Well to one-up you,
Our local Utility has been offered Wimax Radios to be used in a Mesh Network on a licensed Freq, so that they can read meters.
What really gets me is that these people with a few carefully chosen words appear to know more than all of us put together. The gift of the GAB.
You have a Good Day now,

Carl A Jeptha
office 905 349-2084
Emergency only Pager 905 377-6900
skype cajeptha

Brad Larson wrote:
I'm biting my tongue on this topic....I have been on enough of these
projects, well over 50 in the last 12 months alone, and I have to say there
are a pile of people that don't know what they're getting into and many will
get hurt. For instance, I have a unnamed mesh vendor quoting 14 nodes per
square mile for 100% coverage in a decent sized community in MA. They'll
need at least 40ish... And please keep in mind that different parts of the
Country where tree lines/foliage, noise floors, and topology are different
create their own separate challenges. Throw in voice as some of the
"wireless network experts" have advised and a whole new overlay of problems

There is a place for mesh just like other tools in your kit but covering
whole counties or even trying to cover a whole City is quite a stretch IMHO.
How did we get to this point of mesh first being considered a "convenience
or hotspot extension" to what it has become today where it is seen as the
4th solution to the last mile or a cost effective roaming solution for
public safety or city workers? 

I have seen designs in the NE US where 40 to 69 2.4 Ghz nodes per square
mile are needed when a simple implement of 900 Mhz mobility with two base
stations (redundant) per square mile can do the trick and save 90% of the
cost of a mesh network. Use mesh in the parks, at the pool, in the
restaurant district, or anywhere else people may want public access. And
I'll add that opening up my notebook on a sunny day outside is pretty much a
waste of battery power. I'm afraid Tempe AZ and St Cloud are just the start
of some of the bad press we're going to see related to our wireless

But then again, I'm a show me guy so if one of these major networks actually
works, has an ROI and doesn't become a boondoggle for tax payers, and serves
the public well then I'll be impressed. Brad

-----Original Message-----
From: John J. Thomas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 10:03 AM
To: WISPA General List
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

-----Original Message-----
From: George [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 09:02 AM
To: 'WISPA General List'
Subject: Re: [WISPA] Pioneering Wi-Fi City Sees Startup Woes

John J. Thomas wrote:
First off, the WISPs have to have the guts to talk to the city. Many
simply refuse to do so, and are probably going to get the Muni WiFi shoved
down their throats.
I don't want to turn this into a battle of ideals.

George, you are welcome to believe anything that you want. Here are some
1. I work for Clare Computer Solutions and we are a Cisco Mesh certified
network Integrator.
2. Cities have approached US to install their networks
3. These cities are not San Francisco sized, they are probably populations
100,000 and smaller.
4. They are spending the money to put in infrastructure for City workers,
first. Many are looking at providing Internet access second.

But how many local wisps have been chosen to date?
I bet Joe laura in NO got passed over without much consideration to him.
Joe is on this list, let him chime in here.

Second, the cities are mostly going to use 2.4 GHz for access and 5.7-5.8
GHz for backhauls. WISP's will need to use 5.25-5.25 GHz and 900 MHz.
Almost every wisp today is using 2.4 to reach the customer and 5 gig for 
infrastructure and high end customers. Are you saying that wisps have to 
move off the existing spectrum and replace their equipment?

I am not saying that WISPS have to move off of 2.4. I am saying that if
WISPs want to provide top quality service, then they may need to move off of
2.4 as it is getting crowded in lots of areas.
In a word, service. The city will only be offering WiFi access-period.
They won't be going out to peoples houses and doing installs, fixing virii,
doing firewalls, etc.
Here is a scenario, if a potential customer who is on the fence while 
deciding to go to broadband was to hear that a new muni free wifi system 
is going to come on line or he can buy now with his local wisp, which 
choice is the average consumer going to make?

Most are going to try the muni first. Some are going to be unsatisfied and
will look for a better deal. I'll give you an example. I had 384k SDSL to my
house and it was costing me $152 per month. In order to save money, I
dropped the SDSL in favor of a cable modem. The cable modem can do 6 meg
down and about 384k up for $43 per month and has been verified by
DSLreports. Even my wife thinks the SDSL was better, I just couldn't afford
it anymore. If someone in Antioch CA were even offering wireless service at
$42 per month, I would be there. There is a subset of people that want
quality, and are willing to pay for it. Two questions come up-can you
deliver and are there enough to keep you from starving?

The support scenario happens long after the fact.

WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org


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


WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org


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

Reply via email to