Post in Minneapolis Wi-Fi: Time to Pull the Contract?

Mar 21 22:01 UTC

On Mar 21, 2008, at 8:11 AM, Peter Fleck wrote:

> A bit of clarification about the contract between the City and USIW.
>
> The Ruckus modem was specifically mentioned in the contract with
> pricing.

	In fact, the acceptance tests to determine if the system can be
accessed in the 95% of the city specify the use of the "Ruckus"
modem. Those tests are to include "driving" tests, to see if the
system is actually of any use to city workers. It's pretty easy to
mount a WiFi capable laptop on the dash and drive around and check
the system's usability. I did precisely that again today, and with
the light snow further reducing signal strength the system was even
more useless than usual. In fact, it became something of a "DXing"
challenge to access the system. Now it appears to be quite possible
to plug the "Ruckus" modem into most mobile laptops, but the "Ruckus"
modem has another cord coming out of it with a pair of rectangular
prongs on the end. While you'll find the appropriate power providing
receptacle for the "Ruckus" modem in most any home, you're pretty
unlikely to find a household power plug on any vehicle in Minneapolis
fleet or it's citizens and visitors. So the system has failed it's
most basic test- it cannot be accessed by mobile users from well over
95% of the city.

> Emergency services like police and fire will not be relying on a Wi-Fi
> network.

	It's good to see that those essential departments didn't get carried
away with the euphoria for "municipal wireless".

> The City has other wireless vendors that I believe were in
> place before the Wi-Fi idea was hatched. I would say (and maybe
> someone from the City can comment) that the City will use the Wi-Fi
> network for nonessential services like downloading inspection
> information on-site. I believe water meters will be Wi-Fi also as
> there is a mention of that in the term sheet.

	The system's signal is simply too weak- if we can't access it from
the street, how will water meters access it from basements?

> Contract, term sheet, CBA, etc. are all available at your local PF
> Hyper web site.
>
> http://www.pfhyper.com

	Thanks Peter, I read them before even starting this thread. What
amazes me is how our city ever entered into such a "sweetheart"
contract with a vendor. It was obvious from the start that the system
would be marginally useful at best. Relying on a modem that may go
out of production at any time to fill in the holes between too widely
spaced nodes is insanity. Note also that the CBA requires free access
within 95% of our parks. There's a node right next to Farview Park
Building, but you can't connect from inside.

> More on Civic Garden.

	Yes, the Civic Garden is "free". But the signal is so week you'll
need, again, a "Ruckus" modem to connect. You cannot buy or rent
that modem from U.S, Wireless separately- it is only available with
their paid service. So after paying the full price of the service
plus the modem that shouldn't be needed, you can access the "free"
Civic Garden!

> You can access (free) the City of Minneapolis site from the USIW login
> page now. It's been that way for a while.

	But U.S. Internet won't let you follow a link over to, say, our
county or state web pages.

	In conclusion, this contract should have never been approved in the
first place. Installing municipal WiFi is on par with the herculean
efforts of the REA to wire the countryside. It's a task clearly
beyond the capabilities of a corporate shell surrounding a few owners
of a start-up with a bit of venture capital behind them. Given that
no Yahoo or Google has come along to buy said owners out and make
them rich, U.S. Internet is unlikely to make the system work to
specification, if they even complete it. Giving them a million and a
quarter a year in thinly disguised subsidy will only prolong the
agony. In the spirit of the REA, it's time we take back our municipal
WiFi system and fix it.

	from beyond the digital divide in Hawthorne,

		Dyna Sluyter