Chris Johnson: So it's really a case of "it all depends." If Minneapolis institutes a Wi-Fi service based on 802.11b at 11Mbps, it's safe to say that for users with a good enough signal, their speed will be faster than cable. Users with a poorer signal (further from antenna, more errors), might see less. If Minneapolis goes with 802.11g, clearly there's even more bandwidth available.
Thanks Chris, that's how I understand it as well. Paraphrasing input from my spouse (who's more conversant than I am on this): the city is proposing to provide internet access using the 802.11b wireless protocol (just like most of the other cities with public wireless access). This means that the speed of the internet access could not, in theory, be more than 11 Mbps. However, just because the city is using the 802.11b protocol does NOT mean that internet access will be at 11 Mbps. The speed at which internet access is provided by the city depends on other factors (i.e., the architecture of the system hardware that the city installs). As the city has stated, internet data will be accessible at 1 to 3 Mbps. This is comparable to cable and probably a bit faster than DSL. For comparison, most companies access the internet at 1.5 Mbps on a T1 line (the big difference between T1 and cable is that T1 has much faster UPLOAD speeds, approaching 1.5 Mbps). I think the reason that cities state that they're using the 802.11b protocol is not to indicate the speed but to let the public know that if they have a wireless card that uses the older 802.11a protocol, then they won't be able to access the system. The upshot of the above is that if you have a 802.11b card in your computer and a good signal from the nearest city wireless access point, you should have no problem downloading at whatever speed the city is providing (in this case, up to 3 Mbps). If you have a 802.11g card in your computer (which are really "b or g" cards because most can use either the b or g protocols), you will not be able to download any faster than a 802.11b card because the bottleneck is the city's system, not your card. Given that the city's internet access speed is limited to 1 to 3 Mbps, the benefit of using a 802.11g card over a 802.11b card in your computer is that the 802.11g protocol allows for faster transfer of files between networked computers (54 Mbps versus 11 Mbps, again assuming a good signal - typically 802.11g transfer speeds are around 30 Mbps). This may be useful if you've set up a wireless network at home that allows, for example, your desktop, laptop and printer talk to each other. Given all this, my only question is "What limits the city to providing internet access at 1.5 Mbps?" Wouldn't it be wise to build the system for much faster speeds to accommodate the new wireless protocols that will be coming down the pike (802.11j, k etc.) that will use much higher speeds? I assume that the issue is the cost of the system architecture, but I don't know. Jeanne Massey Kingfield REMINDERS: 1. Be civil! Please read the NEW RULES at http://www.e-democracy.org/rules. If you think a member is in violation, contact the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A Civil City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[email protected] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
