Slashdot Mirror
SF Wifi More Than Flipping a Switch
An anonymous reader writes "News.com is carrying a story looking at the costly rollout of the Google/EarthLink SF Wifi project." From the article: "EarthLink said it expects the project to run to between $6 million and $8 million in initial costs, which include attaching radios and receivers to utility poles throughout the city. Within 10 years it expects the whole network, complete with upgrades and maintenance, to cost about $15 million. Finer financial details of the project haven't been made public, but the plan calls for EarthLink and Google to contribute to the initial cost of building the network. It's not clear what the split between the two companies will be. Once the network is built, Google will pay EarthLink for access to the network on a wholesale basis. In order to make access free to people in San Francisco, Google will use revenue generated from local advertisements to pay for access to the EarthLink network."
Or am I mischaracterizing Google's "free service" business plan?
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
And on a related note, is anyone else getting pissed off at the slashdot flash ads that are writing themselves over the page? I can adblock them, but seriously, do the admins think these ads are a good idea on a site that routinely rips on them? Someone's been drinking the crazy juice.
While I am all for the spread of citywide wireless networking, I would also like to point out there are are still many places here in the U.S. that cannot even get Broadband in any way, shape, or form. I grew up in such an area near Cooperstown, NY. I am glad to see such civic projects brought to you by Google, but I would hope that someday they might reach out to the rural people as they have only dialup. It would also be nice to see this plan implemented elsewhere as well, like Albany, NY...Boston, NYC and the like. Ah well.
-- Josh
"Whoopie! Man, that may have been a small one for Neil, but that's a long one for me!" - Pete Conrad
So in other words advertisers will have to generate $23 Million to make this fesible (and free). Hope you all like Viagra ads?
Within 10 years it expects the whole network, complete with upgrades and maintenance, to cost about $15 million.
In about 10 years you're going to be able to buy single wireless access points from Best Buy that will cover the size of the city and it's bandwidth needs for about 50 USD.
While I can understand the desire for the project in the long run I think it's going to look as wasteful as the number of railroad tracks that have been abandoned across the US, and in about 1/10th the time.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
I wonder if the technicians will have flowers in their hair? (hehe, couldn't resist) Seriously though, it will be interesting to watch and see how a privately operated public internet access system will work. I think it will work out, but I forsee lots of complaints of wadeing through adware to get to anything important.. guess we'll see.
He whom you called four-eyes yesterday, you call Sir tomorrow.
Wouldn't a system of Wimax(ground microwave) be a better alternative ? Homeowners would have to buy the transmitter & dish. Building the tower would be the big expense.
$15 million is not a lot. The thrust of the article seems to be skepticism that it can be pulled off for so cheap, in fact.
I hope this whole project does not kill SFLan:
http://www.archive.org/web/sflan.php/
the already existing free wifi network in San Francisco.
I can see the popularity of google actually hurting the development of this grassroots project significantly; even though SFLan is adfree.
Not necessarily Wi-Fi based. Netzero and others did dial-up where the cost was initally supposed to be covered by ads.
I agree though, this is probably the first (or near-first) Wi-Fi project that they're expecting to pay for with advertising. It feels a little too much like a dot-bomb startup idea to me. All the "Web 2.0" hype has me wondering if failing to learn from history is one of those permanent human flaws.
Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
"In about 10 years you're going to be able to buy single wireless access points from Best Buy that will cover the size of the city and it's bandwidth needs for about 50 USD."
Will that be before, or after we repeal the laws of physics?
A really common type of home construction in San Francisco is stucco exteriors. The chicken wire used to support the stucco is going to interfere with reception.
It's simple: I demand prosecution for torture.
As of the year 2000 census the city of San Francisco had 329,700 households. Let's take the worst case and say the wifi project costs eight million in initial costs. $8,000,000.00 divided by 329,700 households = 24.26 dollars per household.
Let's round it up to twenty five dollars and realize what a bargain price that is! For less than a household usually pays for one month of service it is possible to roll out the infrastructure to support all the households in the city. Of course, you have a reoccuring monthly cost after that for the bandwidth the households will be using.
Within ten years they expect an additional seven million dollars in costs, bringing the total to fifteen million. Gee, how horrible to have to pay another 25 bucks or so per household within ten years for this service. It's past time for the cities in America to start providing low or no cost bandwidth as a service just as we have low cost water and sewage service. The ISP's have overcharged for their services for long enough.
So what is this google tagging thing ?
The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up.
10 years until it is done? Or is that just the estimated price to finish the network and to pay for maintenance for 10 years?
The slow project to put WiFi hotspots all over a single city seems likely to be surpassed in a relatively short time by other technologies. For example, I think that within a couple of years just about every business laptop user, at least, will want to have a cell phone Internet modem. Currently, Verizon and Sprint (maybe others) offer 144K connections, and this will (eventually) get faster and work anyplace you can use your cell phone, not just within range of a WiFi hotspot. We may also see power-line broadband within a few years. (That won't help someone running their laptop on battery, of course.)
I live in Philadelphia where there is also a city-wide wireless push. Again, costs are going to be higher than expected (around $15M) and it is plauged with problems - like WIFI probably won't reach past the fourth floor of most buildings. With WiMAX and 802.11n around the corner, why not wait just a year or so?
Excuse my speling.
Making The Bar Project
If they had just taxed 740,000 San Franciscans, they could have raised the $15 million Earthlink says is needed to build the network at a TOTAL cost of $20.27 per person.
That's $20. Not per month, not per year, but for 10 years of free wireless service. Considering the city's tax base works out to $7,100 per citizen per year (paid partly by businesses of course), that's quite a bargain.
The annual budget for San Francisco is about $5 billion. According to the article, the initial cost to deploy this wireless network is estimated at $6 million to $8 million, or roughly 1/1000th of the city budget.
Earthlink has been granted a monopoly on city property and exemptions from certain regulations to build a citywide WiFi network. (Google is just leasing from them.) In exchange, they generously agree to rent the network for $20 per month to an average chump, or at some unspecified rate to Google, who will offer it for "free" to users.
Basic math: at $20 per sub per month, Earthlink only needs about 35,000 subscribers to recoup their worst-case build out cost within ONE YEAR.
If Google is paying them just a quarter of that, they would only need about 18 percent of the SF population, which is right around what they plan to get. Of course, after the first year they are minting money, since by their own estimate the maintence cost is about $1 million per year, plus customer support (only for paid customers surely) and billing.
In other words, the people of San Francisco will pay every single year the total cost to build the network. All this to avoid the evil of taxes and to experience the EFFICIENCY OF THE MARKET.
I am beginning to lose the fervent blind capitalist leanings of my youth because I live in San Francisco. Not surprising that this happened, but I am surprised at how.
WiFi B/G (the 2.4 GHz spectrum) has only 3 non-overlapping channels: 1,6,11. Linksys sets their equipment to default to 6. I'm not sure about other vendors.
Where I live, in a small town in Idaho, there are three wireless networks in my range. Mine and two neighbors. There are half-a-dozen downtown and maybe two dozen more around town. NONE of them, except for mine and one neighbor's are secured at all. 90% of them have the SSID of "linksys" and are sitting on channel 6, stomping on each other.
Connectivity from even two houses down is abysmal and frequently you will see your connection hop from one to another, and I don't mean seamlessly, either.
How is Google/Earthlink going to handle all the people who already have WLANs? Are they just going to pick a channel like 1 or 11 and say "sorry, we're here with the strongest signal"? I'd be strongly tempted to switch my personal stuff to the 5 GHz band (Wifi-A), but that wouldn't be cheap as I'd have to refit a Tivo, two X-Boxes and 3 PCs.
WiFi is a freaking mess and can be a source of no end of issues. I wonder just how Google is going to deal with all that.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
It's a tourist attraction. What is 90% of the bay area going to do, drive 50 miles from San Jose to San Francisco to participate in the Google revolution?
"Let's round it up to twenty five dollars and realize what a bargain price that is! For less than a household usually pays for one month of service it is possible to roll out the infrastructure to support all the households in the city. Of course, you have a reoccuring monthly cost after that for the bandwidth the households will be using."
Don't forget to have all 329,700 households maxing out their "unlimited" connections.
" 05) Q: What are my computer system requirements for HughesNet?
A: HughesNetTM lets connect your computer to the Internet whether you are running a Windows® or Macintosh® operating system. In order to ensure you get the most out of your Internet experience, HughesNet has developed these minimum requirements:
# Windows 98SE or higher or Mac OS 10.1 or higher, and
# Network capability (10/100 Ethernet pre-equipped) "
It's deal breaker for me. Pity, I wanted it and it would be roughly equivalent to what I pay for a landline and ISP now, and I don't care about lag, just want throughput. I looked into it, because all I can get is dialup, with absolutely nothing on the horizon for years with any other broadband. And I run linux. I do not run expensive and propietary operating systems, one is way over priced (Mac-OS and closed hardware), the other (Windows) is over priced *plus* highly insecure and buggy, which is even more important.
They refuse to even try to let me use linux, I offered to-at my cost and risk- just try and get it going on linux, to be a freebie beta tester, pay them the full rate, work with the local installer they insist on, etc, they flat out refused and also said they had no intention of ever offering linux connections.
I think it will work out, but I forsee lots of complaints of wadeing through adware to get to anything important.. guess we'll see.
That is what the Ad-supported tech support is for...
Tech support person: "Thank you for calling Google/Earthlink Wireless support! How can I help you!"
Customer: "I can't connect to the internet!"
Tech support person: "Are you on a free account?"
Customer: "Ummm... I think..."
Tech support person: *types in "I can't connect to the internet in google"* "Sponsored Links T1's starting at $239 MegaPath. Huge Nationwide Broadband Coverage. Check Availability Now!"
Customer: "What?!"
Tech support person: "Hold on... I've got a few more to read before we begin..."
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
You can add the ubiquitous coverage in airports, marinas, hotels, etc. that have been in place for years and years. There are hundreds if not thousands of network engineers that do this for a living and are good at their work.
Of course consumer equipment set up by idiots and designed for indoor use won't provide a citywide network.
You might need to change what channel you use on your tivo or whatnot. But you'd have to do that anyway if a neighbor gets a new toy.
Man, you really need that seminar!
While he's checking his e-mail?
Nowhere!
Say, you carpool with your tennis buddy back from the court. He is trying to catch some new pictures of Sha^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hs from US Open.
Will it be seemlessly reconnecting with "15th pole Netgear", "3rd pole on 2nd Ave Linksys"?
If they will be using the same connection type that I have at home, forget it.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
nt
but for god sake..there is allready better technology to do that..and even many times cheaper..thats XMAX, this only, will make a revolution on internet accesses.
http://www.xgtechnology.com/
http://www.codingheaven.net/
Gee, maybe if Google/Earthlink buys up Metricom's rights-of way, my shares would be worth something. And my erstwhile stock broker told me not to sell...what the hell was I thinking.
You can add the ubiquitous coverage in airports, marinas, hotels, etc. that have been in place for years and years.
Airports are closed environments and rarely will you find an overlapping network. This is why they actually work. I have no experience with marinas. I have lots with hotels, who go to great lenghts to install LOTS of overlapping access points to just plain drown out all the external signals from other hotels, truck stops, etc. They still have issues and wifi access at many hotels is a royal PITA.
There are hundreds if not thousands of network engineers that do this for a living and are good at their work.
Yeah, I know. I'm one of them, which is one reason I raise the question.
Of course consumer equipment set up by idiots and designed for indoor use won't provide a citywide network.
I never claimed it would. I claimed they would have to compete/deal with all the interference from those that already exist and that all that crappy home equipment will now have a big signal stomping on it and create even more headaches for those home users.
You might need to change what channel you use on your tivo or whatnot. But you'd have to do that anyway if a neighbor gets a new toy.
I did, to 11. I also went and changed one neighbor's connection to use channel 1. I ignored the other neighbor since his was on 6. I secured (WEP/WPA, MAC restrictions, DHCP & netmask tuned down to provide no more than 6 IP addresses, changed SSIDs, etc.) my neighbor's and mine (WiFi-G only as an extra precaution). This helped a great deal, but it took some effort and education on the part of my neighbor.
My situation also works because I live out in the middle of nowhere. I have a friend who lives in a hi-rise apartment in Chicago. He just bought a directional wifi antenna and was telling me that from his apartment he can see almost 400 unprotected wifi access spots. He could hop from one to another every day for a year and never have to pay for a connection again! He was curious as to why he was having so much interference
I have no doubt it will work, but I also think it will -- at best -- provide a minimum level of usability with a bit of a pain threshold. I also think there will be a plethora of opportunities for premium service providers.
-Charles
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
Every time this has come up lately someone has to chime in and say that it's impossible. Makes me crazy.
Man, you really need that seminar!
I know this sounds mean and anti-rural (my disclaimer: I grew up in a small town, parent still live there, grandparents do live in "rural area"), but all places aren't equal. While its nice to think that we should all have the same everything, it doesn't happen that way. I'm certainly not advocating everyone leaving the country side, but prioritize what you want in a house/home. If the ability to have cheap/free wireless or in some cases broadband at all (always DirectWay) is high on your priorities then don't move to the hills and expect to get it, or even to get it subsidized. Cable/Telco companines are businesses (I know we want to make them out to be mean and greedy) but they are going to make decisions that make "business sense." I doubt upgrading hundreds maybe thousands of miles of new line to pick up a handful of new customers will give them good ROI.
Bottom line, we make choices. The job we have, the place we work, etc. If we don't like those then we have the ability to change them...that's the beauty of the system. Use it to your advantage and hopefully have a great life!
When I have a kid, I want to put him in one of those strollers for twins and then run around the mall looking frantic.
Is if they could get it on Caltrain like they have it on the ACE. It's not a lot of square miles.
I'm sure SanFrancisco is already well served with cable and DSL options for homeowners. The people interested in free WiFi access are people on-the-go (laptops, handhelds, etc) and those who can't afford broadband. In both cases, WiFi is the way to go, since the client-side hardware is both portable and low-cost.
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
Of course, I don't always follow things closely, though I do read the flyers the city sends out. I wonder what areas this covers? I'm just about two blocks from (old) downtown...
Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
Google needs to learn that a city wide WIFI is more difficult than a campus WIFI or building network
They will learn!!
Let me get this straight; this community connectivity will cost about $15 million?
How much is that in Iraq War minutes???
Regards;
Every time this has come up lately someone has to chime in and say that it's impossible. Makes me crazy.
Perhaps that is because some of us have tried.
802.11a/b/g was simply not designed for MANs. You can do a decent installation at an airport or your local Starbucks so that people can check their mail and browse the web. Smarter access points can mitigate this somewhat, and you can also get some way by carpet bombing the area with access points. But using a/b/g to saturate a large area with stable bandwidth is very difficult, you will have deadspots and interference spots.
For always on fat pipe you need cables, at least until you get cognitive radio gear.
If J.K.R wrote Windows: Puteulanus fenestra mortalis!
I'll get on the horn and tell the dozens of cities with functioning municipal wifi to tear 'em out, they're not practical.
Man, you really need that seminar!
if your house was just blown up by a terrorist?
Hackers and tourists that's who!
I do have to wonder how the activist who don't like the idea of sprint and other phone companies putting in cell towers are reacting to the city saying were going to put wireless everywhere? And yes I have meet these people, they do exist and they are not a figment of my imagination. They don't want cell towers, I'm wondering how they will deal with wifi everywhere. I also want to know, where is everywhere?
I do have to wonder, how they are going to secure any of this? How do you prevent ever hacker on the planet from coming to sf to get their free wifi access and screw everyone elses lives up.
Only 'flamers' flame!
Does slashdot hate my posts?
"Those folks would be willing to put up with the expense/uglyness/non-portability of a dish."
And a DirectTV dish is attractive?
WiMax dish
DirectTV dish
Hopefully you pick girlfriends better than you do dishes.
---
Speaking of DirectTV...
So 49 square miles and 750,000 residents willo be served by a network rollout that costs only 6 - 8 million to initially build and only 15 million for 10 years. But the cost of a connection is 20 per month for 1.0 mb/sec. So if 1/3 of the residents sign up the network pays for itself in 2 months? Some of these numbers have got to be misstated. Or SF just got a real raw deal.
I have nothing to hide. So, why are you spying on me?
$15 million over 10 years? That doesn't sound like much, given that San Francisco's general fund expenditures will be somewhere in the neighborhood of $30 billion over the same period.
As much as we love them, Google isn't doing this out of altruism. They expect this to be valuable. Why turn this important piece of infrastructure over to a private company so cheaply? Wouldn't it be better for the city to build it and control it? The city could run it without advertising, in rich and poor neighborhoods, without selling user information to private companies, charging just enough to maintain the system without jacking up fees to generate profits to ship off to Google's shareholders.
The private sector doesn't always do things better. The city runs the water system, for instance. It works so well I hardly ever think about it, and it's so cheap my landlord doesn't even bill me for it. That's not such a trivial thing, given how limited the supply of water is out here. Supplying fresh water to every building in the city is a great deal more complex than Wifi, and yet the city seems to handle it. Why not Wifi too?