All posts in the topic Minneapolis Wi-Fi: Time to Pull the Contract? (Short link)
Summary
- There are 30 posts — by 18 authors — in this topic.
- Latest post made by Steve Basile at Mar 27 21:37 UTC
Historically, our city has entered into contracts to grant utilities
access to our streets and such in return for fees. These are very
lucrative franchises, and Exel Energy, Qwest, Reliant Energy, and a
few other franchisers happily pay those franchise fees to gain access
to our market. But when it came time to add a wireless internet
provider to our city's light poles, this history was forgotten and
our city was contractually bound to pay the provider, U.S. Internet,
a fee of $1,250,000 a year. Bad deal that it was, that contract
required that U.S. Internet provide service to at least 90% of the
city, with no mention of "Ruckus" amplifiers being needed. We were
also supposed to get free access to government websites and free
access for a substantial number of non profits.
Up here in the hood, we're used to indifferent service from cherry
picking utilities. Qwest has trouble supporting a narrow band audio
stream with their DSL, the gas company checked my meter because they
couldn't believe the $40 monthly bill, and Exel seems to be relying
on our water system for one side of their circuit. So it was no
surprise when U.S. Internet took their sweet time getting nodes up
here and then took even more of their sweet time getting them turned
on. Who knows if they'll ever get them working... In testing, I have
gotten no connection with the nearest node about 100 meters away. I
can get a marginal connection with a node a bit over 150 meters away
only if I stand by a facing window to enable a line of sight signal
path. Searching for connections, I plopped the laptop on my dashboard
and did a bit of WARdriving. I found nodes that could barely produce
a measurable signal from 10 meters away, never mind communicate. I
found more dead spots than coverage. But I was able to connect from
Brookdale's parking lot, 400 meters from the city limits!
Back to that contract... We are paying U.S. Internet $1,250,000 a
year, supposedly so our police, firefighters, and other city
employees can have internet access in at least 90% of the city. In
reality there are so many dead spots the service is useless- when
firefighters have run hoses to and from their pumper or set out the
outriggers on a ladder, you can't just drive down the street until
you can find a wireless connection. We are paying $1,250,000 for
wireless service that is useless but for all but a few glorified
webcams.
We have given U.S. Internet more than enough time, and the service
is probably not going to improve. U.S. Internet is privately held,
and our city should have demanded access to their books before this
bad deal was ever done. Our city estimates that U.S. Internet needs
$3,000,000 a year just to cover debt service on the start up costs of
the system. In vague claims, they say they either have 8,000
subscribers... or is it 8,000 potential subscribers? At an average of
$25 a month, 8,000 subscribers leaves U.S. internet still $600,000 a
year short of servicing the system's debt, never mind maintainence
and upgrades. We are looking at a system that is not working
probably, and survives (for now) only through a subsidy of $1,250,000
of our taxpayer dollars each year. And it's not going to get any
better- WiFi operates in the microwave range where communication is
pretty near literally "line of sight". Spacing nodes 200 meters apart
doesn't cut it, and U.S. Internet will probably go under before they
add enough nodes to give the promised 90% coverage.
It's time to pull the contract and start building a real 21st
century wireless communications system for Minneapolis.
from the wireless dead zones of Hawthorne,
Dyna Sluyter
Although it's true that U.S. Internet implementation of the Minneapolis Wi-Fi network has been slower than we all hoped, and they've encountered problems with trees, water, and the mesh beneath the all too pervasive stucco. They seem to be making a effort to resolve these issues, at least I've noticed some extra amplifying hardware...something like square white thingy attached to the mini-keggers and the double wands...on the telephone poles We could have gone with the vendor St. Louis Park hired... http://www.startribune.com/local/west/14166576.html Reports to this list about Wi-Fi service and U.S. Internets customer service have varied...and the extra cost for a Ruckus modem was a surprise... the difficulties and dead spots could be the growing pains of innovation, or they may be a symptom of the unending money pit and frustration that new technology or software can cause. There should be a way to: Evaluate how the Wi-Fi is working for the police and fire depts and any other city depts using it. Are we getting our $mil or are they experiencing serious problems? I'm guessing there's an enormous wall map somewhere documenting all the "dead spots"...if there isn't there should be one. Seems like even the priviledged can inhabit these as I've heard that the neighborhood round Lake of the Isles is a dead spot. But maybe the brass at Qwest or Comcast live in Kenwood or Lowry Hills! Hopefully there is a strategy to make the dead spots "live" without an expensive shift to an entirely different technology. U.S. Internet set up a Wi-Fi and webcam network so quickly and efficiently after the 35W bridge collapse... an event that's earned them national acclaim, but they still should be accountable for providing residential Wi-Fi service. Another positive is the Community Benefits agreement and the opportunity for neighborhoods and citizens to create content for and use Wi-Fi internet...but this work also needs to happen without extensive delay. This too is receiving national attention. Can anyone who is a subscribe report on the community info suppose to be available for free? U.S. Internet may need more time...but not too much time...and someone needs to be continuously assessing service availability and quality... Here are some good sources of info: http://www.pfhyper.com/weblog/blogger.html http://www.digitalaccess.org/ Madeline Douglass Kingfield Downtown East
I am not a Mpls Wi-Fi subscriber, so I cannot comment on service.
I can, however, chime in and share my experience of working with USI Wireless
on a community service project. They have been nothing but supportive and
helpful.
My kids' school -- MPS' Windom School in SW Mpls -- is carrying out an exciting
and innovative "service learning project." The idea of service learning is for
student to learn by doing and to give back to the broader community by
performing a community service learning project. Windom's project is called
"Adopt a Wood Duck House" project.
USI Wireless was approached to donate a wi-fi account (and modem) for the
project. The request was made so that a camera could be mounted inside one of
the Wood Duck Houses and subsequently live/real time streamed to the school and
others in the community via the Internet. The Mpls Wi-Fi providers had a
"can-do" attitude, were patient, offered useful advice, and were encouraging.
This is in sharp contrast to other public entities at the local level.
I am happy to report that wi-fi streaming of the interior of the Wood Duck
House started officially last night -- thanks to fellow list serve member and
selfless commmunity volunteer, Sonja Dahl. It is up on Grass Lake.
These types of enrichment activities for our young people (and, in this case,
the surrounding neighborhoods and beyond) do not happen and the flick of a
switch. They happen because of receptive, open-minded and supportive companies
like USI Wireless and volunteers.
Now, I don't know all the details about stucco, trees, installation delays and
the like. I can report that USI Wireless has been a good corporate citizen to
our little urban school service learning project. I wanted to publicly thank
them. I wish others -- public and private -- modeled the same behavior.
For those interested in the live web cam of the house...it is coming. We will
link to Windom's home page in the coming days. Right now, our volunteers need
a little rest from sorting out all the IT complexities to making this happen.
If you want to "adopt a Wood Duck House" -- meaning, you would be willing to
clean the wood shavings, egg shells and downy feathers from the box each spring
Here is a prototype of the Wi-Fi civic garden (free content). http://wirelessminneapolis.org/ Peter Fleck Seward Neighborhood On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 4:00 PM, Madeline Douglass <<email obscured>> wrote: > Although it's true that U.S. Internet implementation > of the Minneapolis Wi-Fi network has been slower than > we all hoped, and they've encountered problems with > trees, water, and the mesh beneath the all too pervasive > stucco. > > They seem to be making a effort to resolve > these issues, at least I've noticed some extra amplifying hardware...something like square white thingy attached to the mini-keggers and the double wands...on the telephone poles > > We could have gone with the vendor St. Louis > Park hired... > > http://www.startribune.com/local/west/14166576.html > > Reports to this list about Wi-Fi service and U.S. Internets customer service have varied...and the
As I understand it, the city's payments are intended to cover, first, Internet
access for all city government services. Beyond that, it covers WiFi access for
city government. And beyond that, allows for access by residents of the city.
This makes it a bit different from a typical utility since it's set up
primarily to provide services to the city and only secondarily to the residents
of the city.
A bit of clarification about the contract between the City and USIW.
The Ruckus modem was specifically mentioned in the contract with pricing.
USIW is paying competitive fees for use of City assets including poles
and the fiber network.
There was a $2.2M advance payment ("in advance for City acquired
services" according to term sheet) from the City to USIW for future
services.
Emergency services like police and fire will not be relying on a Wi-Fi
network. 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.
Contract, term sheet, CBA, etc. are all available at your local PF
Hyper web site.
http://www.pfhyper.com
More on 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.
Peter Fleck
Seward Neighborhood
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
I recently switched from my satellite provider to USI for my internet, and I
must say that USI is remarkably fast and way less expensive.
With my satellite provider, I was paying $39.99/month + the modem rental
($4.95/month, I think). With USI's annual payment plan, I'm now paying
$228/year (works out to be a little less than $19/month) + $55ish/year for the
Ruckus rental ... so essentially I'm saving $250/year with USI AND getting much
faster service. Plus I live on the 6th floor of a downtown condo. On average,
I'm getting about 1400 kbps (almost full T1 speed), though lots of times the
speed is much faster.
Sure, you REALLY REALLY need to use the Ruckus amplifier to get the best signal
quality, but if the cable/satellite providers also make you rent a modem from
them, it's pretty much a wash on equipment costs. Plus since I have a wireless
card in my laptop, I can get a signal in lots of spots throughout the city.
Something I couldn't do with my satellite provider.
They may not be at 100% coverage, but things are a lot further along than I
thought they would be. Plus, the customer service and billing folks are very
friendly, and (I THINK) are based in the Twin Cities, so they aren't routing
your call to some foreign country to be serviced.
I'd say 3 out of 4 stars for USI. They've got some work to do, but they know
that and aren't afraid to admit that things aren't at 100% yet.
Try it out for a month before you cancel your service with your current
provider. If you don't find that USI is better, you'll just be out $40 -- they
give you $10 off your first month -- but if you're like me, you'll see the huge
savings that can be had!!
I would like someone from USI or the city to enter this thread. There is a lot
of mistaken information in it, and we could use an infusion of facts. I
personally tried USI service, and at our house, even with a Ruckus, it was
unworkable. I am considering trying it again, as DSL is slow and overpriced,
and I understand that USI now offers external antennas for folks who cannot get
adequate service with a Ruckus alone. I'm told they simply need more radios per
unit area, but we'll see if they can find a less drastic solution. It's not
just a matter of adding a few more radios , but repositioning many also, to
truly optimize the network. Very expensive. I was told the city services are
provided by USI, but they are not WiFi, and are done through licensed
frequencies served by the same equipment. Someone should clear that up for us.
I want this service to be successful, but it clearly has growing pains. USI has
done a poor job of PR and it's Web page is one of the most static business web
pages I have ever seen. It's remarkable to me that a company in the internet
business can be so clueless as to how a dynamic web presence adds value to
enterprise. What a lost opportunity for them!
Jack Ray
Cooper
I am a current subscriber and moderately happy with the service, at least when compared to the alternatives (qwest, comcast). I posted my thoughts on the MPLS wifi recently in the Seward forum, so I won't duplicate them here: http://forums.e-democracy.org/groups/mpls-seward/messages/post/5QQZGK44h5oHnkq5JjEDhw I do have to say I couldn't agree more with Jack. Why USI doesn't have a blog with frequent updates about what they're doing blows me away. It is something of a landmark project for the size and relative success, it should be discussed more openly. Why there isn't a blog for USI, and a blog for the group developing the civic gardens, I have to wonder. It's 2008, get with it. So far, PFhyper is the only one doing anything towards fixing it. And regarding the civic garden project, it seems like an ill-managed flop so far. As Peter noted a couple posts they posted some samples and asked for feedback (http://wirelessminneapolis.org/ suggestions.htm) but the feedback mechanism is broken, saying instead: [FORM GOES HERE] I'm not sure who's developing it, but that is something that should have been checked and fixed long ago. Would love to contact them, but, [FORM GOES HERE]... Justin Heideman Seward
Thanks guys, for reenforcing my perceptions about our problem
plagued municipal WiFi service. U.S. Internet seems to do a good job
of answering phone calls for tech help and returning e-mails. But
their internet presence needs some help. But the problems go much
deeper than that, problems that require more hardware, trained techs,
and bucket trucks to fix. The fundamental problem is that they're
trying to get by with nodes spaced 200 meters apart when WiFi devices
have a range of half that under perfect conditions. Throw in some
urban landscape to bounce signals around and the range can go down to
the order of 10 meters. With 200 meters between nodes, U.S. Internet
needed 64 per square mile and darn near 4000 to cover our 60 square
mile city. To make the system function to spec will require adding
additional nodes on a 100 meter spacing, requiring about 12,000
additional nodes. U.S. Internet claimed that it would cost them
$150,000/square mile to install the nodes, and IIRC they were
originally planning on even wider spacing. I have a hard time
believing that it costs over $1000 to put up a node, but U.S.
Internet claims costs of more than double that.
So using U.S. Internet's numbers, we're looking at an additional
investment of $30,000,000 or so to make the system functional. Our
city government having given the contract to a privately held
company, we have no access to their books. Our only notice of their
financial collapse may come when the system goes down and calls to
tech support bring us the "this number has been disconnected" tape.
From what we can see from outside, the finances of U.S. Internet
look questionable. Despite a plentiful supply of unemployed
installation techs, construction of the anemic system is months
behind schedule. U.S. Internet is offering a 2nd year free with the
prepayment of one years service, suggesting cash flow problems. It
appears the 8000 number we've heard is not the number of paid
subscribers, but merely the number of potential subscribers who have
asked to be informed when the service becomes available. Given that
20% of those 8000 are in a "challenge" area which U.S. Internet may
never get to and the service has yet to be available in many internet
savvy neighborhoods in northeast, along the river, and around the
University I suspect the number of paid subscribers is around a
thousand or two. Even 2000 customers at an average of $25/month gives
but $600,000 a year in revenue. That's not enough to pay the interest
on U.S. Internet's claimed around $30,000,000 total investment in the
system. It appears that the system's largest revenue source is our
city, propping up U.S. Internet with $1,250,000 a year for a system
that is all but useless for city government.
Any way you tweak the numbers, barring some very patient venture
capitalists or other funding sources, U.S. Internet is going to
default. Whether the default comes from losing it's city subsidy for
failure to meet performance specifications or inability to pay the
help and bills, the system is probably going to be abandoned on our
city's property. Had there been more diligence before signing the
contract we might not be facing that eventuality, but that's water
under the dam. Our city and especially it's leaders needs to demand
more of U.S. Internet and quit prolonging the inevitable with
subsidies if they can't meet specifications. Our city can take
possession of the system that may soon be abandoned on our light
poles, upgrade it, and make it functional with our own city workers
and local tradespeople- all it takes is our council and mayor to show
some leadership on this issue instead of blindly rubber stamping
departmental and consultants recommendations.
from the other side of the digital divide in Hawthorne,
Dyna Sluyter
dyna wrote:
> Any way you tweak the numbers, barring some very patient venture
> capitalists or other funding sources, U.S. Internet is going to
> default. Whether the default comes from losing it's city subsidy for
> failure to meet performance specifications or inability to pay the
> help and bills, the system is probably going to be abandoned on our
> city's property. Had there been more diligence before signing the
> contract we might not be facing that eventuality, but that's water
> under the dam. Our city and especially it's leaders needs to demand
> more of U.S. Internet and quit prolonging the inevitable with
> subsidies if they can't meet specifications. Our city can take
> possession of the system that may soon be abandoned on our light
> poles, upgrade it, and make it functional with our own city workers
> and local tradespeople- all it takes is our council and mayor to show
> some leadership on this issue instead of blindly rubber stamping
> departmental and consultants recommendations.
>
I think USI will probably let somebody buy them out. How much the original
owners make on the deal will, of course, be something we'll never know and it
will likely be contingent on the city renewing the contract with the new owners
in some manner. The city could choose to say NO to a new deal and do it
themselves or hire somebody else to finish building the system so that the city
could take over later. If the new owners can do the same kind of sales job
with the city that USI did, they (the new owners) could get themselves a good
market.
I have always thought that the whole deal was very sloppily organized. The
city was afraid of Qwest and so the city took as little risk as possible. I
think the potential market is a whole lot bigger than even USI has suggested
for someone willing to stand up to Qwest. The wider wireless business has yet
to produced any big strong players, but they should start showing up soon.
On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 16:54:31 -0500, Dyna wrote:
>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.
A glance at the Ruckus website shows the Ruckus runs on 12VDC. My guess
is that, should it be desirable, smart mobile users (or the city's
in-house radio shop) will not have much difficulty powering it from the
typical (12V) vehicle. Two plugs, one piece of wire.
And if you don't want to use a (non-authorized) cord to the cigarette
lighter outlet, for $20 or so you can buy a cheap inverter that will
provide 110V to plug your authorized power pack into.
Lee,
I'm an IT pro with 14 years internet and 9 years WiFi (802.11b/g/n)
experience.
I'm pleased to hear the 1500 speed on your USI connection is to your
satisfaction. However, the only service that does NOT compare favorably to
satellite internet is dial-up.
On my Comcast connection I get a typical sustained speed of 6000bps. On a
good day it'll hold nearer to 10000bps. Visiting my retired Mom in the
Chicago area this weekend where her AT&T cable service tests at a sustained
11000bps.
Let me go further...
I never understood how USI was going to get WiFi to work with the present
density of access points. If I were to plan such a system, I would have at
least twice the density.
Requiring special WiFi amplifiers in the consumer's home is proof positive
that the system as deployed is a bust. The proper place for the right
amplifier is on the poles.
Can someone tell me who on G-d's earth approved a contract where the base
station density is 1/2 of what is required to be effective? That bureaucrat
should be CANNED.
I expect we'll have a WiFi standard in the next 5 years that will probably
work at the present access point density. So what to do with the present
system? I agree that it's time to consider pulling the plug.
Steve Basile
Standish
> From: Lee <<email obscured>>
> Date: Sun, 23 Mar 2008 09:06:37 +1300 (NZDT)
> To: Minneapolis Issues Forum <<email obscured>>
> Subject: Re: [Mpls] Minneapolis Wi-Fi: Time to Pull the Contract?
>
> I recently switched from my satellite provider to USI for my internet, and I
> must say that USI is remarkably fast and way less expensive.
>
> With my satellite provider, I was paying $39.99/month + the modem rental
> ($4.95/month, I think). With USI's annual payment plan, I'm now paying
> $228/year (works out to be a little less than $19/month) + $55ish/year for
the
> Ruckus rental ... so essentially I'm saving $250/year with USI AND getting
> much faster service. Plus I live on the 6th floor of a downtown condo. On
> average, I'm getting about 1400 kbps (almost full T1 speed), though lots of
> times the speed is much faster.
>
> Sure, you REALLY REALLY need to use the Ruckus amplifier to get the best
> signal quality, but if the cable/satellite providers also make you rent a
> modem from them, it's pretty much a wash on equipment costs. Plus since I
have
After one month of "service", I cancelled our USI wireless yesterday. We live
within 3/4 of a block of three different antennas and were still not able to
get any service. They sent us a basic antenna, and then a directional antenna.
Still we could only get very s l o w servcie. Not to mention that I use
my laptop all over the house and lugging the modem and antenna around is not
something I am willing to do.
I am annoyed that we have to stay with comcast---i was hoping to get our of
their grip and save a few bucks in the process.
The City was duped; this service is horrible.
(no , we do not have a stucco house)
We've been on Visi for years and years. Steady, good, reliable,
cheap. Good tech and maintenance contacts. Non gibberish phone
language. Will I change when wireless becomes available? Not likely
unless it shows me marked improvement over what I have.
Laura
Southeast/Como
On Mar 25, 2008, at 7:33 AM, Sara Bergen wrote:
> After one month of "service", I cancelled our USI wireless
> yesterday. We live within 3/4 of a block of three different
> antennas and were still not able to get any service. They sent us
> a basic antenna, and then a directional antenna. Still we could
> only get very s l o w servcie. Not to mention that I use my
> laptop all over the house and lugging the modem and antenna around
> is not something I am willing to do.
>
> I am annoyed that we have to stay with comcast---i was hoping to
> get our of their grip and save a few bucks in the process.
>
> The City was duped; this service is horrible.
>
> (no , we do not have a stucco house)
Laura Waterman Wittstock
President and CEO
Wittstock & Associates
913 19th Ave SE
Minneapolis, MN 55414
612-387-4915
www.laurawatermanwittstock.com
Couple of comments...
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 9:53 AM, Laura Waterman Wittstock
<<email obscured>> wrote:
> We've been on Visi for years and years. Steady, good, reliable,
> cheap. Good tech and maintenance contacts. Non gibberish phone
Laura, Visi is an excellent internet service provider and there are
several others around the Twin Cities. As far as I know, they are all
resellers of Qwest so underneath the hood, you have a DSL connection
that is subject to Qwest's desires.
> Can someone tell me who on G-d's earth approved a contract where the base
> station density is 1/2 of what is required to be effective? That bureaucrat
> should be CANNED.
Steve Basile this is a work in progress. Node density figures have
been increasing since the first radio was hung in Philadelphia. USIW
has increased several times and may have to continue. When the
contract was signed, no one really knew what it would take.
On Mar 25, 2008, at 10:09 AM, Peter Fleck wrote:
> Steve Basile this is a work in progress. Node density figures have
> been increasing since the first radio was hung in Philadelphia. USIW
> has increased several times and may have to continue. When the
> contract was signed, no one really knew what it would take.
The propagation (or more correctly, lack thereof) of radio signals
in the WiFi portion of the radio spectrum has been known for decades.
It's no surprise that signals from low power devices like laptops and
handhelds aren't gong to reliably make it through a hundred meters or
more of built urban environment. Back in 2004 I found that my first
WiFi capable device, a Sharp Zaurus 6000 handheld, has at best a 100
meter range- the clear distance from the southwest corner of the main
Post Office property to the Dunn Brothers node a block away! It
appears that the city officials that signed the contract may have
been proficient at digital stuff, but had no idea of how radios work.
from beyond the digital divide in Hawthorne,
Dyna Sluyter
I've noted this chain as it happened and it seems that USI's network is beholden to a bit of pessimism. I live in a challenge area myself and still have zero access with or without the ruckus signal booster. The main problems presented by dyna is a low quality of service because of low node density and also the 30,000,000 finincial risk that the city (and USI) are engaged in. It should be said that one of earthlink's first struggles in Philly dealt with the exact same issue: http://www.dailywireless.org/2008/03/22/muni-fi-twisting-in-the-wind-says-ny-times/ but also that MPLS's plan accounts for a HIGHER node density than was ever planned for that city. Increasing node density only adds to dyna's second problem: the financial risk. More nodes not only means a higher installation cost, but an increase in maintainance costs for future years. All of these things are worth noting and monitoring, but in the end what are we arguing? I don't think any of this really has a solution except demanding a better, less costly technology which has yet to be invented. In the mean time, tech bloggers keep pointing at the MPLS network as a strong leap forward. How about THIS piece from wifinetnews: http://wifinetnews.com/archives/008230.html Aren't we concerned about EMF rays destroying our brain too? Why the hell not?
Here's part of an article about an upgrade of the University of Minnesota's wireless network. Although the U is a smaller, more compact area than the entire city, (they have the river and trees) and even though the upgrade is by a venture captial co. "Trapeze"...are there lessons to be learned here and an example to observe? http://twincities.bizjournals.com/twincities/stories/2008/03/24/story11.html Earthlink has sadly had plenty of trouble and failure: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/wireless/2007-11-18-philadelphia-wifi_N.htm http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/san-francisco-formally-ends-citywide/story.aspx?guid={CCFE5024-4078-4969-B8B3-A977B076018D} Can Minneapolis succeed where others have failed? If we say yes are we being pioneers or duped? (I keep wondering how much we are still paying for those non-functional red light cameras) Several here have pointed out serious communication failures by both USI and the group responsibility for developing the civic gardens: Dyna said: Yes, the Civic Garden is "free". But the signal is so weak 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! Jack said: USI has done a poor job of PR and it's Web page is one of the most static business web pages I have ever seen. It's remarkable to me that a company in the internet business can be so clueless as to how a dynamic web presence adds value to enterprise. What a lost opportunity for them! Justin said: I do have to say I couldn't agree more with Jack. Why USI doesn't have a blog with frequent updates about what they're doing blows me away. It is something of a landmark project for the size and relative success, it should be discussed more openly. Why there isn't a blog for USI, and a blog for the group developing the civic gardens, I have to wonder. It's 2008, get with it. So far, PFhyper is the only one doing anything towards fixing it. And regarding the civic garden project, it seems like an ill-managed flop so far. As Peter noted a couple posts they posted some samples and asked for feedback (http://wirelessminneapolis.org/ suggestions.htm) but the feedback mechanism is broken, saying instead: [FORM GOES HERE] I'm not sure who's developing it, but that is something that should have been checked and fixed long ago. Would love to contact them, but, [FORM GOES HERE]... MD said: While I do not know if existing technology for implementing citywide Wi-Fi networks works, I like others, believe in the dream. So do we keep investing in the dream technology that does not work today or cut our losses and wait until what does work is developed? As to the Civic Gardens, it is another dream which so far looks like some net savvy kid gathered content from the City of Minneapolis and Hennepin County websites in a single afternoon... There was to be some original content, training and workshops, involvement by the community...If all this is underway, we need to know about it. The absence of a feedback mechanism and no communication about projects in progress is fatal. We need to know how the grant money is being spent and what's happening,even though those involved may be to "busy" doing it to report on it. Thanks Dyna for speaking out, taking a strong stance, and analysing this issue with the mind of an engineer. If what we've got does not work and never will...what can we do instead other than surrendering to Comcast and Quest? Madeline Douglass Kingfield Downtown East
Peter,
Thank you for the response.
I've been planning and implementing IT solutions for 20 years. If I had ever
planned or failed even half as badly as the USI wifi deployment I'd be out
of business. This appears to be the IT version of Bush's War-- stay the
course, keep putting more money into it, and just hope in the end we meet
our goals.
Three big questions:
#1. Why is something so basic as determining access point density being
learned on the job? There are smaller scale and less expensive ways to
determine if something like this will work.
#2. Why are consumers shouldering the burden of inadequate density by being
forced to rent or buy a modem designed for weak signals?
#3. Should USI and the city bureaucrat who approved this contract reasonably
expect to keep their contracts/jobs after such an expensive failure?
The city needs a FAIR ASSESSMENT of what is will take to finish this
deployment. One way to accomplish this is to terminate all involved and
bring in people with better experience.
If you have more insight into this then please continue to share.
Steve Basile
Standish
Madeline Douglass wrote: > Here's part of an article about an upgrade of the University of > Minnesota's wireless network. Although the U is a smaller, > more compact area than the entire city, (they have the river > and trees) and even though the upgrade is by a venture captial > co. "Trapeze"...are there lessons to be learned here and > an example to observe? Trapeze Networks is (not surprisingly) a networking company, not a venture capital company. <http://www.trapezenetworks.com/> Their press release contains some additional information on the project: <http://www.trapezenetworks.com/news_events/press_releases/164/> I find several aspects of this project interesting: o The University decided to contract this work out, even though the University has a competent technology group that has extensive experience designing, deploying, and operating a campus-wide wireless network. If an organization with a large, competent, experienced technology group decided to outsource this work, it doesn't seem to make much sense to suggest that the City of Minneapolis assume responsibility for the Minneapolis wireless network. Remember that the City outsourced its information technology operations (and people) several years ago. And, of course, the City doesn't have any experience designing, deploying or operating a large wireless network. I think the City made the right decision to outsource responsibility for citywide wireless network. o Wireless technology is changing rapidly. The UofM/ Trapeze project is deploying 802.11n, which didn't exist when the Minneapolis wireless project started. One of the explicitly stated reasons that the City decided to become a lead tenant, rather than assume responsibility for building and operating a wireless network, is that the City wanted to avoid technology risk. That is, it didn't want to invest in technology that would soon need to be replaced (at the cost of additional investment). I believe that this was also part of the justification for outsourcing the City's information technology operations. > Can Minneapolis succeed where others have failed? If we say > yes are we being pioneers or duped? Several months ago it become apparent that Minneapolis had chosen what might be the only viable strategy for deploying citywide wireless, namely to be a "lead tenant". The result is to shift financial, technology and market risk away from the City and onto the commercial company. In my view, it doesn't make much sense to suggest that the City turn around and assume these risks by becoming responsible for the success of the project.
On 25 Mar 2008 14:24:23 -0500, ande8126.umn.edu wrote:
>Aren't we concerned about EMF rays destroying our brain too? Why the hell
>not?
When we're surrounded by cell phones and their towers, bluetooth, home
wifi networks, 50000 watt radio and TV stations, taxicab and police
radios, aircraft flying overhead, poorly shielded computers, arc
welders, remote-control (by radio) toys, cordless phones, baby monitors,
high-tension lines, automobiles with OnStar and Lojack, electric
blankets, radio transmitters in our water meters, gas meters, electric
meters? Nah, too late. We weren't using them, anyway.
Steve Basile wrote:
> #1. Why is something so basic as determining access point density being
> learned on the job? There are smaller scale and less expensive ways to
> determine if something like this will work.
Contrary to what the advocates of municipally owned wireless
networks tried to tell us, citywide Wi-Fi networks are really
pushing the limits of the products and the technology. I don't
believe that _anyone_ really has broad experience deploying
citywide Wi-Fi networks. Plus, a lot of the experience doesn't
translate -- lessons learned in a flat state like Florida
aren't necessarily applicable to a place with seasons and hills.
Remember that, for the most part, these expenses are borne
by the vendor, not by the city.
> #2. Why are consumers shouldering the burden of inadequate density by being
> forced to rent or buy a modem designed for weak signals?
They aren't. If the wireless network doesn't meet your needs,
then don't buy it. There is no "force" involved.
> #3. Should USI and the city bureaucrat who approved this contract reasonably
> expect to keep their contracts/jobs after such an expensive failure?
The City deserves a lot of credit for shifting the financial,
technology, and market risks away from the City and onto the
private vendor. The City simply agreed to purchase services;
the vendor is responsible for building the network and
delivering the services. If the network doesn't work,
the City can terminate the contract and stop buying services
from the vendor. Most importantly, the City isn't required to
keep increasing its investment until the system works.
As you no doubt recall, there were at least a couple of vocal
advocates of municipally owned wireless networks who thought
that the City, rather than a private company, should have
borne all of the risks of making this network work.
> The city needs a FAIR ASSESSMENT of what is will take to finish this
> deployment.
I think all the City needs is an estimate of when the network
will perform at an acceptable level. Inasmuch as it is not
the City's money at risk, I don't think the City should care
how much USIW will have to invest.
> One way to accomplish this is to terminate all involved and
> bring in people with better experience.
There are pretty much no people with better experience.
I suppose you might claim EarthLink qualifies, but their
experience told them to get out of the business. Maybe
the University qualifies, but they just outsourced their
wireless networking problem to a private company.
> This appears to be the IT version of Bush's War-- stay the
> course, keep putting more money into it, and just hope in
> the end we meet our goals.
Maybe. But, remember that it USIW that is fighting (and paying
for) this war, not the City. The City is a customer, not
the vendor responsible for the project. I hope that you
aren't suggesting that USIW simply quit, leaving the City
to start the process all over again...
Steve Basile wrote the following 3 statements (intervening text remvoed for
brevity):
"I'm an IT pro with 14 years internet and 9 years WiFi (802.11b/g/n)
experience."
"On my Comcast connection I get a typical sustained speed of 6000bps. On a
good day it'll hold nearer to 10000bps. Visiting my retired Mom in the
Chicago area this weekend where her AT&T cable service tests at a sustained
11000bps."
"Requiring special WiFi amplifiers in the consumer's home is proof positive
that the system as deployed is a bust. The proper place for the right
amplifier is on the poles."
Steve's statement brought to mind a couple of remarks:
* Isn't the real reason for the WiFi amplifier the fact that consumer WiFi
cards are too low powered and have too small of an antenna to transmit to the
WiFi device on the pole, rather than the other way around? Just as cell phones
are limited by their transmit range, not their receive range, the same seems
true for WiFi. That WiFi hotspot junkies often buy or modify unusual WiFi
cards which allow more power, and obtain amplifying antennas to use with them
just reinforces that belief. Why would putting the amplifier on the poles help
help the most common situation?
* The whole internet service business in Minnesota appears to be held hostage
by Qwest and Comcast at exhorbitant rates. Steve can get 10,000bps on his
Comcast service on a good day. I get 15,000bps on an average day on my ADSL
connection here -- through Deutsche Telekom, and at a lower price. The point
is that the technology exists to provider faster connections at cheaper prices
than what Minneapolis residents pay for wired service. So it would be nice if
USI WiFi would have some degree of success in order to provide the competition
to push the wired service prices down.
Tim,
You've made excellent points and brought additional light to the
circumstance.
However, there's one matter missing in trying to complete the city's
argument of detached risk. The city IS paying for the service.
It would be interesting to know how much the city has disbursed so far and
what exactly they've gotten for it. Reading this thread I sense the answer
is "MILLIONS" and "not much."
You said, "the City simply agreed to purchase services..."
If the city is contractually bound to purchase services on a long term basis
then we have a de facto investment. If the city pays based on performance
then we have a different matter.
Adjustments have to be made in most deployments regardless of scale. I still
find it unacceptable that this much OTJ training has happened under
contract. Let's fault FIRST the contractor for selling a concept and not a
solution. Then let's fault the city for buying a concept and not a solution.
Sure, city government is stocked with administrators and not business
people. However, at some point the folks who hold the purse have to say
"SHOW ME" before they award a contract.
I hope this thread keeps going because I'm learning a helluva lot.
Steve Basile
Standish
> #2. Why are consumers shouldering the burden of inadequate density by being
forced to rent or buy a modem designed for weak signals?
They aren't. If the wireless network doesn't meet your needs,
then don't buy it. There is no "force" involved.
There is quite a bit of "force" involved when their phone support tells you
'Well, I can't do anything more to help you as long as you are using that modem
from Cisco/Linksys. You need to have buy or rent the Ruckus modem, and then I
can interrogate it to see what the problem is.'
So they are effectively denying you service, and blaming the problem on the
modem from Cisco/Linksys (not exactly a fly-by-night company!).
I've been a subscriber for about 3 months, and I'm happy with it -- when it
works. Unfortunately, at least once a day or so it stops working. (Reminds me
of Windows 98 -- reboot needed at least once daily.) Overall, I rather wish I
hadn't plunked down the money for a 2 year contract.
On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 19:12:01 +1300 (NZDT), Tim Bonham wrote:
>There is quite a bit of "force" involved when their phone support tells you
'Well, I can't do anything more to help you as long as you are using that modem
from Cisco/Linksys. You need to have buy or rent the Ruckus modem, and then I
can interrogate it to see what the problem is.'
>
>So they are effectively denying you service, and blaming the problem on the
modem from Cisco/Linksys (not exactly a fly-by-night company!).
The key word there was "interrogate". With the Ruckus they can do
things like check (and change) the settings, and read out abstruse
statistics like how many Tx Length Errors or Rx Stopped Interrupts there
were (to pick two items at random from one of the Ruckus manuals). Those
numbers give hints about what may be wrong. They can't do that with
your Linksys. The issue is probably not that Linksys is so bad (though,
frankly, it's not great.. Cisco is industrial-strength and very
expensive, Linksys is made to sell at Best Buy). The issue more likely
is, they don't have documentation for the particular make, model, and
firmware level of Linksys you have, nor any way to get into it from
their end, nor a knowledge of the sorts of problem that particular
Linksys might be susceptible to.
At this point, USI service is not really up to snuff. They should have
explained to you up front why the Ruckus was desirable (it's quite
possible their sales people don't have a clue why it is). But if you
don't have the Ruckus, and things aren't working right, all their
techies can do is make wild guesses, or send somebody out on a very
expensive service call.
They can't help you with wireless hubs that aren't the ones they sold you. That's not that uncommon in the tech industry. Wireless vendors change their products fairly regularly and you'd have to train a staff to understand all of those various software interfaces, how they are accessed (you can turn the web browser off and need a direct cable link), and what the various flavors of the operating systems on the actual device will and won't let you do with it. To have a staff trained to that level would make Comcast and Qwest look cheap by comparsion. Heck, try calling linksys and see how well trained they are on just their own products. :) I can't imagine someone with as much IT experience would **ever** try to compare a wired connection to a wireless connection. Maybe if you wrapped your ethernet cable maypole style around an electrical conduit. But there's a really good reason you plug mission critical systems into the network and avoid wireless. It's not as realible a technology. I could see the USInternet service as a threat to dial-up or to satatlite, especially for someone who couldn't afford the additional cost of a wired broadband connection. It's not going to compete feature/function with a DSL or Cable connection, only on cost. I never saw this project as something that was aimed to displace the current broadband vendors. The business case is on-line on the city's website. http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/wirelessminneapolis/MplsWireless_BusinessCase_V3.pdf Seems clear that the goal is to create more digital inclusion, which means helping up the people who can't get a better pipe through the methods already available. The executive summary gives a good idea what they wanted to do. If the city wants to pull out of the contract, would our (meaning the city's) goals change, and how would they be better served by starting over?
My girlfriend just tipped me off to a story this week on MPR: Minneapolis Wi-Fi network to be completed by month's end http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/03/25/wifi/ Included is the article: > You've got a company here in Minnetonka that's pulled off some things that > some gigantic companies have failed at doing. This has become the poster child > for municipal Wi-Fi networks," said Caldwell. > Recent articles in the New York Times and from CNET online hold up Minneapolis > as a success story compared to failed or failing networks. I went to the New York Times article and found this mention: > But projects covering larger cities have proved far more difficult to sustain > financially, and much of the attention has turned now to Minneapolis, which is > rolling out a network based on a new business model that many market analysts > believe will avoid the financial risks that EarthLink encountered in > Philadelphia and elsewhere. > In Minneapolis, the Internet service provider agreed to build the network as > long as the city committed to becoming an anchor tenant by subscribing for a > minimum number of city workers, like building inspectors, meter readers, > police officers and firefighters. > This type of plan is more viable, according to market analysts and city > officials, because the companies paying to mount the routers and run the > service are guaranteed a base number of subscribers to cover the cost of their > investment. CNET had this to say: > Minneapolis also built its citywide network with the express intent of using > it for public safety and to connect city agencies together. USI Wireless, > which is deploying the Wi-Fi gear and providing the service, had only a small > portion of the network built in early August when a major bridge collapse put > the emergency Wi-Fi network to the test. > Within hours, the network was opened up to all users, allowing people with > dual mode Wi-Fi phones to communicate without clogging the cellular network. > In the days and weeks that followed, the Wi-Fi network has also been > instrumental in rescue and recovery efforts around the disaster site. So the business model is lauded by NYT and CNET said the technology helped in the 35W collapse. Are these reports relying on USI press releases or has a reporter actually driven around and used the actual technology? Im writing from the second floor of my So Mpls bungalow and I see plenty of neighbor SSIDs. The city website says Standish is live on city WiFi. Neither of my two laptops (802.11g/n) can see the USI signal. Is it broadcasting an SSID? The city web site says this: > The City of Minneapolis signed a 10-year contract with US Internet of > Minnetonka to provide Minneapolis with cutting-edge broadband technology. Wow. Love to hear from the experts now. Finally, a response to John Kellys comment, > I can't imagine someone with as much IT experience would **ever** try to > compare a wired connection to a wireless connection. Maybe if you wrapped > your ethernet cable maypole style around an electrical conduit. But there's a > really good reason you plug mission critical systems into the network and > avoid wireless. It's not as reliable a technology. Mr. Kelly- theres wireless internet delivery in the form of cellular and satellite which is long range and slow. Then theres wired delivery (e.g. Qwest or Comcast) that is wirelessly delivered via WiFi for the last 50 or 100. Are you confusing these very different technologies? My assumption, and it may be incorrect, is USI is delivering internet to the pole via wires and trying to deliver it to homes via overextended WiFi. So when Im quoting my WiFi speed on Comcast vs WiFi from USI then its an apples to apples comparison. Let me add that I retested my Comcast/802.11n connection today and the download speed was consistently in the 20K-25K range. Lee posted an earlier message stating that his USI connection runs at 1.5Kbps. Can someone here explain how USI will ever overcome their dearth of access points and why the city continues to mail them checks? This is not a sarcastic, facetious, or rhetorical question. Inquiring technology minds and citizens of Minneapolis want to know. Steve Basile Standish
Posting
Only members who are logged in can post, and you are not logged in.