Its amazing how many integrators forget the basic principle, that the RF reflection off the outside of a concrete or brick wall is at a higher signal strength than the signal that penetrates the wall and enters the home. What good is signal into the home if you wipe out the transport down the street?

I thing the Muni Mesh needs a few real world failures fast to give everyone a reality check. Its not that I'm wishing harm to others, its just that I do not see any way Muni Mesh its going to work out well technically for most big city Muni Mesh WiFi networks as designed. By allowing the flaws to surface early will possibly save a lot of money for Munis and a lot of damage to reputation of the capabilty of the technology. Right now there is a rat race to see who can do the successful case study first, copying off other Muni's plans that have not been proven successful yet. I look at it as the race to self destruction.

The muni nets that survive I believe are going to be the ones that are smart enough to diversify on their spectrum choice. "Robert Frost- I took the path less travelled and it made all the difference.". The biggest probelm is to may are going to try and jump on 5.8Ghz, the high power band. Unfortuneately both on t he front mile to attempt penetrate walls, and on the backend for backhaul. But what they are going to do instead is interfere and saturate/waste the most valuable band unecessarilly. The secret to Muni Mesh Wifi success is going to be their abilty to acknowledge the new spectrum available to them such as the vast 255 Mhz of 5.4Ghz. There is enough there for Last mile, transport, and backhaul, and likely not going to interfere with much of any one as it is fresh under used spectrum. High Power is not needed for the small coverage areas typical of a city.

As Matt Liotta once pointed out in previous debates, the problem is not the principle MESH. MESH is a valid technique to increase capacity and redundancy, if used properly for the right applications. I believe the problem is the ignoring of the physics of RF propogation. The other flaw that cities forget is that there are advantages of using multiple levels of height as well as density. Although Munis own the ride of ways, they rarely own the height of the city or preferred broadcast sites, and taht puts them at a disadvantage.

I believe that many small town muni networks will do well. But they often have different characteristics than the big city. Buildings often have different arhetecture for one. Fewers projects and interests to interfere, as another reason.

Tom DeReggi
RapidDSL & Wireless, Inc
IntAirNet- Fixed Wireless Broadband


----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian Webster" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "WISPA General List" <wireless@wispa.org>
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 11:10 AM
Subject: RE: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes


Jack,
I hate to say it but didn't we say I told you so........ There is just not
enough spectrum to design networks like this to work with anything but
dedicated CPE devices with outdoor antennas. Simply flooding an area with
more signal to let laptops inside a house work will not solve the problem.
It just creates more noise on already maxed out spectrum. I really wish the
vendors and project stalwarts would admit this is a problem with these
networks and not gloss it over. Self interference and outside interference
are always going to be huge problems in these muni-networks. Everyone trying
to build on the fact that off the shelf consumer devices can access this
network will be the downfall. Wi-fi was never designed for a massive outdoor deployment such as this and when you try to make up for the fact that you do
not have control over the CPE when it comes to proper RF planning you are
doomed to failure. Just my 2 cents.



Thank You,
Brian Webster
www.wirelessmapping.com <http://www.wirelessmapping.com>


-----Original Message-----
From: Jack Unger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 10:29 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes


Unfortunately, this may be one of the first of many such muni problems
that I've been forcasting for years. Muni wireless can be done correctly
and WISPs (IMHO) should always try (when allowed) to play a positive
role in proper network design and operation however most muni networks
are incorrectly designed by people with limited wireless experience
(yes, that even includes some mesh network vendors) which will lead to
network failure, waste of taxpayer money, and possible loss of jobs on
the part of the city IT folks (not to mention the elected officials) who
backed the networks without first learning about how wireless technology
really works.
              jack

George wrote:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060424/ap_on_hi_te/muni_wi_fi_hiccups

I am not a fan of muni wireless.

George

--
Jack Unger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) - President, Ask-Wi.Com, Inc.
Serving the License-Free Wireless Industry Since 1993
Author of the WISP Handbook - "Deploying License-Free Wireless WANs"
True Vendor-Neutral WISP Consulting-Training-Troubleshooting
Our next WISP Workshops are April 12-13 and April 26-27
Phone (VoIP Over Broadband Wireless) 818-227-4220  www.ask-wi.com



--
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 Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless

Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/

Reply via email to