Re: [WISPA] SF Earthlink Study
The biggest problem I have with thesedeals are... What are the ramifications if a company doesn;t deliver? They may promise a CPE with every deal, but what if the investors chage their mind because they aren;t getting the pay back to jsutify giving the CPE after significant trials? What value get puts on the damages that the Provider is responsible for, when not delivering what they promised? Losse the contract? So what, who'd care if it wasnlt working? Or Who would let the contract terminate, if forcing them out would result in some customers losing existing service, and a long time before a new option installed in town? The bottom line is, once some subs are up on the network, the provider has control, because the public (that can be served) interests must be looked after alsol Thats the disadvantage of Monopoly agreements. They are uninforceable. And the only thing it solves, is removes enforcabilty, in the provider's favor. I just talked to a relative of mine, who's city is looking to do a small town Muni Wifi project. They may give exclusivity to the equipment on the poles installed by the provider, and non-interference clauses, but they are not planning on giving exclusivity to the poles themselves. They are leaving options for a second provider to get involved if they want. If the first provider does a good job, no one would deploy in duplicate, it would be pointless for the small town. But that possibilty keeps the first provider honest and trying their best. Tom DeReggi RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband - Original Message - From: "Kimo Crossman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: ; "'Ralph'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 2:23 AM Subject: [WISPA] SF Earthlink Study (thank you for your insightful input Ralph) Message: 12 Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 17:40:53 -0500 From: "Ralph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Numbering my responses to Kimo's questions: 1. Right now, a handful of cities (I think they are the 3 Metro-Fi cities in Silicon Valley, plus Mtn View) are getting 1Mb. This is totally dependent of the depth of the pockets of Metro-Fi's backers and on the advertising revenues. Ever play with a puppy in a pet store? They are so cute, you just have to take it home. If the business model doesn't pay out i.e.: They don't get enough paying subscribers or they don't get the revenue from the ads, then you will see it change. Not saying that was Metricom's demise, but they had few users and any Metro network takes gobs of money to build out. I've seen it first hand... With this model and with the equipment that will be used in SF. It ain't free and it ain't cheap! (kimo) I agree with you- I think Metro-Fi's model still has yet to be proved a success. On the other hand ATT is doing Portland Oregon with them so there may be more developing on this. 2. So Seattle will have it in 10 years. By then, there will be something bigger and better. Will the SF residents have to wait 10 years too? Not something I'd be willing to do- especially when I was faced with a proposal from someone who will do it for free and assume all the risk. What has SF got to lose? (kimo) The EarthLink deal doesn't compare favorably with what other cities are getting - Why should SF settle? Sf already has more hotspots than any other city in the nation. It is not hard to find a free hotspot currently. SF shouldn't lock itself in to what is effectively a 16 year monopoly deal with tech that is already dated. 3. Milpitas, CA. No tall residential buildings (but some are under construction. A 24-30 ft high access point with the relatively low gain of the Tropos antennas will have a good amount of upward radiation. It isn't that much better of an antenna than a dipole would be. It certainly has little, if any, directional abilities. It may not go up into a 30 story hotel or apartment house, but how many residence in SF are in those? That can easily be the 5 or 10 % allowed not to be covered. Most of my friends in SF live in 2-4 story abodes. According to the web page, the CPE is given with a paid connection anyway, so there's no-one not getting one except for the people taking the freebie. Even if I chose to live in a place that required use of a CPE, it is no different than buying an XM receiver to listen to XM, or buying a transistor radio or boom box to listen to free radio. (kimo) Hmm ok, well there are more and more tall residential buildings in SF and isn't anything over 2 stories already above the 40 ft coverage that EarthLink is agreeing too? Are you suggesting (I hope it's true) that a CPE solves all indoor and above 40 ft issues? I thought it was of limited value? -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wi
RE: [WISPA] SF Earthlink Study
Oddly enough, the SF deal includes no city services in the contract but says the city will consider EarthLink as a sole bid for future wireless services. Some wonder if this has all been arranged to allow the city to say now that they are currently putting no money into the deal and then to quickly put some money in after the deal is approved. As you say, almost all muni wifi deals have the government as the Anchor Tenant. -Original Message- From: Joe Laura [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 2007 January 17 00:01 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; WISPA General List Subject: Re: [WISPA] SF Earthlink Study IMO the only thing that will make earthlink really have a chance of being profitable in the wi-fi arena is if they are able to sell city government and/or business services. I think New Orleans is using the earthlink service for the city camera project but I am not sure if they are charging a fee for this or not. I could come up with some really neat ideas to sell service off of the earthlink network but the coverage just is not there IMO. They are offering a indoor CPE with a service commitment but in many cases a indoor CPE is not going to get clients a reliable connection. Testing from my van in some areas I get a great signal and then it just drops to nothing. I do see alot of tropos units with no ssid's and I am not sure whats up with that. Maybe thats for the cameras. Superior Wireless New Orleans,La. www.superior1.com - Original Message - From: "Kimo Crossman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: ; "'Ralph'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 1:23 AM Subject: [WISPA] SF Earthlink Study (thank you for your insightful input Ralph) Message: 12 Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 17:40:53 -0500 From: "Ralph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Numbering my responses to Kimo's questions: 1. Right now, a handful of cities (I think they are the 3 Metro-Fi cities in Silicon Valley, plus Mtn View) are getting 1Mb. This is totally dependent of the depth of the pockets of Metro-Fi's backers and on the advertising revenues. Ever play with a puppy in a pet store? They are so cute, you just have to take it home. If the business model doesn't pay out i.e.: They don't get enough paying subscribers or they don't get the revenue from the ads, then you will see it change. Not saying that was Metricom's demise, but they had few users and any Metro network takes gobs of money to build out. I've seen it first hand... With this model and with the equipment that will be used in SF. It ain't free and it ain't cheap! (kimo) I agree with you- I think Metro-Fi's model still has yet to be proved a success. On the other hand ATT is doing Portland Oregon with them so there may be more developing on this. 2. So Seattle will have it in 10 years. By then, there will be something bigger and better. Will the SF residents have to wait 10 years too? Not something I'd be willing to do- especially when I was faced with a proposal from someone who will do it for free and assume all the risk. What has SF got to lose? (kimo) The EarthLink deal doesn't compare favorably with what other cities are getting - Why should SF settle? Sf already has more hotspots than any other city in the nation. It is not hard to find a free hotspot currently. SF shouldn't lock itself in to what is effectively a 16 year monopoly deal with tech that is already dated. 3. Milpitas, CA. No tall residential buildings (but some are under construction. A 24-30 ft high access point with the relatively low gain of the Tropos antennas will have a good amount of upward radiation. It isn't that much better of an antenna than a dipole would be. It certainly has little, if any, directional abilities. It may not go up into a 30 story hotel or apartment house, but how many residence in SF are in those? That can easily be the 5 or 10 % allowed not to be covered. Most of my friends in SF live in 2-4 story abodes. According to the web page, the CPE is given with a paid connection anyway, so there's no-one not getting one except for the people taking the freebie. Even if I chose to live in a place that required use of a CPE, it is no different than buying an XM receiver to listen to XM, or buying a transistor radio or boom box to listen to free radio. (kimo) Hmm ok, well there are more and more tall residential buildings in SF and isn't anything over 2 stories already above the 40 ft coverage that EarthLink is agreeing too? Are you suggesting (I hope it's true) that a CPE solves all indoor and above 40 ft issues? I thought it was of limited value? -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
Re: [WISPA] SF Earthlink Study
IMO the only thing that will make earthlink really have a chance of being profitable in the wi-fi arena is if they are able to sell city government and/or business services. I think New Orleans is using the earthlink service for the city camera project but I am not sure if they are charging a fee for this or not. I could come up with some really neat ideas to sell service off of the earthlink network but the coverage just is not there IMO. They are offering a indoor CPE with a service commitment but in many cases a indoor CPE is not going to get clients a reliable connection. Testing from my van in some areas I get a great signal and then it just drops to nothing. I do see alot of tropos units with no ssid's and I am not sure whats up with that. Maybe thats for the cameras. Superior Wireless New Orleans,La. www.superior1.com - Original Message - From: "Kimo Crossman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: ; "'Ralph'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 1:23 AM Subject: [WISPA] SF Earthlink Study (thank you for your insightful input Ralph) Message: 12 Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 17:40:53 -0500 From: "Ralph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Numbering my responses to Kimo's questions: 1. Right now, a handful of cities (I think they are the 3 Metro-Fi cities in Silicon Valley, plus Mtn View) are getting 1Mb. This is totally dependent of the depth of the pockets of Metro-Fi's backers and on the advertising revenues. Ever play with a puppy in a pet store? They are so cute, you just have to take it home. If the business model doesn't pay out i.e.: They don't get enough paying subscribers or they don't get the revenue from the ads, then you will see it change. Not saying that was Metricom's demise, but they had few users and any Metro network takes gobs of money to build out. I've seen it first hand... With this model and with the equipment that will be used in SF. It ain't free and it ain't cheap! (kimo) I agree with you- I think Metro-Fi's model still has yet to be proved a success. On the other hand ATT is doing Portland Oregon with them so there may be more developing on this. 2. So Seattle will have it in 10 years. By then, there will be something bigger and better. Will the SF residents have to wait 10 years too? Not something I'd be willing to do- especially when I was faced with a proposal from someone who will do it for free and assume all the risk. What has SF got to lose? (kimo) The EarthLink deal doesn't compare favorably with what other cities are getting - Why should SF settle? Sf already has more hotspots than any other city in the nation. It is not hard to find a free hotspot currently. SF shouldn't lock itself in to what is effectively a 16 year monopoly deal with tech that is already dated. 3. Milpitas, CA. No tall residential buildings (but some are under construction. A 24-30 ft high access point with the relatively low gain of the Tropos antennas will have a good amount of upward radiation. It isn't that much better of an antenna than a dipole would be. It certainly has little, if any, directional abilities. It may not go up into a 30 story hotel or apartment house, but how many residence in SF are in those? That can easily be the 5 or 10 % allowed not to be covered. Most of my friends in SF live in 2-4 story abodes. According to the web page, the CPE is given with a paid connection anyway, so there's no-one not getting one except for the people taking the freebie. Even if I chose to live in a place that required use of a CPE, it is no different than buying an XM receiver to listen to XM, or buying a transistor radio or boom box to listen to free radio. (kimo) Hmm ok, well there are more and more tall residential buildings in SF and isn't anything over 2 stories already above the 40 ft coverage that EarthLink is agreeing too? Are you suggesting (I hope it's true) that a CPE solves all indoor and above 40 ft issues? I thought it was of limited value? -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/ -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] SF Earthlink Study
(thank you for your insightful input Ralph) Message: 12 Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 17:40:53 -0500 From: "Ralph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Numbering my responses to Kimo's questions: 1. Right now, a handful of cities (I think they are the 3 Metro-Fi cities in Silicon Valley, plus Mtn View) are getting 1Mb. This is totally dependent of the depth of the pockets of Metro-Fi's backers and on the advertising revenues. Ever play with a puppy in a pet store? They are so cute, you just have to take it home. If the business model doesn't pay out i.e.: They don't get enough paying subscribers or they don't get the revenue from the ads, then you will see it change. Not saying that was Metricom's demise, but they had few users and any Metro network takes gobs of money to build out. I've seen it first hand... With this model and with the equipment that will be used in SF. It ain't free and it ain't cheap! (kimo) I agree with you- I think Metro-Fi's model still has yet to be proved a success. On the other hand ATT is doing Portland Oregon with them so there may be more developing on this. 2. So Seattle will have it in 10 years. By then, there will be something bigger and better. Will the SF residents have to wait 10 years too? Not something I'd be willing to do- especially when I was faced with a proposal from someone who will do it for free and assume all the risk. What has SF got to lose? (kimo) The EarthLink deal doesn't compare favorably with what other cities are getting - Why should SF settle? Sf already has more hotspots than any other city in the nation. It is not hard to find a free hotspot currently. SF shouldn't lock itself in to what is effectively a 16 year monopoly deal with tech that is already dated. 3. Milpitas, CA. No tall residential buildings (but some are under construction. A 24-30 ft high access point with the relatively low gain of the Tropos antennas will have a good amount of upward radiation. It isn't that much better of an antenna than a dipole would be. It certainly has little, if any, directional abilities. It may not go up into a 30 story hotel or apartment house, but how many residence in SF are in those? That can easily be the 5 or 10 % allowed not to be covered. Most of my friends in SF live in 2-4 story abodes. According to the web page, the CPE is given with a paid connection anyway, so there's no-one not getting one except for the people taking the freebie. Even if I chose to live in a place that required use of a CPE, it is no different than buying an XM receiver to listen to XM, or buying a transistor radio or boom box to listen to free radio. (kimo) Hmm ok, well there are more and more tall residential buildings in SF and isn't anything over 2 stories already above the 40 ft coverage that EarthLink is agreeing too? Are you suggesting (I hope it's true) that a CPE solves all indoor and above 40 ft issues? I thought it was of limited value? -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
RE: [WISPA] SF Earthlink study
Kimo- please explain what Webnetic is. Numbering my responses to Kimo's questions: 1. Right now, a handful of cities (I think they are the 3 Metro-Fi cities in Silicon Valley, plus Mtn View) are getting 1Mb. This is totally dependent of the depth of the pockets of Metro-Fi's backers and on the advertising revenues. Ever play with a puppy in a pet store? They are so cute, you just have to take it home. If the business model doesn't pay out i.e.: They don't get enough paying subscribers or they don't get the revenue from the ads, then you will see it change. Not saying that was Metricom's demise, but they had few users and any Metro network takes gobs of money to build out. I've seen it first hand... With this model and with the equipment that will be used in SF. It ain't free and it ain't cheap! 2. So Seattle will have it in 10 years. By then, there will be something bigger and better. Will the SF residents have to wait 10 years too? Not something I'd be willing to do- especially when I was faced with a proposal from someone who will do it for free and assume all the risk. What has SF got to lose? 3. Milpitas, CA. No tall residential buildings (but some are under construction. A 24-30 ft high access point with the relatively low gain of the Tropos antennas will have a good amount of upward radiation. It isn't that much better of an antenna than a dipole would be. It certainly has little, if any, directional abilities. It may not go up into a 30 story hotel or apartment house, but how many residence in SF are in those? That can easily be the 5 or 10 % allowed not to be covered. Most of my friends in SF live in 2-4 story abodes. According to the web page, the CPE is given with a paid connection anyway, so there's no-one not getting one except for the people taking the freebie. Even if I chose to live in a place that required use of a CPE, it is no different than buying an XM receiver to listen to XM, or buying a transistor radio or boom box to listen to free radio. I really don't see what the whole hoo-ha is about. A company is willing to build this out, for no taxpayer cost- giving away free service that is 6 times faster than dial up. If I lived there and had nothing (or still had dialup) I would jump on it in a heartbeat. Imagine for a moment that EL was to walk away. The city (which will admittedly be one of the hardest in the World to cover) will have no immediate service to compete with cable and phone, much less a free service. It all sounds like a lobby from the telcos and cablecos to me. It is a tempest in a teapot. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Kimo Crossman Sent: Monday, January 15, 2007 1:17 PM To: wireless@wispa.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [WISPA] SF Earthlink study From: "Ralph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >It is. SF has no financial investment at all. They just get a free >ubiquitous network covering their city, like many other cities already have. >As far as the 300k free tier goes, 300 k is fine if you had nothing. >What do they think, that the dial up people had free dialup already? Other cities are getting 1000kbps free - why not SF? >Fiber to the prem? Ha. In all of SF? Not in my lifetime. Seattle is planning fiber to the home by 2015 >The stuff in there about the $80-200.00 CPE is just bogus. Someone has >fed the authors of that report a line of bull! If the contract with the >City >>says building penetration, then that's what EL has to do. Talking >>about CPEs >is putting the cart before the horse a bit. My experience with another >town they did has been that there is penetration to 95% of that city's >streets, and a good bit inside the homes. What town? Does that town have a lot of tall multiresidential dwellings? I think the issue with CPE is both building penetration in all floors as well as the ability of the computer to send back the response. Even EarthLink in the contract agrees that CPE will probably be needed indoors. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
[WISPA] SF Earthlink study
From: "Ralph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >It is. SF has no financial investment at all. They just get a free >ubiquitous network covering their city, like many other cities already have. >As far as the 300k free tier goes, 300 k is fine if you had nothing. What do >they think, that the dial up people had free dialup already? Other cities are getting 1000kbps free - why not SF? >Fiber to the prem? Ha. In all of SF? Not in my lifetime. Seattle is planning fiber to the home by 2015 >The stuff in there about the $80-200.00 CPE is just bogus. Someone has fed >the authors of that report a line of bull! If the contract with the City >>says building penetration, then that's what EL has to do. Talking about CPEs >is putting the cart before the horse a bit. My experience with another town >they did has been that there is penetration to 95% of that city's streets, >and a good bit inside the homes. What town? Does that town have a lot of tall multiresidential dwellings? I think the issue with CPE is both building penetration in all floors as well as the ability of the computer to send back the response. Even EarthLink in the contract agrees that CPE will probably be needed indoors. -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
