(thank you for your insightful input Ralph) Message: 12 Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 17:40:53 -0500 From: "Ralph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Numbering my responses to Kimo's questions: 1. Right now, a handful of cities (I think they are the 3 Metro-Fi cities in Silicon Valley, plus Mtn View) are getting 1Mb. This is totally dependent of the depth of the pockets of Metro-Fi's backers and on the advertising revenues. Ever play with a puppy in a pet store? They are so cute, you just have to take it home. If the business model doesn't pay out i.e.: They don't get enough paying subscribers or they don't get the revenue from the ads, then you will see it change. Not saying that was Metricom's demise, but they had few users and any Metro network takes gobs of money to build out. I've seen it first hand... With this model and with the equipment that will be used in SF. It ain't free and it ain't cheap! (kimo) I agree with you- I think Metro-Fi's model still has yet to be proved a success. On the other hand ATT is doing Portland Oregon with them so there may be more developing on this. 2. So Seattle will have it in 10 years. By then, there will be something bigger and better. Will the SF residents have to wait 10 years too? Not something I'd be willing to do- especially when I was faced with a proposal from someone who will do it for free and assume all the risk. What has SF got to lose? (kimo) The EarthLink deal doesn't compare favorably with what other cities are getting - Why should SF settle? Sf already has more hotspots than any other city in the nation. It is not hard to find a free hotspot currently. SF shouldn't lock itself in to what is effectively a 16 year monopoly deal with tech that is already dated. 3. Milpitas, CA. No tall residential buildings (but some are under construction. A 24-30 ft high access point with the relatively low gain of the Tropos antennas will have a good amount of upward radiation. It isn't that much better of an antenna than a dipole would be. It certainly has little, if any, directional abilities. It may not go up into a 30 story hotel or apartment house, but how many residence in SF are in those? That can easily be the 5 or 10 % allowed not to be covered. Most of my friends in SF live in 2-4 story abodes. According to the web page, the CPE is given with a paid connection anyway, so there's no-one not getting one except for the people taking the freebie. Even if I chose to live in a place that required use of a CPE, it is no different than buying an XM receiver to listen to XM, or buying a transistor radio or boom box to listen to free radio. (kimo) Hmm ok, well there are more and more tall residential buildings in SF and isn't anything over 2 stories already above the 40 ft coverage that EarthLink is agreeing too? Are you suggesting (I hope it's true) that a CPE solves all indoor and above 40 ft issues? I thought it was of limited value? -- WISPA Wireless List: wireless@wispa.org Subscribe/Unsubscribe: http://lists.wispa.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless Archives: http://lists.wispa.org/pipermail/wireless/
