So, one hundred users are needed per square mile for it to be cost effective?
Well, this pretty much sinks the whole idea, if you're trying to construct it in Podunk, Alabama, anyway.
I live next to Hoboken, New Jersey, a city of over 38,000 people, these days filled with what they call yuppies and other such folk that commute into Manhattan.
Hoboken is known for being exactly one mile square-- "the mile square city."
It boggles the mind to think that perhaps in all of Hoboken, it would be impossible to find so much as 100 people who would use wireless internet. Probably more than that number already use the hotspots at coffee shops on Washington Street.
I'm sure it'd be used by at least 2500 people, making the cost $1 per person per month.
So, what I'm wondering is how the report used this data they estimated to come to the conclusion that public wifi was a terrible idea. I used their own estimates and came to the conclusion that it's an amazing bargain, almost a "You can't afford NOT TO DO IT!" situation.
So, one hundred users are needed per square mile for it to be cost effective? Well, this pretty much sinks the whole idea, if you're trying to construct it in Podunk, Alabama, anyway. I live next to Hoboken, New Jersey, a city of over 38,000 people, these days filled with what they call yuppies and other such folk that commute into Manhattan. Hoboken is known for being exactly one mile square-- "the mile square city." It boggles the mind to think that perhaps in all of Hoboken, it would be impossible to find so much as 100 people who would use wireless internet. Probably more than that number already use the hotspots at coffee shops on Washington Street. I'm sure it'd be used by at least 2500 people, making the cost $1 per person per month. So, what I'm wondering is how the report used this data they estimated to come to the conclusion that public wifi was a terrible idea. I used their own estimates and came to the conclusion that it's an amazing bargain, almost a "You can't afford NOT TO DO IT!" situation.