|
Cellular forums Home > Archive > Cingular cell phone service > September 2007 > Cities turning off plans for Wi-Fi
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Cities turning off plans for Wi-Fi
|
|
| Giganews 2007-09-20, 12:33 pm |
|
"Oxford" <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in message news:colalovesmacs->
> good IMHO, it sounds like you are starting to figure out what I'm
> saying... "distributed" WiFi is the future... where nobody contributes
> more than $5 a month for full access.
>
> This way we can kill off the Cell companies, the Cable companies and the
> old Landline companies.
>
> This has been the Vision of Apple since the earliest days in 1976, even
> before Apple was official, when Steve and Steve used blue boxes to make
> free worldwide calls through the AT&T network.
>
> We as a "people" must strive to get back to that goal.
>
> It's coming full circle, but we only have "ignorance" in the way.
>
> Welcome aboard "IMHO"!!!
>
> -
Oxford, the demented troll is again FAR from reality.
http://www.usatoday.com/printeditio..._lede20.art.htm
Cities turning off plans for Wi-Fi
Complexity, cost doom efforts to create access
CHICAGO — Plans to blanket cities across the nation with low-cost or free
wireless Internet access are being delayed or abandoned because they are
proving to be too costly and complicated.
Houston, San Francisco, Chicago and other cities are putting proposed Wi-Fi
networks on hold.
"Wi-Fi woes everywhere you turn," says Russell Hancock of Silicon Valley
Network, a troubled Wi-Fi project for 40 towns in California's high-tech
corridor.
Oxford, Your 'vision' of WiFi is about as wrong as one can be....
| |
| Oxford 2007-09-20, 12:33 pm |
| "Giganews" <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:
> Oxford, the demented troll is again FAR from reality.
>
> http://www.usatoday.com/printeditio..._lede20.art.htm
>
> Cities turning off plans for Wi-Fi
> Complexity, cost doom efforts to create access
>
> CHICAGO ‹ Plans to blanket cities across the nation with low-cost or free
> wireless Internet access are being delayed or abandoned because they are
> proving to be too costly and complicated.
>
> Houston, San Francisco, Chicago and other cities are putting proposed Wi-Fi
> networks on hold.
>
> "Wi-Fi woes everywhere you turn," says Russell Hancock of Silicon Valley
> Network, a troubled Wi-Fi project for 40 towns in California's high-tech
> corridor.
>
> Oxford, Your 'vision' of WiFi is about as wrong as one can be....
An article written by cell phone companies, how interesting!
Sure, there is no longer a need for "cities" to do it themselves since
the WiFi revolution is spreading far faster, and without "any"
involvement from. So this is what everyone is seeing across the country.
Throw in VoIP and you'll have free worldwide phone network, just as was
envisioned.
Can you say Google Phone? Bet you can!
-
| |
| Ness Net 2007-09-20, 12:33 pm |
|
"Oxford" <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in message news:colalovesmacs->
> An article written by cell phone companies, how interesting!
>
A bit more fiction?
Nowhere in that article does it reference "cell phone companies"
I guess now you are a crazy conspiracy theorist as well?
More info:
Cincinnati shelved its plan last week for a citywide network because the
market is too unstable.
•The Silicon Valley plan for free Wi-Fi is at risk after providers decided
local governments must be "anchor tenants" for the service.
•Springfield, Ill., is looking for another partner after AT&T dropped Wi-Fi
plans last month.
•St. Louis is trying to figure out how to power Wi-Fi transmitters on 1,700
street lights when they're not illuminated without spending millions of
dollars.
| |
| karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net 2007-09-20, 12:33 pm |
| It's not cities stepping away, it's they're contractor Earthlink now
teetering on the brink of bankruptcy that can't afford to meet its
committments to build WiFi systems for these cities.
On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 08:49:12 -0700, "Giganews"
<richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:
>
>"Oxford" <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in message news:colalovesmacs->
>
>Oxford, the demented troll is again FAR from reality.
>
>http://www.usatoday.com/printeditio..._lede20.art.htm
>
>Cities turning off plans for Wi-Fi
>Complexity, cost doom efforts to create access
>
>CHICAGO — Plans to blanket cities across the nation with low-cost or free
>wireless Internet access are being delayed or abandoned because they are
>proving to be too costly and complicated.
>
>Houston, San Francisco, Chicago and other cities are putting proposed Wi-Fi
>networks on hold.
>
>"Wi-Fi woes everywhere you turn," says Russell Hancock of Silicon Valley
>Network, a troubled Wi-Fi project for 40 towns in California's high-tech
>corridor.
>
>Oxford, Your 'vision' of WiFi is about as wrong as one can be....
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-09-20, 3:33 pm |
| At 20 Sep 2007 12:20:48 -0500 karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote:
> It's not cities stepping away, it's they're contractor Earthlink now
> teetering on the brink of bankruptcy that can't afford to meet its
> committments to build WiFi systems for these cities.
Is Google "teetering on the brink of bankruptcy" as well? Is AT&T?
These companies are also involved in muni-WiFi plans that have halted
as well.
It's a neat idea- except for the part where no one has figured out
how to pay for it or make any money from it...
--
"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures
or double as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for
all the bells and whistles, but I could communicate better with
ACTUAL bells and whistles." -Bill Maher 9/25/2003
| |
| karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net 2007-09-20, 3:33 pm |
| On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 13:15:39 -0600, Todd Allcock
< elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:
>At 20 Sep 2007 12:20:48 -0500 karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote:
>
>Is Google "teetering on the brink of bankruptcy" as well? Is AT&T?
>These companies are also involved in muni-WiFi plans that have halted
>as well.
DUh - AT&T has 10,000 WiFi Hot Spots in the United States.
Doesn't sound like they've abandoned it.
>
>It's a neat idea- except for the part where no one has figured out
>how to pay for it or make any money from it...
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-09-20, 10:33 pm |
| At 20 Sep 2007 15:29:39 -0500 karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote:
> DUh - AT&T has 10,000 WiFi Hot Spots in the United States.
> Doesn't sound like they've abandoned it.
"Duh?" Always the wordsmith, eh, Phillipe?
Those "10,000 hotspots" are subscription-based, isolated, individual
hotspots similar to T-Mobile's Hotspot WiFi network- not a muni-WiFi
"mesh" network with continuous coverage. Hardly the same thing!
Like T-Mobile's or Boingo's networks, AT&T uses it in an attempt to
make a profit, and DOESN'T try to blanket entire areas- they
cherrypick airports, restaurants, hotels, etc. and sell access by the
hour, day, month, etc.
So, in conclusion, "duh" yourself- what does AT&T's hotspot network
have to do with the failure of muni-WiFi projects getting off the
ground (like AT&T pulling out of the Springfield, Il project?)
--
"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures
or double as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for
all the bells and whistles, but I could communicate better with
ACTUAL bells and whistles." -Bill Maher 9/25/2003
| |
|
| Oxford wrote:
> An article written by cell phone companies, how interesting!
How did you come to that conclusion? I didn't see any reference to any
cellphone companies.
Are you imagining things or making up this crap as you go along?
| |
| Larry 2007-09-20, 10:33 pm |
| "Giganews" <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote in
news:r7ydncfvMM0SC2_
bnZ2dnUVZ_jOdnZ2d@gi
ganews.com:
> Oxford, Your 'vision' of WiFi is about as wrong as one can be....
>
>
I found a wifi dead spot near here in a burger joint, today. First time I
didn't have Skype on the Netgear Skype phone in some time....
Larry
--
Search youtube for "Depleted Uranium"
The ultimate dirty bomb......
| |
|
| karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote:
> DUh - AT&T has 10,000 WiFi Hot Spots in the United States.
> Doesn't sound like they've abandoned it.
Apples to oranges.
AT&T, err...at&t, charges for their service. Its not free.
AT&T offers hotspots, not ubiquitous coverage.
AT&T limits what you can do. You can't run servers,, or webcams, etc.
| |
| Scott 2007-09-20, 10:33 pm |
| Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in
news:colalovesmacs-A14E6B.09585320092007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net:
> "Giganews" <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:
>
>
> An article written by cell phone companies, how interesting!
>
You just lied again, Oxturd.
| |
| Screw the i(diot)Phone 2007-09-20, 10:33 pm |
| On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 15:29:39 -0500, karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote:
>DUh - AT&T has 10,000 WiFi Hot Spots in the United States.
>Doesn't sound like they've abandoned it.
And how many of those hot spots are McDonalds?
| |
| Scott 2007-09-20, 10:33 pm |
| karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote in
news:1ta5f3p957cugom
v3r8qbcrsg6j09f7f3o@
4ax.com:
> It's not cities stepping away, it's they're contractor Earthlink now
> teetering on the brink of bankruptcy that can't afford to meet its
> committments to build WiFi systems for these cities.
>
>
Wrong- it is the cities stepping away. Nice try, paranoid troll.
City holds out for ‘WIMAX’
Wi-Fi not financially viable, official says
http://www.gazette.com/articles/city_27453
___article.html/network_wireless.html
Chicago scraps city Wi-Fi plan
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/08/29/wireless.chicago.ap/
>
| |
| Screw the i(diot)Phone 2007-09-20, 10:33 pm |
| On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 23:05:02 GMT, DTC < no_spam@move_along_f
olks.foob>
wrote:
>Oxford wrote:
>
>How did you come to that conclusion? I didn't see any reference to any
>cellphone companies.
>
>Are you imagining things or making up this crap as you go along?
He only posts after smoking crack. It makes sense when you read his
drivel.
| |
| Bob Fry 2007-09-20, 10:33 pm |
| "Arguing on Usenet is like running a race in the Special Olympics:
even if you win, you're still retarded."
| |
| Cyrus Afzali 2007-09-24, 10:33 am |
| On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 15:29:39 -0500, karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote:
>On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 13:15:39 -0600, Todd Allcock
>< elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>DUh - AT&T has 10,000 WiFi Hot Spots in the United States.
>Doesn't sound like they've abandoned it.
Those hot-spots aren't available for free, Genius. Todd's right --
free wi-fi is very much an up in the air proposition right now, as
very few cities are willing to foot the bill on their own and
companies are changing their minds about it all the time.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
| |
| George 2007-09-24, 10:33 am |
| Cyrus Afzali wrote:
>
> Those hot-spots aren't available for free, Genius. Todd's right --
> free wi-fi is very much an up in the air proposition right now, as
> very few cities are willing to foot the bill on their own and
> companies are changing their minds about it all the time.
>
Exactly, I am in a top 50 market and the biggest city here can't even
get anyone to bid on installing a free WiFi system.
Its nice to dream but the fanbois who claim cell systems are dead might
have to wait a long long time before any replacement free WiFi systems
are available.
I can get in my car and drive hundreds of miles in any direction with
continuous voice and data coverage via the cell system with seamless
system handoffs. When will I be able to do that or even roam a few
blocks for free with WiFi?
| |
| Steve Sobol 2007-09-24, 10:33 am |
| ["Followup-To:" header set to alt.cellular.verizon.]
On 2007-09-24, Cyrus Afzali <pnsmnyv@lnubb.pbz> wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Sep 2007 15:29:39 -0500, karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote:
>
> Those hot-spots aren't available for free, Genius. Todd's right --
> free wi-fi is very much an up in the air proposition right now, as
> very few cities are willing to foot the bill on their own and
> companies are changing their minds about it all the time.
You're responding to a troll. He doesn't like to let facts get in the way of
his discussions.
--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, California PGP:0xE3AE35ED
"Drench yourself in words unspoken / Live your life with arms wide open
Today is where your book begins / The rest is still unwritten"
- Natasha Beddingfield
| |
|
| Scott wrote:
> karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote in
> news:1ta5f3p957cugom
v3r8qbcrsg6j09f7f3o@
4ax.com:
>
>
> Wrong- it is the cities stepping away. Nice try, paranoid troll.
Earthlink realized that they could never make any money providing free
WiFi. San Francisco would have been worse off with a system that was
installed by a company that is almost certain to go out of business
within a couple of years.
We have municipal WiFi where I live (MetroFi), but it's not used by
many. It's slow and connections are flaky even for those that live near
the access points. It's also advertiser supported so ads are constantly
displayed though with a VPN connection the ads disappear, and
Proximotron would probably remove the ads as well.
Good free WiFi is available at many restaurants, some libraries, and in
some city-owned parks and plazas.
The future of free WiFi depends on what Google decides to do. A couple
of years ago they had plans to roll out free WiFi across the country,
but they haven't done anything on that front. If the gPhone project
succeeds then they'll have a real reason to move forward with WiFi.
Basically the future of free WiFi depends on what Google decides to do.
They're the only ones with enough money to make it work.
The WiMax network being developed by Sprint, Clearwire, Intel, Motorola,
Nokia, and Samsung is the best hope near term for ubiquitous WiFi access
in the major cities, but it won't be free. If it succeeds it could turn
Sprint around, but if it fails then that's the end of Sprint.
[Copied to alt.cellular.attws. Cingular Wireless no longer exists.
Please post all items regarding Wireless Service from AT&T in the proper
group, alt.cellular.attws]
| |
|
| George wrote:
> I can get in my car and drive hundreds of miles in any direction with
> continuous voice and data coverage via the cell system with seamless
> system handoffs. When will I be able to do that or even roam a few
> blocks for free with WiFi?
Not for free, but Sprint claims that in 2008 they'll begin deploying
WiMax in selected markets.
Remember free dial-up Internet access from companies like NetZero? There
was also going to be free DSL access at one point. Alas, the free model
never worked out that well. I can get free MetroFi WiFi from my house,
but it's not all that fast. Fine for e-mail, not so fine for web browsing.
The whole future of free WiFi and the direction of the cellular market
rests with what Google does with the gPhone. The latest news is that
they are rethinking doing an EDGE-only phone with a Texas Instruments
chipset, given what's happened with the iPhone.
HTC is reportedly doing the hardware for Google. It's unlikely to be as
inexpensive as the iPhone (one reason Apple cut the iPhone pricing was
in attempt to head off the competition, and to lock up more market share
prior to the gPhone launch). If it has 3G, WiFi, GPS, memory slot, and a
slide -out keyboard, as expected, the cost will likely be at least $500.
Google loves disruptive technology, and they've got the resources to see
this through. Google has installed free WiFi in Mountain View and it
works great. Google has other reasons as well for building their own
nationwide network, it could save them hundreds of millions of dollars
in IP transit fees, partially offsetting the deployment costs.
| |
| Dennis Ferguson 2007-09-24, 10:33 pm |
| On 2007-09-24, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> George wrote:
>
[...][color=darkred]
> Google loves disruptive technology, and they've got the resources to see
> this through. Google has installed free WiFi in Mountain View and it
> works great. Google has other reasons as well for building their own
> nationwide network, it could save them hundreds of millions of dollars
> in IP transit fees, partially offsetting the deployment costs.
The Google deployment in Mountain View does show the limitations of
WiFi for outdoor use, though. It must have taken almost 400 APs, e.g.
http://wifi.google.com/city/mv/apmap.html
to cover the bulk of a 12 square mile city, and even then you need
to run at higher power than your average laptop (or iPhone?) WiFi
radio supports, e.g.
http://wifi.google.com/support/bin/...py?answer=44023
to get anything like continuous coverage. Their access points don't
hear my laptop reliably unless I'm within spitting distance of one, or
I use a modem.
3G is, and WiMax should be, a better match for the problem. The
equipment is designed for this use.
Dennis Ferguson
| |
| David M. Moore 2007-09-24, 10:33 pm |
| George <george@nospam.invalid> wrote in
news:QY6dnSUIuvJQX2r
bnZ2dnUVZ_rydnZ2d@co
mcast.com:
> system handoffs. When will I be able to do that or even roam a few
> blocks for free with WiFi?
You'll be able to do that when the companies figure out a way to make money
by giving away the service for free. Even a company with almost infinite
pockets like Google has shareholders to answer to. And there lies the
problem...no one has figured out how to make it pay.
David
| |
|
| "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:46f7e974$0$2723
6$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> George wrote:
>
>
> Not for free, but Sprint claims that in 2008 they'll begin deploying WiMax
> in selected markets.
which of course answers a question no one asked (wifi and wimax aren't the
same). :D
<snip>
| |
|
| David M. Moore wrote:
> George <george@nospam.invalid> wrote in
> news:QY6dnSUIuvJQX2r
bnZ2dnUVZ_rydnZ2d@co
mcast.com:
>
>
> You'll be able to do that when the companies figure out a way to make money
> by giving away the service for free. Even a company with almost infinite
> pockets like Google has shareholders to answer to. And there lies the
> problem...no one has figured out how to make it pay.
Google has other reasons to build their own nationwide network, and free
wireless may just be a side benefit. If they go ahead with their gPhone,
maybe they'll expand their free wireless network. If we're really lucky,
they'll go WiMax. Google and Sprint are already working together on
WiMax, so it's not out of the realm of possibility that they might
decide to acquire Sprint.
Read "http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20070726/google-sprint-wimax/".
| |
| Oxford 2007-09-25, 4:33 am |
| In article <3JZJi.11152$924.3645@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>,
"ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
>
> which of course answers a question no one asked (wifi and wimax aren't the
> same). :D
sure it is...
WiMax is based on the IEEE 802.16 standard, or simply 802.16d
-
| |
|
| Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in
news:colalovesmacs-B623B3.22075324092007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net:
> In article <3JZJi.11152$924.3645@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>,
> "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
>
>
> sure it is...
>
> WiMax is based on the IEEE 802.16 standard, or simply 802.16d
>
> -
>
Yet wifi is based on the IEEE 802.11 standard, which is does not have the
same technical requirements or properties of 802.16.
You can't possibly be this stupid.
| |
| Oxford 2007-09-25, 4:33 am |
| Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>
> Yet wifi is based on the IEEE 802.11 standard, which is does not have the
> same technical requirements or properties of 802.16.
>
> You can't possibly be this stupid.
come on Scott, step it up a notch, 802.16 is extremely similar to
802.11. So for all practical purposes it's the same from the consumers
point of view.
your ignorance amazes me sometimes!
| |
|
| Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in
news:colalovesmacs-CD5017.22305024092007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net:
> Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>
>
> come on Scott, step it up a notch, 802.16 is extremely similar to
> 802.11.
Just like Windows is extremely similar to OSX. A PC is extremely similar
to a MAC.
Shall I keep going?
> So for all practical purposes it's the same from the consumers
> point of view.
Sure- when 802.11 can hand off from one to hub to another, it will be the
same from the consumers point of view. Until then, it is Flintstone
technology.
>
> your ignorance amazes me sometimes!
>
No more than you cluelessness amazes me. Being called ignorant by someone
so obviously uneducated is hardly going to make me lose sleep tonight.
| |
|
| "Oxford" <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in message
news:colalovesmacs-B623B3.22075324092007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net...
> In article <3JZJi.11152$924.3645@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>,
> "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
>
>
> sure it is...
>
> WiMax is based on the IEEE 802.16 standard, or simply 802.16d
um, yeah, what, you think because they're both 802.xx they're the same or
something? well, i guess you think 10base2, 10base5, 10baseT, etc are all
the same as wifi too, right! hahaha!
| |
|
| "Scott" <how.do@you.do> wrote in message
news:6v-dnYDL- atOF2XbnZ2dnUVZ_sfin
Z2d@adelphia.com...
> Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in
> news:colalovesmacs-B623B3.22075324092007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net:
<snip>
> You can't possibly be this stupid.
yes, yes he can. :D
| |
|
| ed wrote:
> "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
> news:46f7e974$0$2723
6$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>
> which of course answers a question no one asked (wifi and wimax aren't
> the same). :D
George asked when he could use WiMax? The answer is probably never for
free, but at least it'll be possible for money. What you don't
understand is that WiFi is very different from WiMax, despite their
similar numbering by the standards committe.
| |
|
| "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:46f8a3bd$0$2720
4$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> ed wrote:
>
> George asked when he could use WiMax? The answer is probably never for
> free, but at least it'll be possible for money.
no, george asked '...or even roam a few blocks for free with WIFI', to which
you responded with a response about wimax.
> What you don't understand is that WiFi is very different from WiMax,
> despite their similar numbering by the standards committe.
of course i understand that- i EXPLICITLY SAID THAT.
| |
|
| Oxford wrote:
> In article <3JZJi.11152$924.3645@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>,
> "ed" <news@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
>
>
> sure it is...
>
> WiMax is based on the IEEE 802.16 standard, or simply 802.16d
Moot point that its based on similar standards, they are not the same.
Wifi: Free
WiMax About $50 (ad hoc estimate)
WiFi: Unlicensed ISM bands
WiMax: Spectrum auction licensed bands
WiFi: Perhaps half mile range to street level
WiMax: 5 to 10 miles to inside a home
WiFi: Access point cost $1,000 to $4,000
WiMax: $50,000 to $100,000 (ad hoc estimate)
| |
|
| I forgot to mention...
WiFi: ONLY 4 watts max RF output into an omni antenna.
|
|
|
|
|