Here are a few issues I think need to be resolved with a public wireless
network.

1.  Hardware.  Even though 802.11b is cheap in the store, getting
hardware to function well over a large area is more expensive.  802.11b
is fast enough for most user needs, i.e. the Internet.  It is also the
most prevalent.  Maybe in a year or two 802.11g will replace all of the
802.11b equipment.  Other standards will require users to purchase new
hardware to work with the network.

2.  Planning.  The key to setting up a wide scale wireless network is
going to need some planning.  The 2.4 GHz is pretty particular about
what materials can be between the access point and the wireless network
card.  Water is a pretty good inhibitor.

3.  Installation.  Who is going to install the hardware when the
location of the hardware is decided?

4.  Support.  Who will support and troubleshoot the hardware access
points and the users who will connect to the network?

5.  Legal issues.  Who will take responsibility for abuse and enforce
rules?

6.  Internet access.  Where is the bandwidth to the Internet access
going to come from?

If you have a chance, stop by the middle of Loring Park.  You should
find an open access point with an SSID of TCWUG.  A few members of the
Twin Cities Wireless Users Group have setup a D-Link access point about
1/4 mile from the middle of the park and directed an 18dbi grid antenna
to the middle of the park.  The whole setup cost ~$200.00 minus the cost
of the Internet connection.  We are looking to setup a repeater,
~$125.00, in the park which should cover about 80% of the park.

Anyone interested in setting up an open wireless network in Standish
Ericsson?

Hope this helps,

Andrew Zimmer
Standish-Ericsson

-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of Jeanne Massey
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 10:00 AM
To: 'Chris Johnson'; [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Mpls] Minneapolis Wi-Fi proposal advances

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




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

Reply via email to