the difficulty of running a citywide wireless network, we may  
never truly understand. The real damage that this mindset will cause  
in our industry will create more of an impact than any shortcomings  
the technology might eventually show.

Let me be clear in stating that this does not mean to imply that the  
concept of pervasive wireless connectivity is a bad thing or that  
this technology will not eventually be ubiquitous in our society,  
what it does imply is that there is opportunity, real opportunity,  
for someone to come in and build one - just one - of these networks  
where everything, including the business model, just works.

Respectfully,

Ken DiPietro VP/CTO
NextGenCommunications
Wireless Technology that Works


> Dewayne Hendricks wrote:
> American Wi-Fi gets off to a bad start
> 10:00 24 June 2007
> <http://www.newscientisttech.com/channel/tech/dn12119-american-wifi- 
> gets-off-to-a-bad-start.html>
> PUBLIC Wi-Fi networks designed to provide cheap internet access  
> across cities and towns have got off to a bumpy start in the US.
>
> Local governments are setting up municipal wireless networks,  
> partly as a way of bridging the digital divide by offering cheap or  
> even free internet access to low-income families (New Scientist, 28  
> March 2006, p 28).
>
> Nearly 200 local governments in the US now run wireless networks,  
> with another 195 planned, according to MuniWireless, a firm that  
> tracks industry trends. Yet only 88 of those built so far serve  
> their entire community, with 63 operating in limited hotspots and  
> 39 used only by government agencies. Delays in setting up the  
> networks are common.
>
> In San Francisco, for example, a network due to be installed by  
> Google and internet service provider Earthlink remains on hold  
> pending a July hearing before the city's board of supervisors, two  
> years after the city first asked for bids. The network has become  
> the subject of a battle of wills between the city's mayor and  
> board, delaying its installation, which was due to begin this year.
>
> While the problems in San Francisco are largely political, many  
> networks have encountered basic technical difficulties. Wi-Fi  
> signals can be blocked by buildings and trees, so developers have  
> found that they need around double the number of antennas per  
> square-kilometre that they originally planned for to ensure  
> adequate coverage, says Ash Dyer, wireless network programme  
> manager for Cambridge, Massachusetts, which is running two pilot  
> projects with a view to installing a city-wide network. This has  
> led to time-consuming network redesigns.
>
> [snip]






-------------------------------------------
Archives: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: http://v2.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com