[CWN-Summit] Response to Slate article

[Michael Oh]

I for one agree with Paul that Philly's plan for Wifi in the city is an  
ill-conceived plan for providing city-wide free WiFi access.  I don't  
agree that the future is so bleak, however.

I don't think that today's technology nor business models support the  
Philly concept, and I think that the taxpayers will rebel against the  
cost of a city wide network.  It's pure political positioning - which  
is initially good for the community wireless networks, but quickly it  
will turn against us, because it could be perceived as failure when  
they have to scale back plans or once the incumbents start going nuts  
on the city for taking their business.

Their lack of details about how they're going to do it doesn't provide  
any confidence either.  Paul's supposition about WiFi's lack of range  
indoors is true - how will a transmitter located 1/8 of a mile away  
penetrate into my living room?  Will I need to buy a couple hundred  
dollars worth of equipment to "receive" the signal and then amplify it  
into my home?  Will I need an outside antenna?  What speeds?  Where  
does the bandwidth come from if 100 homes per node are using the access  
and expecting 1-3 Mbps speeds?

Without details, anyone announcing a city-wide network will risk that  
the opponents will fill them in for you.  Mayors and city councillors  
alike should be warned - do not say that you're going to do something  
you don't have any concept on how to implement it.  They should become  
educated, impart some of their knowledge on the press, and show the  
opponents that they have a rock-solid case for how it should be done.

It's interesting to note the Boston was on this list of "other cities"  
- when I think our concept is very very different.

As mentioned in a globe article:

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2004/09/02/ 
councilor_envisions_citywide_wireless_web_access/

I actually showed Councilor Tobin a month ago how WiFi worked - and  
although he too is prone to hyperbole by announcing that he'd like to  
see a "citywide" network, there's one key difference here.

"According to Tobin's plan, the city would start out small, adding  
antennas to the wireless 'hotzones' at Boston's public library branches  
and some Boston schools, expanding their reach. But eventually, the  
councilor wants the entire city to be wireless."

He proposes to start small, then expand from there (although he's still  
shooting pretty high with the 'entire city' thing).  It's a smart move  
- and one that I hope that all of you recommend to your municipal  
leadership.  In Boston, we're focusing on developing with the city,  
small hotzones around commercial areas using our corporate sponsored  
network model.  Combined with larger networks stemming from city  
libraries and schools, we hope to begin to see these networks  
eventually fuse into larger networks.

Eventually, they may expand and 'go mesh,' but our first priority is  
show WiFi working in key places - then the people will begin to drive  
the demand, not the politicians.

Mike

On Sep 15, 2004, at 1:01 PM, cwn-summit-request at cuwireless.net wrote:

> http://www.slate.com/id/2106657/
-------
Tech Superpowers, Inc. - "Technology for Genius®"
252 Newbury Street
Boston, MA 02116

[Phone]   (617) 267-9716   [Email]     oh at techsuperpowers.com
[Fax]     (617) 267-8927   [Email 911] pageoh at techsuperpowers.com
[Pager]   (888) 377-9591   [Web]       http://www.techsuperpowers.com

[PSST!] Get our monthly e-mail newsletter -  
http://www.techsuperpowers.com/TQ