County-Wide Wireless To Be Deployed in Michigan

alien88 writes "Late last week, the Washtenaw County Board approved Wireless Washtenaw Advisory Board's recommendation of 20/20 Communications to cover the entire county with wireless by the end of 2007. This includes Ann Arbor, the home of University of Michigan and future home of Google's Adwords division. The wireless network will be free for speeds up to 85kbps and $35/month for 500kbps. 20/20 Communications estimates it will take around 6,000 radios to cover the county.

This initiative is being funded without taxpayer dollars and is one of the most ambitious wireless deployments in the U.S. Will it succeed or will it fail? Check out the county's wireless website for updates on the project." Of course, the real reason this is worth posting is it's because this is the county where Rob, myself and a number of the others live.

Comments

UK surely a more appropriate target?

[Rexico]

If this can work in the U.S., presumably it would work even better in the UK with similar internet usage and a much higher population density.

Re:Washtenaw's neighbor, Oalkand County tried this

[kalirion]

$35/month for 500kbps? The precedent will worry the telcos, but these prices are hardly any competition for broadband. The dial-up providers will definitely be against it, but I don't think they have all that much muscle.

Pointless....

[porkThreeWays]

City/countywide 802.11 a/b/g is POINTLESS!!!! I really don't understand why all this money and resources is being spent on it. They have horrible range and were never meant to cover an area this big, so you have to buy an insane amount of AP's to get decent coverage. I bet when all is said and done they end up with 8,000 AP's and the project ends up costing a few hundred thousand dollars. On top of that, constant maintaince that ends up not making it economically viable.

Calm down with the citywide wireless. I know WiMax have been dragging their feet, but my guess is by 2009 we'll have usable WiMax that is ready for city wide deployment. You are going to waste all this time and money now, so that in 3 years you are superceeded by WiMax (which will do the job better and have less maintaince). Hot spots are fine. If you want to drop 200 access points around the county to get some coverage for popular places, that's ok. 200 access points would probably be viable. 6,000 (or in reality 8,000) aren't.

Re:Pointless....

[Rob T Firefly]

Sometimes it's worth it to go for broke at the start. You can assume that the Slashdotters know what working free countywide net access could mean, but it's not until it's there and usable that the general population will learn its advantages. After that, when WiMax or whatever else comes along to supercede 802.11 becomes viable and cheap enough, Average Joe and the Sixpack family will be more willing to support the upgrades (through taxes or otherwise) since they'll have been grooving on the WiFi for a while and will be receptive to a better version.

Imagine if they'd held off building any telegraph networks in the 19th Century, on basis that it would be just a matter of time before a voice-transmission network could be done instead.

Re:Washtenaw's neighbor, Oalkand County tried this

[andrewman327]

I think it is the free plan that has the ISPs worried. Even though 85kbps is no good for VOIP and video streaming, it is more than sufficient for the average Internet user. You can check your e-mail, send instant messages, and browse the headlines at that speed.

This could also negatively impact the adoption of high speed cellular data networks, which are becoming popular with businesses.

Re:A naive question

[maxume]

Probably not. Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washtenaw_County,_Mic higan

lists the area of the county at 723 square miles and the summary says 6000 radios. 723/6000 is 0.1205. So a typical tower is going to cover just over a tenth of a square mile, which is less than 2000 feet on a side. Unless you are flying pretty low, you aren't going to get much of a signal.

Always eay to spend someone else's money.

[Shivetya]

thats the sad part here.

People are acting like the money is free. Trouble is a great many people in that county are going to be taxed for a service that a good number will never get to use.

Oh yeah, I know, there will be programs for people of certain groups to get access, most won't take advantage of it. Its another feel good bill that makes it look like a county/city/state is actually doing something good.

Sorry, if even one trailer exist at a local school it should the first thing addressed. Quit diverting money from projects already starved of cash. Internet access is anything but required to live life today and as such doesn't need governments spending money on barely tolerable technology. Next thing we will have 50 zillion connections and jumping from area to area will be a nightmare because none of the wireless providers will agree on any standard. (let alone governments wanting to tax people who are not their own)

The rich get richer by having services they need to do business paid for by everyone else. Wireless is definitely going to be that for sometime until Internet access is actually needed by the general public.

Re:Always eay to spend someone else's money.

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

People are acting like the money is free. Trouble is a great many people in that county are going to be taxed for a service that a good number will never get to use.

So? A great many people never go down to the public parks, or use the public baseball fields or drive on that county road out in the middle of farm country. The question is not whether everyone will use it, but whether the benefit to the people will be greater than the expense. Will the people benefit by the increased tourism, real estate sales, and reduced cost to local businesses this will provide even if they don't use it directly? It seems likely.

Sorry, if even one trailer exist at a local school it should the first thing addressed.

The public schools in Washtenaw country are well funded.

Quit diverting money from projects already starved of cash.

What projects would those be that people want more?

Internet access at reasonable speeds in Washtenaw county as in many places is provided by the Cable company ($60/month) or the phone company (DSL is $70/month). These outrageous prices hurt everyone. I'm happy the county is instituting public wireless. It saves me money and my neighbors' money and local businesses' money. The general public may not need internet access, but they don't need parks either. The public does want it and so do the businesses. It will almost certainly be cheaper than the current system. I'd rather some of my tax dollars were wasted subsidizing internet access for the poor and those in more rural areas than help fund the monopoly telecos that are bleeding me for money now.

Warped

[twitter]

I think you underestimate the reality-resistance of the People's Republic of Ann Arbor.

A private company that takes advantage of technology to offer a cheap service is called communist. It's main competitor is a state protected monopoly, labled "reality". Something is very screwed up here.

Re:Washtenaw's neighbor, Oalkand County tried this

[drsquare]

The death of dialup isn't just about the speed, it's having to actually dialup, the constant disconnections, the caps on how long you be on, and cutting off the phone. All those things are solved by wireless, even if it's just as slow.

Re:Here's the truth. Again.

[drooling-dog]

you cannot deny that he said he created the Internet while in Congress. That is the only reasonable interpretation. This simply is not a true statement

He entered Congress in 1978. The beginnings of ARPAnet predated that, of course, but in scope and scale it was only a foreshadowing of what the Internet would become. The TCP/IP protocol was only first demonstrated in 1977, and crudely at that. Gore took an interest in it at a time when very few members of Congress had even heard of it or knew what it was (still just "a series of pipes" to at least one senator).

You can argue about the phrase "took the initiative in creating", but it certainly is true that he took the initiative in expanding and evolving the Internet as we are familiar with it today. From Wikipedia:

Cerf and Kahn response

In response to this controversy, Internet pioneers Vint Cerf and Robert E. Kahn, wrote an e-mail dated 2000-09-28, that stated:

        As the two people who designed the basic architecture and the core protocols that make the Internet work, we would like to acknowledge VP Gore's contributions as a Congressman, Senator and as Vice President. No other elected official, to our knowledge, has made a greater contribution over a longer period of time.

        Last year the Vice President made a straightforward statement on his role. He said: "During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the Internet." We don't think, as some people have argued, that Gore intended to claim he "invented" the Internet. Moreover, there is no question in our minds that while serving as Senator, Gore's initiatives had a significant and beneficial effect on the still-evolving Internet. The fact of the matter is that Gore was talking about and promoting the Internet long before most people were listening. We feel it is timely to offer our perspective.

So, I have to ask, what's your talking point, exactly? Is there someone else in Congress at the time whose thunder you feel Al Gore has stolen? Someone who was more instrumental in the growth of ARPAnet beyond just a defense research network? Or is this just another case of Republicans swiftboating people with real accomplishments, because they have none to show of their own?