WIFI-Municipal

Discussion in 'Wireless Internet' started by ichinyo@gmail.com, Feb 25, 2015.

  1. Guest

    I'd like to start a WIFI business connecting my municipality. What equipment would I need? Pobably a WIFI antenna what else? Recommendations?

    Thanks
     
    , Feb 25, 2015
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Jeff Liebermann, Feb 25, 2015
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Shadow Guest

    http://wndw.net/book.html

    []'s
     
    Shadow, Feb 26, 2015
    #3
  4. ps56k Guest

    BTW - most have failed -
    since as a community effort, they were usually FREE,
    and built to fund themselves with ads -
    but most never workout - and get closed down -
    - Boston - Naperville, IL, Aurora, IL -
     
    ps56k, Mar 1, 2015
    #4
  5. Yes, but they keep coming. Insanity is doing the same thing over and
    over, but expecting different results. Ever notice that municipal
    network proposals usually appear just before an election?

    By coincidence, I gave a talk on why mesh networking sucks to a small
    group yesterday at the local Linux users meeting. Actually, it's a
    dry run for a larger talk that I might be giving in the future. Much
    of the talk was on municipal wireless mess starting with Metricom. The
    live demo of how a store and forward repeater slows thing down didn't
    quite work because I screwed up and didn't bring a laptop with a
    gigabit port.

    Here are the files and the outline from the talk:
    <http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/FLUG-talk-2015-02-28/>
    <http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/FLUG-talk-2015-02-28/Mesh-talk.doc>
    There are a few mistakes and it is lacking in detail. I plan to
    expand it over the next few weeks into a web page that's more
    readable.

    Quiz: What's wrong with this picture of a wireless mesh network?
    <http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/FLUG-talk-2015-02-28/rooftop-mesh.jpg>

    While doing the usual frantic last minute research on the topic, I
    noticed that the premier municipal wireless site only had one entry
    under "mesh" in 2013, one in 2011, and a huge number between 2004 and
    2010, when mesh was the hot ticket:
    <http://www.muniwireless.com/?s=mesh>
    The site has some date indexing problems, but it seems that mesh
    wireless is not very popular these days.

    Actually, there are many successful wireless mesh networks. However,
    they don't carry consumer internet traffic. They carry IoT data, such
    as PG&E's 900 MHz smartmeter mesh.
     
    Jeff Liebermann, Mar 1, 2015
    #5
  6. ps56k Guest

    ps56k, Mar 1, 2015
    #6
  7. ps56k Guest

    ps56k, Mar 1, 2015
    #7
  8. Nope. It's a bit tricky. You really have to experience a badly
    designed urban municipal wi-fi network in order to answer the
    question. There were 4 people in the audience that had prior WISP
    experience. All got it right immediately. Most of the others didn't
    know anything about RF and I had to explain (in detail).
    Spoiler hint: It's about RF.

    Oh, photo credit is from the http://wndw.net/ ebook, chapter 8.
    The free ebook is well worth reading, or at least skimming.
     
    Jeff Liebermann, Mar 1, 2015
    #8
  9. Ugh. That's ugly. Far more politics than technology involved. That's
    the real weak link in municipal wi-fi. Even if the system gets built,
    funded, and actually works, administration and maintenance are heavily
    politicized and usually under funded. You have my sympathy.

    MetroFi brings back fond nightmares:
    <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MetroFi>
    I wasn't impressed with their system design and installations. For
    example, the Santa Clara Metrofi system spent about 80% of its air
    time spewing ARP requests and broadcasts, leaving very little for
    actual useful traffic. Under MetroFi, that was never fixed.

    Unfortunately, such system tend to raise from the dead like zombies,
    usually just before elections. Santa Clara is no exception:
    <http://santaclarafreewifi.com>
    <http://www.fiercewireless.com/tech/...g-free-wi-fi-smart-utility-meters/2013-03-27>
    The concept is unique. If anyone complains about getting exposed to
    harmful wi-fi radiation and turning their brain to mush, Santa Clara
    simply threatens to pull the plug on the free wi-fi, which people find
    very convenient. Without the utility part, they also threaten to
    raise taxes to buy a proper smartmeter system. I'm not sure if the
    threats work, but I like the idea.
     
    Jeff Liebermann, Mar 1, 2015
    #9
  10. True, but that doesn't apply to wi-fi. In a rooftop situation like
    that in the picture, every rooftop can supposedly see every other
    rooftop. In order for everyone to hear everyone else, everyone has to
    be on the same RF channel (or frequency). With a simplex CSMA/CA
    (carrier sense, multiple access, collision avoidance) scheme used in
    wi-fi, you can only have one transmitter on the air at a time.
    Therefore, no interference. One only transmits when the channel is
    clear.

    Reality is of course not so neat. There are radios that can't hear or
    see each other. This is known as the "hidden transmitter" problem. If
    two transmitters do come on at the same time, and the collision is
    detected, the transmitters intentionally jam each other out to prevent
    the collided signals from being received as garbage. The two
    transmitters than invoke a backoff algorithm, where each tries again,
    but at different time delays.

    However, that's not what's wrong with the picture. I'll drag this out
    for another day or two and then explain what's wrong.
    Yes, store and forward does slow things down. Again, only one
    transmitter in the "air space" can transmit at a time, including nodes
    that repeat the data. If the data needs to go through a 2nd node, the
    maximum throughput is cut in half. If it goes through a 3rd node, the
    throughput is 1/3. And so on. Using full duplex repeaters and
    backhauls largely solve that problem, but there's no evidence of that
    in the drawing.
    Yep, but only with the resolution equal to the coverage area of one
    node. That can be a fairly large radius if on a rooftop. You might
    get lucky and be located to within a city block, but not more
    accurately.
     
    Jeff Liebermann, Mar 4, 2015
    #10
  11. Ok. Time's up (because I'm going to playing dish installer during
    the next few daze and am going to be busy).

    The problem with the picture is that all the communications is
    happening on the rooftops and very little where the users are located.
    Most of the users are near the ground, where the RF from the rooftops
    never reaches. Many are inside the buildings, where there might be a
    cable running from the rooftop mesh node to their home/office router.
    More likely, they're just another wireless node on the mesh, which
    might be able to see another rooftop node, but only if it's on a
    nearby rooftop. They're unlikely to hear the node on their own
    rooftop because of all the bulding material the signal needs to pass
    through and the not so trival detail that the antenna pattern is
    optimized for talking to other rooftop nodes, not users in the
    buildings. Otherwise, it's a nice looking drawing of a rooftop mesh
    network that mostly talks to itself.
     
    Jeff Liebermann, Mar 4, 2015
    #11
  12. Guest

    Hello Jeff,
    I have seen and started to revisit wifi business, since there are now models to share revenue directly with location owners, based on businesses advertising onto portal.

    You can checkout http://wifiads.alexandernetworks.com

    Let me know, if this is something you would like to partner in Santa Cruz area or nearby.

    Regards,
    Kenneth Fax
    Skype: kenfax
    Linkedin.com/in/KennethFax
     
    , Mar 5, 2015
    #12
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.