The Hiccups of Free Wi-fi for Cities 223
smooth wombat writes "Several cities around the country are considering implementing free wi-fi for its residents. Currenly, St. Cloud, Florida is the only one that can make that claim. However, the 28,000 residents are still experiencing hiccups in the system more than a month after implementation including being able to see receivers but not being able to connect or connecting at different times with weak signals or not being able to connect at all. As a result, many residents are still paying for monthly landline connections.
HP, which has been contracted to build the project and provide customer support, says it is working to resolve the issues by adding more access points to improve signal strength in isolated parts of the city. Despite these issues, HP says that there were only 842 help-line calls out of more than 50,000 user sessions in the first 45 days of service."
Free WiFi AP wiki (Score:5, Informative)
Ironically, someone asked the guy if his server could take a Slashdotting. From talking to him through email it seems that will will be fine for a comment link.
There are a bunch of these (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Free WiFi AP wiki (Score:2)
Inigo Montoya: You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
A large scale project induces hiccups. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:A large scale project induces hiccups. (Score:2)
But as Trigun said, let's give it time. It took the plant I work in (just one plant, 5 computers on the production floor, 4
Re:A large scale project induces hiccups. (Score:2)
Re:A large scale project induces hiccups. (Score:5, Informative)
After reading the article, I found out that it "... launched the network on a trial basis in May 2004 in a new division of town to help give businesses an incentive to relocate. After further exploring the benefits, officials decided to expand it citywide." Which means that it worked well in the trial, and they had issues as they expanded and added users.
Now let's dissect all of that. May 2004, St. Cloud launches test bed. Works. Continue to run testbed.
Sometime between 01/01/06 and 03/24/06, after having to go through committees, raise funding, and implementation of the full scale wi-fi network, they release it to the public. People complain (Which is their nature, and some of them their sole function) that they can't get wireless coverage, or that the access points are maxxed out. When they do connect, it's slow. Some lady at the beach, which has really decent line of sight when compared to, say an apartment building, can use it.
So, after RTFA, I think that I'm still right. But I could be wrong about that. It's been known to happen,
Re:A large scale project induces hiccups. (Score:2, Funny)
Free as in... (Score:5, Insightful)
Free as in at least two million dollars in capital outlay and $400k annually (and they're probably underestimating). Free as in: people using it don't necessarily pay for it, and people paying for it don't necessarily use it.
That's not a definition of free I can accept.
Re:Free as in... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Free as in... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Free as in... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Free as in... (Score:2)
I hope there's at least a chance that this pays for itself... that's probably the onl
Re:Free as in... (Score:3, Insightful)
But the right-wing doesn't recognize "potential economic benefits". If it doesn't enrich a very small, already wealthy contingent, then it's a communist plot.
Re:Free as in... (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, like I pay for a fire department I've never used and roads I've never driven on. The self-centered, greedy right-wing can't fathom the concept of doing something that benefits everyone. If there is nothing in it for them personally, they scream about having to pay for it.
Sound familiar?
Sure does. The same old greed-centered crap the right keeps pumping out. Funny how the right wing thinks that everything would be fine if we just handed over everything to the corporations.
Re:Free as in... (Score:2)
As for the capital, it's being allocated to provide a public service. Not a traditional one, or even arguably a necessary one, but as I said, it's a service that the taxpayers find valuable. The service benefits everyone - efficient bu
It's as free as the roads (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:It's as free as the roads (Score:2)
And all the goods you buy are delivered to the store how? By airdrop?
Re:It's as free as the roads (Score:3, Insightful)
More to the point, a retailer passes on the cost of transporting the goods they sell to the people buying them. If I accept that public financing of infrastructure (whether network or physical) is an unacceptable use of taxpayer money, why would I want to subsidize other people's purchasing of retail goods? Let the stores build their own roads, and pass o
Re:It's as free as the roads (Score:2)
A much better argument that the gp could have would be bus systems. Many cities have a bus system that is funded by gas taxes. This means that people who do not ride the bus pay the vast majority of the money for those who do ride the bus. It complicates problems to do with real estate, those who live ouside bus routes end up paying for those wh
Re:It's as free as the roads (Score:3, Insightful)
As much as I like technology, I don't think wireless Internet access is something taxpayers should be footing the bill for right now. Maybe someday, but right now, it's expensive, hard to maintain, and not heavily used. It was already tried and abandoned in nearby Orlando. [slashdot.org] Someday, fast wireless will work as well as cell phone service will today, but until then, cities that try this
Re:It's as free as the roads (Score:2)
You either support spending public money spent on items which may not benefit everyone equally (and some not at all), or you don't.
Re:It's as free as the roads (Score:3, Insightful)
Every public project does not have equal value, and saying you should support all or none is ridiculous. Like I said, I don't think municipal WiFi is a good idea RIGHT NOW. The US interstate highway system [wikipedia.org] was implemented about 50 years after the invention of cars, and even then, it didn't happen overnight. See also water, electricity, garbage, police, firefighters, the armed fo
Re:It's as free as the roads (Score:3, Interesting)
I hear ya. There are MANY more important things to spend money on than free wifi. Housing problems, bad roads....poor schools, etc. Problems in many cities.
The internet isn't as much a necessity to living as those other things I've mentioned. And if you can't afford a connection...you probably need to be out getting an education and a better job so that a $40-$80/
Re:It's as free as the roads (Score:2)
And you stay within the confines of your own home 24x7x365? You never use any of those roads? And let's see, having private roads to everyone's house is a real alternative, right?
Seems like the case for "free" public net access is just a tad weaker than public roads.
Re:It's as free as the roads (Score:2)
The point is that the word 'free' is misleading. Of course "free wireless" would be nice. The problem is that it is not free when it is paid for by the government with tax dollars. Let's accept that fact, then we can have a discussion on whether or not taxp
Re:It's as free as the roads (Score:2)
Re:Free as in... (Score:5, Insightful)
Public services are by definition something everyone pays for and not everyone uses. That's not necessarily "unjust" or bad. It's provided to you. You're free to use it. Or not. It's there.
Re:Free as in... (Score:2)
I think this is a pretty good example of something that doesn't need to be a public service. We'll see in a few years whether the quality is adequate for the price and whether this is sustainable and beneficial for
Re:Free as in... (Score:2)
Um ... it would be pretty hard to build out citywide Wi-Fi on an individual, person-by-person basis, don't you think? Blanket coverage of an entire area is the goal. You may not be interested in using said service, but ... see grandparent. You are of course free to move to a municipality that shares your libert
And the really awesome part (Score:4, Insightful)
Public roads? Lubricates the commerce (at the very least), which makes the economy as a whole better for you to participate in.
Social security? Keeps the unfortunate & market-abused from being too much of a drag on society and potentially a destabilizing force; IOW, it keeps society secure for you, too.
Subsidized communications (incl. wifi services)? Facilitates democracy, free flow of information, not to mention commerce like roads & public transport also do. Which makes the economy and your democracy all the better, even if you choose other avenues to participate in commerce & government.
Re:Free as in... (Score:2)
So - all of you; stop talking, grab the code and compete who is next !
Dw.
Re:Free as in... (Score:2)
I don't know if it will all work out o
Re:Free as in... (Score:2)
You accept it for your "free" roads. Or is it just that you hate democracy? I imagine that the exorbitant of about $1.20 per month per "user" is just way to high for you. These same users either voted on the expendature directly (most likely for a town action of this nature, from what I've seen) or they voted in the people that did approve it (and can vote them out for people that will do a better job if they don't like it).
If the town in question agrees th
Re:Free as in... (Score:2)
Just because it isn'
Re:Free as in... (Score:2)
Lets see... 28,000 residents (lets call that 10,000 households)
$2,000,000 outlay = $71 per resident ($200 per household)
$400,000/year = $14 per resident PER YEAR ($40 per household PER YEAR)
So $200 setup free, and $40 bucks a year for wireless internet. Where do I sign up?
Around here I'd pay $300.00/year (EVERY YEAR) for ADSL "Lite", and I can only use that in my house, not anywhere in the city. Even craptastic dialup at $9/month costs more than this after a very short time!!
T
Re:Free as in... (Score:2)
$2.6 million / 3500 = $742 / user
And the monthly expense is:
$400,000 / 12 / 3500 = $9.50 / month / user ($114/year)
If you compare that to $40/month, you are saving about $30/month, but you paid $742 up front. It will take you 742 / 30 = 24 months to make up the initial cost. My guess is that within 24 months, one of the following will be true:
1) New technology will exis
Re:Free as in... (Score:2)
And to address your specfic points:
For point 1 and 3 -- New faster technology is not that relevant, they're building "last leg" infrastructure. Assuming its 802.11g
Re:Free as in... (Score:4, Insightful)
Socialism - we've been on the road to socialism. And a lot of it has been good. But comparing the fire department with wireless access is a bit much, don't you think?
Re:Free as in... (Score:2)
And then there is you, who misses the point that stating that we were on the road to socialism was a correction to the grandparent stating we were going for communism - never in a million years in the US. Fascism, definately, communism, hell no.
Then what do you do, you compare drinking wine and eating cheese to the fire department. You're worse than the first guy. Got ahold of a hot-word and just went nuts with it, didncha! Yah, silly-willy slashdot fwame-thwower... yes you are...
Go back and read.
Re:Free as in... (Score:3, Insightful)
Except for one thing - the revenue the city generates isn't *directly* tied to the performance of the network. So the desire to operate the network smoothly isn't driven by a swift kick to the government coffers like it is for a company.
An organization whose financial well-being is immediately effected by problems with the network is more well suited to handle something as complicated as this. Incentive is everything.
Re:Free as in... (Score:2)
That being said, I'm also in favor of web access being a service. That way all the federally required data retention and snooping at least have to go through the usual channels.
-WS
Re:Free as in... (Score:4, Insightful)
You mean like how if Comcast service sucks, I can go to Verizon, and if Verizon sucks I can go to Comcast? It's not like the guys in the ISP arena have a true economic desire to operate a network smoothly anyway.
-dave
Re:Free as in... (Score:2)
And that's where your argument breaks down. What if I don't think that it's a good deal? Apparently, I cannot opt out of this "investment". If you, and enough others do think this is a good deal, theres no reason the private sector cannot step in and make it happen. If there was enough of a push for this, and the cost per person was that low, why not set up a WIFI service for a low, low cost of $15/year, per person? Give people a login key who sign up and pay for it.
Re:Free as in... (Score:2)
The People Directly > The People Abstracted.
Sunnyvale, CA has it too (Score:4, Informative)
BZZZZZZZT Thanks for playing!
Sunnyvale, CA (a city of 115,000 people) has free city-wide WiFi, too.
Re:Sunnyvale, CA has it too (Score:2)
Went to Metro-FI and looked up the old address where I lived at in Sunnyvale and they say they don't have it there, hmmm.
Also where I have a vehicle of mine serviced at is in Sunnyvale and they don't see the free Sunnyvale service either.
Personally I think free WiFi is a pipe dream imagined by those who have a lot of imagination and not a lot of implementation experience.
WiFi can be done, but from my own personal experience in my home with dead spots, neighbors on the same channel, etc. I would say tha
Re:Sunnyvale, CA has it too (Score:2)
Re:Sunnyvale, CA has it too (Score:2)
That's cool, at least someone is getting to use something.
Funny thing is I live in an adjacent city, Cupertino, and I (plus all the neighbors down my street) got a metro-fi ad on the front door the other day saying metro-fi is in Sunnyvale.
Well, that's great if I'm out driving around with my laptop, but it doesn't do me a lot of good otherwise.
And, I wonder why would Sunnyvale be essentially advertising to those living in Cupertino?
Re:Sunnyvale, CA has it too (Score:2)
My neighbor also has free wifi... off my connection. I am sure there are thousands of others who do as well (not off my connection, but off of others).
I don't mind him on my connection. I tell him "no child porn and I'll send you an email if I am playing a game" (to keep my speed good). He gets the raw end of the deal, I kick him for shits and giggles all the time. I also download tons of stuff off of UseNet maxing out my connection, I can't imagine what it is like for him at those times.
A small portion of Sunnyvale, CA has it too (Score:3, Insightful)
Life was better when we had Metricom. It was slower, but ran on 900MHz for better home penetration, and their protocols supported mobility.
A Small Town In LA too. (Score:2)
Re:Sunnyvale, CA has it too (Score:2)
However, I can not say wheter or not I am supposed to be on them signal. But they are there and unsecured. No network, just a number of Access Points.
Re:Sunnyvale, CA has it too (Score:2)
Help desk calls (Score:2)
Actually I would remove the "Despite these issues" and "only" portions of the text in this submission. That's an average of about 19 calls per day and a call every 59 sessions. That's rather high, but then again it's based on about a month and a half into a new network. Extrapolate this out if the subscriber numbers were significantly higher and their help desk wo
Re: PEBKAC (Score:2)
and this doesn't count dropped calls... (Score:2)
How many droppped calls? How many customers hung up before they got to talk to an analyst?
Re:and this doesn't count dropped calls... (Score:2)
Full coverage free wifi = DUMB!!!!! (Score:2)
We are hoping to b
Re:Help desk calls (Score:2)
I don't know what planet you are on, but that's pretty darned low. 19 calls a day? That's 25 minutes between calls. When I worked in a call center (long long ago), my average call time was about 3 minutes. One full-time guy could easily handle 19 problems per day. And a call every 59 sessions? I work for a wireless ISP. If we got down to 1 in 60 for new users we would be extatic. You greatly underestimate
Re:Help desk calls (Score:2)
And these are just tech support calls. I used to be a call center tech m
Not Free (Score:2)
It's paid for via taxes. Therefore the taxpayers should solicit the local city council for action since taxpayer money is being used because it is being paid for. No one should be putting up with these many problems, especially if the entire city is having these problems together.
I'm not pro or con the whole city wide free wireless internet thingie, just pointing out some facts.
Wrong, not if it is done correctly (Score:5, Interesting)
In my city [teamfredericton.com] not only is the Wi-Fi free, but it actually turns a profit for the city, who resells bandwidth on it's fibre ring that powers it to local companies.
In essence, the city is acting as an ISP. The ISP offers free bandwidth to residents, and leases surplus bandiwdth to other companies.
It can also be seen that, even if a city did not turn a profit on it's own network, the increased tax revenue from people migrating to the area because the WiFi is there couldpay for the cost of the network.
I am not saying that this is the case in this particular city, I am just pointing out that free Wi-Fi can be a win-win situation for all residents if you have smart people in charge of the thing.
Let's keep autonomy (Score:5, Insightful)
Is this surprising, or some kind of a sign of failure? I think that free city-wide Wi-Fi is a nice idea, but I still wouldn't surrender the autonomy, privacy, control and efficiency of my own pipe.
b
Re:Let's keep autonomy (Score:2)
Re:Let's keep autonomy (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Let's keep autonomy (Score:2)
It's an interesting point, but if it's true, why do ISPs keep rolling out lines with more and more bandwidth?
If "most people" do a little light browsing, some e-mail, hell, maybe even a little bit of file downloading or watching streaming video, why do ISPs bring out packages with more and more bandwidth? For "most people", surely latency would
Re:Let's keep autonomy (Score:2)
First, the average computer user has no sense of how latency impacts their experience (exception: gamers), and the latency advantage available to an ISP is negligible. They could try to deliver a low latency package, and some gamers would know enough to be interested, but who else would buy it? Further, all they can do is nock a couple of ms off the last step
Re:Latency != latency (Score:2)
Burstable bandwidth != sustained bandwidth (Score:2)
the ISP can do nothing about this 'latency' except to raise bandwidth.
True, but not all bandwidth is created equal. Burstable bandwidth improves latency of human-interactive transactions, which improves the experience in World Wide Web and e-mail. Sustained bandwidth is useful primarily for running a server (no-no under TOS), reselling the connection (no-no under TOS), peer-to-peer file sharing (which is the same thing as running a server), and streaming feature-length videos. It's possible to roll out
Re:Burstable bandwidth != sustained bandwidth (Score:2)
Re:Let's keep autonomy (Score:2)
Because more is always better, right? It's like home theater receivers and powered speakers with regards to output power. A lot of people think that if the number is higher, it must be better. And a lot of people figure, well, if I can spend only $10 more but get twice the speed, wow, I should do that. Never underestimate the power of marketing.
I have a 6mb (max, I did test the speed, and g
Re:Let's keep autonomy (Score:2)
TFP wrote: Is this surprising, or some kind of a sign of failure?
(a) It's a sign that the thing's only been up for a month. (b) It's a sign that not everyone using a tethered connection has WiFi hardware. (c) What is this "many" number, anyway?
Re:Let's keep autonomy (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Let's keep autonomy (Score:2)
speaking from experience, two plugs where something can go in is ALOT more stressful to joe technophobe than 1 plug. I am not surprised at all, as i vividly remember having to colour code the telephone cable and the LINE jack to eachother and in extreme cases, fill the "phone" jack with paper and tape. This is despite of the fact that the words "phone" and "line" are printed on the brackets of most modems ive ever seen.
nice spin (Score:2)
So almost one in 50? I'd say that's pretty shitty when you consider a lot of people didn't know the number to call except... hmm, maybe by looking it up on the INTERNET? Let's also not forget a lot of people wouldn't have tried it out until after they were away from their homes and actually needed the net.
Nice spin.
More than a month? (Score:2)
More than a month?
A month is not a very long time for a new service to get it's act together.
If you assume they deployed the equipment and started offering services it is quite likely they are a) inundated with customers, b) brand new equipment failures, even if only 5% causing untold grief. c) limited experience trouble shooting the network since it is brand-new.
Initially when my parents signed up for Cable modem service I warned them to expect problems for the first few months. There were a few minor hicc
Poor Quality? (Score:3, Interesting)
But at least they have the comfort of knowing they're paying more for the service than they need to. And since it's a tax- (or debt-) funded service, they get to keep paying too much for it, unless they can somehow find a politician who will vote to reduce a budget.
Re:Poor Quality? (Score:2)
Re:Poor Quality? (Score:3, Interesting)
Fortunately cable & phone monopolies are slowly going obsolete, because of competition from satellite, cell phones, phone over cable, tv over phone lines, etc.
Just goes to show what wonderful things the market can do, even when burdened by government backed monopolies.
Re:Poor Quality? (Score:2)
They will still each keep their prices exceptionally high, knowing that they will still have customers because of their unique positions which can't always be provided by the competition.
My cable company had a $30 512k internet service about 3 years ago, when DSL was only partly available around here, and was $50 even then. Now that DSL is cheaper, and much faster than they, instead of l
What do you expect? (Score:2)
Even once set up, walls, wireless phones, other wireless computer equipment all can interfere and make WiFi problematic.
The problems experienced by muni-Wi-Fi is just a high concentration of the same kind of problems people will experience individually
Wireless Remedy (Score:4, Funny)
Give 'em some time (Score:4, Insightful)
An uptime of an hour was rare. An uptime of a day was unheard of. Downtime of a day, on the other hand, was quite common.
You're complaining after just a month? Don't tell me you already quitted your cable provider, thinking that this works "out of the box".
Seriously now. Cut 'em some slack and let them iron out the wrinkles. If they don't improve after 6 months, you have something to complain about. But after a month? C'mon, be realistic, this is more or less uncharted water they're trying to wade in.
Re:Give 'em some time (Score:2)
What makes you think it's reasonable to pay for a service as bad as the one you describe? If I signed up for something that bad, unless I was getting it cheaper as a beta tester, I'd be complaining.
Stupid idea (Score:3, Interesting)
Supposedly WiMax has better coverage, but honestly, until the FCC opens up some of the lower UHF/VHF frequencies, wireless internet access "for the masses" is never gonna work right. 2.4Ghz is just too high a frequency to push through stuff.
WIFI is the wrong technology (Score:3, Interesting)
Just give us fiber to the home already. We've already paid for it in the form of tax breaks to the telcos.
Re:WIFI is the wrong technology (Score:2)
That is true with high-densities. When you have the APs spread sufficiently far apart, 4 channels becomes an option. Actually, with sufficient proximity, there are only 2 non-overlapping channels, as 6 will still overlap enough with 1 and 11 to cause interference. The "3 non-overlapping channels" is the simplified way of thinking of it that doesn't account for proper wireless engineering.
Re:WIFI is the wrong technology (Score:2)
Cell phones also use the ~2Ghz range and are also vulnerable to the same los problems [hint: this is why GSM has a sub-Ghz band].
If wifi was a bit more co-operative it could be shared properly.
That said, yeah, there also just isn't enough bandwidth on 802.11[abg] to share with 100s of users. It would be different if it provided Gbit wireless then sharing would be less problematic..
I can also see public wifi systems getting exploited or DoS'ed. There
WiMax is the right technology. (Score:2)
WiMax has multiple channels, better signal qualities, and TDMA (instead of CSMA) at its core, allowing you to get better network throughput as you reach (and exceed) subscriber
Unwire Portland (Score:2)
http://www.pdc.us/unwire/faq.asp [www.pdc.us]
EULA and Privacy of a municipal network? (Score:3, Interesting)
ummmm There are more.... (Score:2)
Re:ummmm There are more.... (Score:2)
Free Internet from the Government??!?!?!?! (Score:2)
"Your honor, as you can see from these records, the defendant fo
Marquette? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Only? (Score:2)
Re:Only? (Score:3, Funny)
I don't see why they wouldn't. We're running a voip based call center - all they had to do was connect their notebook with our service, download a soft-phone and dial the number on the support page. What could possible prevent them from doing this? We even provide Email-accessible support for SMTP/IMAP issues
- HP Support, St. Cloud, Florida
Re:Fascination With Free Wi-Fi (Score:3, Insightful)
Offering free wireless internet access is better than launching free cell phone service. There is at least one cell phone that can switch seamlessly between using voice over ip and regular cellular networks even in the middle of a call. Plus, you could have a PDA do it as well. You could have a GPS device interface with Google maps over wireless to provide you driving directions. There are a ton of uses for this. If wireless internet access was availiable almost everywhere, then there are all sorts of
Re:Fascination With Free Wi-Fi (Score:2)
Don't hold your breath. The majority of the land mass of the US has no other Internet access than dialup. Only the population centers have broadband. Cable and DSL have a deployment range of a few miles. Wireless (using today's technology) has a range of a few hundred feet. Covering the entire country would take about 3.5 million access points assuming the technology progresses to the point where one access point can cover an entire sq