Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SF Wifi More Than Flipping a Switch

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the expensive-air dept.

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."

9 of 114 comments (clear)

  1. That's unfortunate... by east+coast · · Score: 1, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:That's unfortunate... by B1ackDragon · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      I dunno, those railroad tracks might look wasteful now, but they were a huge part of industry and economy in the past. Just because something is going to be obsolete in the future (near or far) I don't think it's necessarily not worth doing.

      Railroads entered in an era of ubiquitous travel, perhaps this google thing will enter in the era of ubiquitous net access. (As another stated, some areas have no access to broadband at all.) Personally, my hope is maybe if these sorts of networks are open and usable enough, it will give comcast et. al. the overpriced slap they deserve.

      --
      The snow doesn't give a soft white damn whom it touches. -- ee cummings
  2. Re:Ad-driven access by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    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.
    Writing themselves over the page?
    But yeah, the only reason I got flashblock (Not adblock) is because of those annoying flash ads. Some of them even dare to have sound. I finally got so pissed over my PC getting to 90% CPU utilization every time I visit slashdot, I downloaded flashblock.

    Imagine this: AMD advertises their new CPU crap. One ad alone cripples my PC. Imagine the irony if I was using that very CPU they were advertising.

    Flash is the technology from hell. It doesnt even have any way to disable sound. And I dont MIND ads. I just hate flash ads.

  3. What about SFLan? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  4. Another problem by sfjoe · · Score: 2, Interesting


    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.
  5. Cost Per Household by MCSEBear · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  6. Philly Too by IAmTheDave · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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
  7. WiFi and WiMax serve different needs by Comboman · · Score: 3, Interesting
    WiMax is a good alternative for rural areas that aren't already served with broadband access. Those folks would be willing to put up with the expense/uglyness/non-portability of a dish.

    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.
  8. Re:This advertising thing by vought · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "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.

    Double those costs.

    Now, double them again.

    Google is trying to do with one public frequency and a LAN-based technology what Metricom could barely do with three public frequency ranges and a true microcellular architecture built specifically for WAN. And they're budgeting far too little for an area the size of San Francisco - where Metricom had four to five Ricochet radios every square mile, Google proposes to install a much higher density (they'll HAVE to, simply for decent frequency reuse in a hilly city full of highly reinforced concrete) of radios for less money...five years later?

    Have fun, Google. It won't be easy. I predict the whole thing will degenerate into failure within three years. Why this fantasy about repurposing 802.11 for jobs it wasn't meant to do? I think this will be remembered as Google's first failure...depending on how the P.R. department manages to spin the eventual failure.